The Story of the CEO Paying Everyone $70k Gets Complicated

ranton writes: Dan Price, CEO of Gravity Payments, made news last April when he raised all employee salaries to at least $70,000. He claimed his motive was based on research that shows increased wages increase happiness up to about $75k per year. But according to a recent Bloomberg article this may have been a smoke screen. Karen Weise found Dan Price has been fighting with his co-founder Lucas Price over Dan's salary for years, and that his co-founder served him with a lawsuit weeks before the pay raises were announced. Apparently Dan had been paying himself nearly three times the salary of CEO's of similar sized companies in his industry, over the strong objection of his co-founder. The lawsuit was not officially filed until after the announcement, making it originally look like the pay rise caused the lawsuit. Now it appears to be the opposite. Since the lawsuit is trying to force the CEO to buy out his co-founder based on the CEO's prior greed, lowering the short term profitability of the company while boosting his positive PR seems to be a likely motive for the pay hike.

Comments

Gets worse near the end of the article

[JoeyRox]

"Price's life may get more complicated the week of Dec. 7, when TEDx plans to post online a public talk by his former wife, who changed her last name to Colon. She spoke on Oct. 28 at the University of Kentucky about the power of writing to overcome trauma. Colon stood on stage wearing cerulean blue and, without naming Price, read from a journal entry she says she wrote in May 2006 about her then-husband. "He got mad at me for ignoring him and grabbed me and shook me again," she read. "He also threw me to the ground and got on top of me. He started punching me in the stomach and slapped me across the face. I was shaking so bad."

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[ArchieBunker]

Who watches those TED talks? Most are boring as hell with people spouting off about ideas that are unrealistic.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Not saying it didn't happen, but is there a police report, or any evidence that what she says happened did happen? If this kind of stuff happens it needs to have the police involved immediately. Bringing something up years later after your former husband is suddenly famous comes off as...well...it raises a question in the minds of people, whether fair or not, of an outside motive.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[Thunderf00t]

Who knows if Dan is a wife-beater or not? While he could well be the contemptible person that his wife claims, she could also be trying to ruin the guy now 9 years later (maybe she's dissatisfied with some aspect of their split). That's the problem with he-said she-said crap flinging: anyone can say anything at basically any time. Unless there's some corroborating evidence, I'll treat her story as exactly that: a story.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[mwvdlee]

It's mostly the TEDx (mind the 'x' at the end) talks that seem to be bad.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[mridoni]

Is that you, Mr. Cosby?

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[Zontar The Mindless]

If it helps: I've a 4-digit ID, I went through a very nasty divorce about 15 years ago, and I concur with Thunderf00t.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[will_die]

NPR has a radio show "TED Talk radio show" which takes the best of them and extracts the best parts. It then mixes in interview questions and more detail background information on the subject.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[Pax681]

Who watches those TED talks? Most are boring as hell with people spouting off about ideas that are unrealistic.

There was one held here in Edinburgh, Scotland where they had the former finance Minister from Greece(ie the one that landed them in the shit) attemtping to tell everyone what the cure was.
I assume all he said was "do the opposite of what I did on office" and that was the shortest TED talk in history. /rollseyes

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[operagost]

Whatever you say, Mr. Seven Digit ID.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[The-Ixian]

Actually it is call the "TED Radio Hour" and it has been in repeats for the last couple of months at least.

I guess there just isn't enough good TED talks to curate.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[neoritter]

Are we comparing digits?

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[chispito]

If it helps: I've a 4-digit ID, I went through a very nasty divorce about 15 years ago, and I concur with Thunderf00t.

I thought you were going to say, "I had a 4-digit ID, but I went through a very nasty divorce about 15 years ago, and my spouse received it in the settlement."

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[Coren22]

That would be a semicolon. Perhaps if she married a Semi, and decided to hyphenate her name? Semi-Colon.

Re:Gets worse near the end of the article

[Pax681]

now you are blatantly being a total PENIS. I never said one man tanked it.... read WHAT I SAID YOU PARTISAN IDIOT

I liked it more before....

[cfalcon]

I liked it better when he was an idealistic hippie. The idea that one moronic but well meaning CEO was doing bullshit to help people, even if it had long term ruinous consequences, was pleasant.

Now it's just another greedy 0.1%er nomming up cash and playing a good game of sociopathic prisoner's dilemma. Boring. That's so ubiquitous in corporations that it's just a common stereotype in all the netflixes and youtubes. Hell, prolly the redtubes too.

Re:I liked it more before....

[Jack Griffin]

Now it's just another greedy 0.1%er nomming up cash and playing a good game of sociopathic prisoner's dilemma. Boring.

You say that as if 1%'ers somehow behave differently from the other 99%? *Everyone* acts in their self-interest, you act surprised that having money would somehow change the laws of nature?

Re:I liked it more before....

[MyAlternateID]

Now it's just another greedy 0.1%er nomming up cash and playing a good game of sociopathic prisoner's dilemma. Boring.

You say that as if 1%'ers somehow behave differently from the other 99%? *Everyone* acts in their self-interest, you act surprised that having money would somehow change the laws of nature?

