

Facebook’s Jan Koum Apologizes for Past Restraining Order - downandout
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-20/facebook-s-jan-koum-apologizes-for-past-restraining-order.html

======
dreamweapon
(1) The actual title of the article was quite different, of course:

 _Facebook’s Jan Koum Apologizes for Past Restraining Order_

(2) If they were out to "trash" him, they could have dug up, and perhaps
pontificated on some of the statements in the court documents. So if anything,
they were exercising restraint in choosing not to do so. Being as some of
these are quite troubling indeed:

[http://images.businessweek.com/bloomberg/pdfs/Jan_Koum_docum...](http://images.businessweek.com/bloomberg/pdfs/Jan_Koum_document.pdf)

(3) Oh, and one more thing:

 _“Over the years, I have thought a lot about that difficult period of my
life,” he said. “I have many regrets and things I wish I could go back and
change, but I have also worked hard and tried to improve myself.”_

Those are certainly nice thoughts. But given his recent good fortune (due in
no small measure to pure blind luck), he has an opportunity to make a much
more substantial statement of contrition.

Rather than mull over what he could have done differently in the past, he has
a very real and definite opportunity to make a difference _now_ : education
and training for women's self-defense; campaigns against gender-based
harassment, or violence against sex workers (and sexual slavery); working to
end female genital mutilation; to name a few. Being as $7.4b is orders of
magnitude more money than nearly anyone could realistically even know _what to
do with_ (let alone reasonably need, in any real sense).

Are you listening, Jan?

~~~
downandout
_" Being as some of these are quite troubling indeed:"_

It's from 18 years ago. I guess you're proud of everything you did when you
were a teenager?

And yes, when you not only report on an 18 year old incident that resulted in
no criminal charges, but also post the court documents for all to see, you are
trying to trash the person in pursuit of a few extra clicks on your ads.

~~~
dreamweapon
Koum himself issued a statement; Bloomberg and others were simply following up
on it.

Posting the court documents is standard Bloomberg operating procedure (they do
that for nearly every story the write), though you're right, it may have been
uncalled for in this case. But given that Koum himself chose to come forward
with a statement, it wasn't exactly yellow journalism for them to write about
it.

~~~
downandout
Koum issued the statement _as a result of the story_. No story, no statement.
He didn't come out of the blue and say "hey everyone, 18 years ago - as a
teenager - I had a restraining order and now that I'm a billionaire I thought
everyone should know. Yep, I want everyone thinking that I am a creep. I'm
sending the court documents to Bloomberg to post for all to see as I type
this.". They gave him a chance to respond to the story that they were going to
publish anyway, and he got in front of it by responding. They knew that if
they didn't publish it the way they did, it would make them look far worse.

No one should have to explain 18 year old conduct that resulted in absolutely
no arrest or criminal charges and took place when they were 19 years old. It's
called a smear campaign. Oh and the high-minded reason they did it? Maybe they
were fighting for women's rights? Nope. It was so that they could get a few
clicks on their ads. It's the TMZ strategy. It's base, classless nonsense. If
there is a single false or inaccurate word in that story, I hope he sends a
phalanx of lawyers to go in and sue them into the stone age.

~~~
dreamweapon
_No one should have to explain 18 year old conduct that resulted in absolutely
no arrest or criminal charges and took place when they were 19 years old._

Depends on the conduct.

What's important is that (extreme) suffering was caused by his actions. Not
that the victim chose not to deepen their suffering by asking for a criminal
investigation. Or that the local statutes may have simply been too vague at
the time to offer any further protection.

As to the other stuff you're saying: either you have some direct knowledge,
which we do not, of both the event chronology behind the various journalistic
investigations (several outlets were working on the story, not just Bloomberg)
_and_ the internal motivations of those involved -- or you're indulging in
speculation, here.

Either way, I don't have an answer to it.

------
downandout
I'm really starting to hate these title edits.

