While the allegations are shocking, it was irresponsible for the journalist to add the little bit in the very last paragraph on the third page about one of the founder's former startups having an FBI investigation as a kind of final pot-shot. How was that relevant to the thrust of the rest of the article? What did it add? Was it fair to include it without elaborating?
Worse still is the implication that he was complicit in the uploading or transmission of illegal images. Any messaging or image based app is going to have to deal with that - young apps are especially vulnerable to abuse because it's expected that they not have robust security or a large enough staff to close the floodgates.
While the dude's clearly a jerk, his first startup sounds like it died a death that was out of his hands, not a result of his being a predator.
It seemed like he learned a number of odd things about the founders during his research and now that they were in a lawsuit and were confirmed as being giant dicks he felt justified in throwing a few rocks. The "take note lawyers" bit and the bunch of juvenile social media pictures were the same way, not needed except to fill in the picture he was painting.
It was absolutely relevant. The entire article was about the character of the founders. If you had a business that had to be shut down by the FBI because of the extent of child pornography it reflects on your character.
Comments
While the allegations are shocking, it was irresponsible for the journalist to add the little bit in the very last paragraph on the third page about one of the founder's former startups having an FBI investigation as a kind of final pot-shot. How was that relevant to the thrust of the rest of the article? What did it add? Was it fair to include it without elaborating?
Worse still is the implication that he was complicit in the uploading or transmission of illegal images. Any messaging or image based app is going to have to deal with that - young apps are especially vulnerable to abuse because it's expected that they not have robust security or a large enough staff to close the floodgates.
While the dude's clearly a jerk, his first startup sounds like it died a death that was out of his hands, not a result of his being a predator.
It seemed like he learned a number of odd things about the founders during his research and now that they were in a lawsuit and were confirmed as being giant dicks he felt justified in throwing a few rocks. The "take note lawyers" bit and the bunch of juvenile social media pictures were the same way, not needed except to fill in the picture he was painting.
I was struck by that too, the "I wasn't going to mention this before, but now, here it is." nature of it was strange.
Modern journalism isn't really even journalism anymore, its more like blogging. Publish whatever it takes to get the most attention.
It was absolutely relevant. The entire article was about the character of the founders. If you had a business that had to be shut down by the FBI because of the extent of child pornography it reflects on your character.
The analogy comparing the creation of Tinder to the Winklevosses and Facebook was also inaccurate/poor as well.