This person should probably find a reputable news source to tell their story to. Not to diminish the value of what they're writing and their mission, but some editorial guidance could be really useful.<p>The post seems to be more about the author and how good they are than the core problem they're talking about. When he starts to discuss the core issue, it's vague and I honestly don't know what's going on.
In this article, Numair Faraz says:<p>1. Person X offered him 0.1% of Facebook, but later screwed him out of it somehow.<p>2. Person X pulled up in his car next to an underaged girl riding a bicycle, and had sex with her without a condom (which, because she was underage, would be rape regardless of how willing she was or wasn't).<p>3. He (Numair Faraz) witnessed the rape, and convinced Person X to give the girl his phone number.<p>4. The girl later contacted Person X requesting money for medical services at Planned Parenthood (an abortion?), which Person X sent through an intermediary at the same company, who he reimbursed with a paper check.<p>5. He implies that it happened in a "faraway place", though presumably one in the United States, because Planned Parenthood was available there.<p>Then in this thread pbiggar says it can be inferred that Person X is Sean Parker.<p>I wish Numair had written these claims down in a straightforward manner, explaining exactly what happened, as I have attempted to do above, instead of writing in such an oblique and insinuating way. The latter style is becoming too common, and it makes it difficult to distinguish serious claims from vague character attacks.<p>But Sean Parker was very rich at the time, and given what I know of the lives of the very-rich, especially the newly-very-rich -- say, of rock stars -- then it would not be too surprising. (Not to say anything about Sean Parker specifically; my only knowledge of him comes from <i>The Social Network</i>.)<p>(Projecting the behavior of rockstar-founders-on-power-highs, onto rank-and-file SV engineers who are nowhere near these kinds of events, is something I would take issue with, but it's a small issue next to the factual claims.)<p>So: It seems Numair Faraz has just publicly accused Sean Parker of statutory rape 15 years ago. Are there legal next steps?
This article is like 60% talking about how awesome the author is, 30% about how everyone should be as awesome as him and 10% accusing someone without naming them and without any evidence or anything.<p>That's why you don't self-publish this stuff if you're an amateur. It throws under the bus anything worthwhile you might have had to say.
> I also hope Facebook won’t claim that this guy “wasn’t working for us at the time,” when everyone knew he was simply operating in stealth mode (as board member Peter Thiel was quoted as saying years later, “I don’t think [he] ever really left.”)<p>A google search for "i dont think [he] ever really left" [1] indicates that Peter Thiel was talking about Sean Parker when he said this.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=peter+thiel+%22I+don%E2%80%99t+think%22+%22ever+really+left%22" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=peter+thiel+%22I+don%E2%80%9...</a>
The article doesn't name any names or provide any evidence whatsoever. Just lots of vague threats, implications, and rhetoric.<p>I would be willing to believe that there are endemic problems in this industry. But you're going to have to actually make an accusation, or you're just wasting everyone's time.
I'm seeing comments asserting that the telling of these experiences are "wasting everyone's time" and "a childish rant", but _only_ because they do not name names. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. Clearly writing about experiences has some value regardless of whether it's anonymized, and even more clearly, the angry attacks are disproportionate if the critics are saying they hinge entirely on that one difference.
Even more weird stuff that seems somewhat related he wrote back in 2017.<p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20171018143123/https://www.numair.com/culture/game-over" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20171018143123/https://www.numai...</a>
If any of this is true they should go to NYT or WSJ and get proper coverage for this. It's a little light on details, and uses the word "I" quite often. Curious to see if more comes out of this.
this thing is interesting if it's Sean Parker that's being accused, note that this person has called Sean out personally a tome or two before[0]. sadly, all of this information feels true, but i don't know if it's just a personal bias at play. the link between power and a need for sexual "conquest" is something i find very odd. i wonder why the two fall together so often.<p>0: <a href="https://memeburn.com/2011/09/early-facebook-app-developer-claims-hidden-agendas-killed-his-app/" rel="nofollow">https://memeburn.com/2011/09/early-facebook-app-developer-cl...</a>
I submitted this to HN but I am not the author of this article. I have contacted a journalist and will keep trying until someone can authenticate the story.
This lacks so many important details to make it seem credible. It reminds me of that old website, "Did [some famous right winger whose name I can't remember] rape and kill a woman in 1998?" which was intentionally designed to be substance-less. This just seems like it's trying to appear substantial without managing to do so.<p>Or maybe it really reminds me of WWE. If you want to "catch people in lies", catch people in lies; don't just say that you're going to do it.