I get that people will probably disagree, but she just seems to not make very good business decisions. Maybe I'm way off base, but I've read a bunch of well qualified lawyers say that juries are just plain unpredictable, and that no competent lawyer can "guarantee" to win. In that light, even if the $1M settlement wasn't what you're asking for, I would think it paints a better picture of you than losing and having to pay the other side? Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?
Should everybody just pick the money and run? Without knowing the details of the case and the reasoning of the people, it also could be possible that this woman was not looking for the money, but righteousness.
And no, I am not convinced (without knowing any details), that because the judgement was against her, that this is justness. (I have seen so many unjust judgments in my own country that where based on the fact, that one side had the better lawyers or better experts they hired)
Jurisdiction in human hands can always be an approximation of justness.
The long Vanity Fair article from 2013 on Pao and Fletcher that someone else linked to is actually really interesting, but the comments that included the link were inflammatory and derailed discussion, so I'm guessing many people who would have enjoyed the Vanity Fair article skipped it.
Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true.
From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors.
Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender.
2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty.
She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him.
I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.
Why is there any award at all? I keep hearing that defending a case can bankrupt a person or company that doesn't have deep pockets even if they are successful. Why do these guys get reimbursed?
There are certainly parts of Reddit where she isn't liked, definitely. But there are parts of Reddit where they don't like anyone who doesn't let them behave like spoiled, obnoxious children, so I wouldn't consider that indicative of anything.
Chairwoman Pao owes every penny. She was not discriminated against because she is a woman, she was discriminated against because she is a terrible employee, venture capitalist, and person. She sued Kleiner because she wanted to pay off the debt her scumbag husband owes for fraud.
Disappointing that you view all criticisms against Ellen Pao as inherently sexist. I think if anything people would be just as critical of her if she was a guy. Who appoints a lawyer to run Reddit?
My big question is: are we ever going to get past this crap? Or is this the enlightened future of discourse. I guess I'm just getting old -- the gish gallop isn't new, but this form feels more terrible and insidious.
This balogna is getting posted on HN now? For the record she was appointed CEO before her trial (although after she filed suit) to replace Yishan Wong and people have been crying about censorship on Reddit long before she ever worked there. Also Alexis Ohanian has publicly talked about sexism in tech since before Pao worked at Reddit[0].
While I wouldn't sign the petition and I don't care about her lawsuit or the recent subreddits that were banned, I'm turned off from reddit by their reaction to the fallout, particularly their fudging of the front page and /r/all and blocking comments mentioning an imgur alternative. I'm back to reading funnies from fark.com and now looking at voat.co. It's been a long time coming, longer than Pao has been CEO, and I'm not sure how many people realize that
(downvote at will, rephrased to make it a bit more polite) As far as I could tell, people were relatively content with Reddit even when it had bad stuff, but people started getting noisy when the censorship started.
Comes down to a debate on censorship, which is admittedly quite divided. I don't condone hate speech, but its also sometimes tricky to separate hatred from a rational opinion about something. Ultimately you can't control the voices of people, they will find creative ways to broadcast their message for better or worse (as we saw when reddit shut down FPH). Censorship really only hits the beehive and makes the bad people more visible. As one example of this, I had no idea that FPH existed until Reddit shut it down.
[+] [-] dylanjermiah|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rnovak|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctrlfrk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PythonicAlpha|10 years ago|reply
Should everybody just pick the money and run? Without knowing the details of the case and the reasoning of the people, it also could be possible that this woman was not looking for the money, but righteousness.
And no, I am not convinced (without knowing any details), that because the judgement was against her, that this is justness. (I have seen so many unjust judgments in my own country that where based on the fact, that one side had the better lawyers or better experts they hired)
Jurisdiction in human hands can always be an approximation of justness.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tomlongson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arca_vorago|10 years ago|reply
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...
[+] [-] twir|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] macspoofing|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|10 years ago|reply
Here's the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
AMC or HBO or Netflix could make a pretty interesting TV show out of this.
[+] [-] _s|10 years ago|reply
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672...
From the defence:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...
--- Personal opinion below ----
Not necessarily relevant (I believe it is) but provides some more of a background is her husband (whom she married in 2007) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher.
Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true.
From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors.
Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender.
2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty.
She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him.
I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.
[+] [-] obstinate|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelhoffman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phkahler|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atorralb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcphage|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjensen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pushnpop|10 years ago|reply
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
[+] [-] krschultz|10 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736628
[+] [-] daggerhashimoto|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Steko|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DAddYE|10 years ago|reply
Allegations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher#Fund_bankruptcy
[+] [-] robot22|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obstinate|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pushnpop|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomlongson|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nols|10 years ago|reply
0. http://alexisohanian.com/dear-fellow-geeks-what-the-fuck
[+] [-] whyenot|10 years ago|reply
In any case, 10k "people" (it's easy to game these things) is just a drop in the bucket of reddit's userbase.
[+] [-] vernie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|10 years ago|reply
That's related to Reddit drama and Reddit drama alone.
[+] [-] arenaninja|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macspoofing|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosser|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gavanwoolery|10 years ago|reply
Comes down to a debate on censorship, which is admittedly quite divided. I don't condone hate speech, but its also sometimes tricky to separate hatred from a rational opinion about something. Ultimately you can't control the voices of people, they will find creative ways to broadcast their message for better or worse (as we saw when reddit shut down FPH). Censorship really only hits the beehive and makes the bad people more visible. As one example of this, I had no idea that FPH existed until Reddit shut it down.
[+] [-] mberning|10 years ago|reply