Readit News"The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al. 2020) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as "conspiracy theories".[1][2] The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a Change.org petition.[3][4] The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated."
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
The stock market (especially tech) tanked, other investors started having cold feet, and he realized his purchase was a mistake.
It is bizarre though that Twitter leadership/board continued to engage with him on the matter – even handing him internal data to analyze – expecting a good faith resolution. Nothing Musk has done in the last few months has been in good faith. You either lawyer up and force him to stick to the agreement, or take the loss and move on. Appeasement isn't going to work.
Isn't this itself arguing in bad faith? It's fundamentally speculative to make claims about his intentions.
Removing a well-sourced article that aims to exonerate someone who's been cancelled seems like a preemptive capitulation to fear that even by allowing discussion, HN could be tarred with the same brush. Upholding the flag demonstrates and amplifies the chilling effect on reasonable speech that's central to the article, by not-so-subtly telling users that it's verboten to even discuss it. HN shouldn't be afraid of allowing discussion around such an article.
>> “It’s impossible to be honest about this and preserve your own skin,” says a scientist who recently worked under Sabatini.
The fear exuded in this kind of statement is terrible for society, for academia and for science; whoever is right or wrong in this particular case. Whichever way the conversation evolves, the expectation must be maintained, even among people who want to silence others, that civil conversation will be allowed. That's why it's wrong to flag this and leave it flagged.
Guys like this one are not easy to take down either, there are plenty like him out there.
>So what exactly had those 248 pages said? What had David Sabatini been found guilty of that merited this kind of punishment? Chiefly, failing to disclose his consensual relationship with Knouse. On top of that, the report found that Sabatini, in his day-to-day administration of the lab, violated the Whitehead’s Anti-Harassment Policy, since his “behavior created a sexualized undercurrent in the lab.” Sabatini’s relationship with Knouse exacerbated things, given his “indirect influence” over her, which violated the Anti-Harassment Policy and ran afoul of the “spirit” if not the letter of another of the institute's policies. True, he didn’t supervise Knouse. He didn’t work directly with her. He never threatened her or proposed a quid pro quo. And he certainly didn’t have the power to fire her. But, according to the report, he had “experience, stature, and age” over her. Knouse’s apparent desire to continue their relationship only served to confirm his influence: “That she felt the need to act ‘fun’ to impress Sabatini underscores how Sabatini’s words and actions profoundly impacted her,” the lawyers wrote. Nor did the lawyers care for the happy hours and whiskey tastings that Sabatini sometimes hosted in his office, which betrayed his “apparent ‘friendliness’ and general propensity to have ‘fun.’” (Knouse, in her counterclaim, says the events were “drunken,” and “conversations quite frequently veered to the sexual.”) “While we have not found any evidence that Sabatini discriminates against or fails to support females in his lab, we find that Sabatini’s propensity to praise or gravitate toward those in the lab that mirror his desired personality traits, scientific success, or view of ‘science above all else,’ creates additional obstacles for female lab members,” the report concluded.
Not sure I understand what is damning about his behavior based on this summary.
Somewhat alarming, if accurate.