gotothedoctor

To be clear: I support free speech and oppose censorship by government. I don't know how or why one would want to enforce these principles on businesses--let alone how it would not run contrary to the most basic principles of private property & capitalism.

I said don't @ me because I've been in this conversation before & recognize there's little point in arguing when we are clearly defining the concept of free speech very differently.

Maybe I'm missing something, but weren't the majority of targets of harassment on YikYak as I described? Is it not ok to recognize this? Why? If we don't, it won't change.

Its ok that we disagree obviously, but I can't help but note that we are doing so on a privately owned platform that moderates its comments. Maybe you would, but I certainly wouldn't be here otherwise. Which maybe you'd also prefer:)

Kindly, I don't think that is the important question because that's not how legal duty works. Basically, there are always legal duties, some of which are codified & some of which are common law.

I'm not arguing there is always a legal duty here, nor that there always should be. I'm stating that whether there is a duty will always depend on the individual fact pattern & the laws/regulations that apply to that specific University.

Not only do Universities operate under different jurisdictions with different rules & laws--but their level of "control, influence and involvement" varies along too. This changes what duty there is--as do the specific facts.So such generalizations are not applicable.

Hope this makes sense; its not easy to explain!

No, I'm not arguing for "safe spaces" here at all. Nor am I suggesting students shouldn't "have to hear viewpoints they disagree with."

I am arguing that, along with legal duties, Universities have an interest and an incentive to prevent their students from being harassed. To be clear, being harassed is not being disagreed with.

I don't see the relevance of this anecdata & punditry to the issue, nor do I know what "coddled" really means or why such a generalization would apply to every University. Regardless, pattern recognition over decades of experience tells me that people who are new to the workforce inevitably behave as if they are new to the workforce. And also, that with each new generation, pundits offer some variation of "kids these days." On the plus side, if we've moved on to "coddled", maybe people will stop complaining about those damned millennials!

Anyway, even if we disagree, I am glad that you do think that sometimes the University should get involved & that mental health services are useful.

I was trying to leave law aside:)

But, yes, Universities also have legal duties to their students. However, these vary significantly based on too many different factors to speak usefully in generalities (eg based on city & state, public or private, is it a research university, is there some kind of consent decree, etc) and of course, the facts of each case.

More simply: whether a University has a legal duty to protect students from online harassment will depend on the specific situation, but, in all cases, the University will have an interest.

Successful graduates become alumni who make donations.

To be clear, no one is suggesting that Universities should be "policing every dispute." I am stating that Universities can and do seek to create the most effective learning environment for their students--and that harassment undermines this goal. This is why Universities, as indicated in the article, blocked (aka geofenced) YikYak (& though it is not mentioned, other apps as well).

Not sure I understand how that's relevant, but most University rules are not laws--but, while breaking them may not be criminal or even illegal,it can still get you thrown out of school.

Are you really confused? Leaving the law & federal funding requirements aside, Universities seek to have successful graduates & thus it is in their best interest to provide an environment that equips their students to learn. Being harassed undermines these goals, so regardless of the law, it is in their best interest to prevent such disruptions.

I'm not sure I understand the bird analogy. Is the point that Universities can't control birds? Well, Universities can & do already actually demand that their students not harass other students as a condition of their attendance.

Thanks for saying this. Threads like this baffle me, make me sad and wonder if its time to just stop visiting this site.

If you don’t mind being bullied, harassed, or threatened, that’s great, but it harms people. Whether you think it should or shouldn’t is irrelevant. Personally I don’t know anyone who has experienced it that wasn’t harmed. YikYak specifically was also horrific for Professors. (& of course, it also had disparate impact on women and people of color). So, either you don’t actually believe it does harm or you don’t care.

Please don’t @ me about free speech or censorship; not only is it irrelevant to startups because they are businesses & not the government, but moderation & boundaries are what make communities endure.

We make choices about what we build & what behavior it will enable. Choosing to permit or even encourage such behavior is not a matter of principles—it’s a choice of who can and cannot participate, which, as YikYak, Secret 4Chan etc show, directly correlates to the viability of the product as a business.

As soon as a senior executive becomes aware of any kind of illegal activity, malfeasance or behavior for which the company could be held liable, it becomes their responsibility.

When Fowler reported her harassment & HR's failures directly to Thuan, he became obligated by fiduciary duty to deal with the problem. Thuan could not just hand it off to HR because HR (which was Graves' responsibility) had already failed Fowler--which is why she reported it to Thuan.

Uber has never disputed Fowler's report, which points directly at Thuan & Graves. We'll see at the end of the month, but this kind leak from Uber suggests that the publicly released version of Holder's report will be PR puffery that'll blame it all on Thuan & Graves & attempt to vindicate Kalanick. Expect Huffington as the media messenger. She'll be outraged when anyone dares to suggest Travis knew. And ask if the interviewer is actually questioning Holder's integrity.

I'm not sure who'd believe that Kalanick didn't know about any of it regardless.

How people feel is irrelevant; but based on federal law, the US Constitution, whatever local laws there may be & decades of judicial precedent, what you describe would expose any US employer to an enormous amount of liability. Its not normal or legal--& it can be very expensive.

What gives you the impression that these specific people are bright? Or were never forced to conform?

This is not how socially inept high school nerds behave; its how VC funded frat bros (who include their fraternity on their linkedin profile) do.

Not sure why I am defending Peter Thiel, but I don't think this has anything to do with him or any of his bad ideas.

If you work in the US, you are describing what lawyers will call a 'hostile workplace' when your employers are, based on your description alone, successfully sued for discrimination.

This is not perfectly normal in any professional setting. More and more often, it has real professional and legal consequences.

Sure, Sam Altman is impressive, but seems like you are underplaying Brown's actual experience--and I am not sure why it'd comparable anyway?

As the son of a beloved governor, Brown not only grew up in state politics, but also devoted his career to law & government. After winning a few Democratic party elections, he ran for & served on LA Community College Board (which had just been created...coincidentally, his father actually created the UC system when he was governor) & then ran for & won the statewide office that would best prepare him to serve as governor.

Altman has no law degree or legislative experience, no background or education in government, and has never run for office. Founding a company and running an incubator is fantastic, but not sure why it'd be comparable to the legal, government or legislative experience Brown had when he first ran for governor.

Wow. I’m so confused by this. Sure, it makes sense that Altman would seek advice from Willie L. Brown Jr.—but why would Altman allow Brown to announce this in his newspaper column? And, even more bizarre-- why would Brown suggest that Altman’s candidacy is so threatening that it’d make Gavin Newsom suicidal? Seriously?

Sam Altman is obviously an impressive, wealthy & ambitious guy. However, he is 32 & has literally zero experience in CA state government & politics. Sure, Altman has raised money for Hillary, but, no one knows better than Willie how far a distance it is from a Hillary fundraiser at his home to a pancake breakfast at a labor union in Sacramento. Brown even acknowledges that it’s been an unsuccessful pattern for wealthy tech guys. Why would anyone who knows anything about California politics (let alone Willie Brown) recommend that a virtually unknown wealthy 32 year old with no relevant experience run for governor of any state, let alone California? Has Brown signed on to be a paid advisor for Altman’s campaign?

Gavin Newsom, on the other hand, is also wealthy & young(ish) but has decades of experience. As Brown well knows, Newsom could face actual competition from Kamala Harris, Antonio Villaraigosa or even Tom Steyer--none of whom are political novices.

That said, its fantastic that Altman has political aspirations. And I hope many people do encourage him to pursue public service. But why wouldn't Altman start out by running for State Assembly or Congress?

I hope Altman asks himself why Willie Brown didn't say exactly this to him--& that actually, thankfully, in his experience, California is beyond unlikely to elect a 32 year old with no experience as its governor.

Frankly, deciding to run for governor as a wealthy 32 year old with no experience in government or politics, suggests that Altman, at least presently, lacks the judgment being governor of CA requires. Its concerning that Altman himself would not know as much --let alone think that in the age of Trump, that such a campaign could be successful in CA--and even more so that he'd surround himself with folks that wouldn't tell him as much.

To be clear, my criticism is not cynicism or hate. I am critical because I admire Altman (& separately, differently, Brown) & think he can do better. But, it'll take surrounding himself with folks who challenge him, not those who benefit from agreeing with him. Maybe this'll help him learn as much?

No VC would invest in this. Beyond it not being monetizable, this is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but nonetheless, such apps do actually already exist!

These apps are pointless because, legally speaking, sex is actually not contractual (& prostitution is illegal, so no contract enforcement there either). People can, do, and are legally permitted to change their minds about what they do and do not consent to during the course of sexual activity. We may agree to sex, but we all can change our minds at any time for any reason. No matter how we felt 10 minutes ago, we are all allowed to decide actually we don't feel like it, your sheets are too gross or what one partner thought was sexy, the other thought was demeaning, or whatever--no matter what we agreed on beforehand.

TLDR: evidence of prior consent is not a trump card.

Binding information requests are court orders, which can, as you note, be appealed in court. I am unaware of any instance where a company has lost an appeal in court & refused to turn over information to the court in an instance where civil disobedience would be relevant. And yes, fiduciary obligation does not require absolute compliance, but it certainly does demand that corporation do not direct employees to violate the law. Indeed, context does matter--that's also why agreed upon definitions of, eg, "civil disobedience" are so important. Otherwise, among other things, its very hard to understand each other. Glad that we found a way:)