I don't know about that. People vote against their own self-interest all the time, both at voting booths and with their money in the marketplace. All it takes to get them to do that is a little propaganda (or PR, or whatever you like to call it - I prefer the old term "manufactured consent" because it's more honest). It works all too well, even in the case of advertising in which the bias of the message is obvious.

Re:I liked it more before....

[ShanghaiBill]

Never attribute to altruism that which is adequately explained by self interest.

Re:I liked it more before....

[mattwarden]

I'm always amazed how disconnected observers can somehow determine when someone is voting or buying against their interest. Your crystal ball is much more powerful than mine. Or perhaps you don't understand that economic value is personal and subjective.

Re:I liked it more before....

[MyAlternateID]

The whole Prohibition fiasco is another, especially if you actually understand why it happened (alcohol was Ford's fuel of choice for his automobiles, and unlike oil, it could easily be produced independently on a small scale, a position that Standard Oil didn't like -- but even if you didn't know that, trading some drunks for gangsters like Al Capone was a bad deal).

I try not to reply to myself but I will add: what happened with oil money and the Women's Temperance Movement wasn't very different from what the MPAA/RIAA and others are doing today with intellectual property law, it's just more blatant now. In modern times the pretense that the government isn't supposed to be bought like that and made to serve corporate interests is taken much less seriously than it was nearly a century ago.

Also, just like now with our surveillence society, when Prohibition was being discussed there were people who knew how and why it would go wrong and tried to warn others. They weren't taken seriously enough. It has to run its course and fail miserably -- as predicted -- before it was repealed, but by that time an entire industry had been built around oil/gasoline and the automobile and entrenched itself, so it served its original purpose well enough.

But that was definitely a case of people being misled by PR/manufactured consent to support what was clearly not in their own rational interests. Just like I tried to explain earlier, as a "disconencted observer" scrying into my "crystal ball" and all of that...

Re:I liked it more before....

[sg_oneill]

You say that as if 1%'ers somehow behave differently from the other 99%? *Everyone* acts in their self-interest, you act surprised that having money would somehow change the laws of nature?

You are aware that the "all actions are self interested" thing is pretty much a nonsense that economics stubbornly maintains over the objections of psychology and philosophy.

Philosophers point out that all formulations of the statement are more or less tautological, psychologists point out that the claim simply doesnt line up with what we know about how the brain works.

But half a century of dubious free market economic theory falls into a heap if the axiom is abandoned, so its repeated as an article of faith.

But its wrong.

Re:I liked it more before....

[mattwarden]

You are really only going to be able to observe what you call "objective value" in hypothetical contrived examples that do not exist in reality, where there are only two variables (eg, price and reliability). But taking the far leap from that to "voting against your interest" is not compelling, to say the least. In my experience this complaint comes from left leaning individuals who would rather dismiss voters as dumb or irrational.

Re:I liked it more before....

[MyAlternateID]

You are really only going to be able to observe what you call "objective value" in hypothetical contrived examples that do not exist in reality, where there are only two variables (eg, price and reliability).

Really? There seems to be an entire review/product testing industry, of which Consumer Reports is one of the more well-known names. They seem to have been around a while. I would think they might be interested in your constructive criticism. I'm sure they'd rather stick to factual matters and not contrived hypotheticals, and imagine how much more successful they would be!

Seriously though, if hand-waving dismissals are all you've got, you're not exactly coming from a strong position here.

But taking the far leap from that to "voting against your interest" is not compelling, to say the least. In my experience this complaint comes from left leaning individuals who would rather dismiss voters as dumb or irrational.

I'm far from left leaning, though it's amusing to have someone suggest that I might be. I would describe myself as small-'l' libertarian in most matters (which, by the way, is not anarcho-capitalism, though it's often portrayed that way by ignorant or dishonest people).

Most voters are too stressed out, pressed for time, and overwhelmed with trying to take care of their families and make ends meet for concerns like "dumb" (or their short memories and demonstrably low attention spans) to enter into it, really. So they tend to defer to some form of authority, or appearance of authority. The polished speaker in an expensive suit who appears on TV and has lots of famous names behind him tends to fit the bill. So does a government official when he issues a press release that is never seriously questioned or critiqued, against which contradictory facts are either never introduced or selectively introduced. It often takes a lot of research, a wide range of interests, a familiarity with history, and a willingness to "follow the money" to see what's wrong with that.

For all of these reasons, plus a variety of psychological ones, PR is used so heavily for one simple reason: it works. If an idea is already in your best interests, no one would need sophisticated PR, various forms of misrepresentation and deception, and various emotional appeals to convince you of it. The facts would be on their side.

Speaking of familiarity with history, mass surveillance has no place in a constitutional republic but several dictatorships have found it extremely useful. The most reliable way to subvert a relatively free society is to have some kind of threat, real or imagined, and tell the public that such measures are necessary for their safety and security. This is an age-old practice, but it's explained well in an interview with Hermann Goering, who was (among other things), the founder of the Gestapo:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Re:I liked it more before....

[Anonymous Coward]

Philosophers point out that all formulations of the statement are more or less tautological, ...

But its wrong.

In my experience, tautologies have a tendency of being true.

Free-market economic theory does rely partly on the claim "all action is self-interested" but, crucially, only on a tautological interpretation. I suspect that you're making the common error of misunderstanding either "action" or "self-interest" in this context.

Re:I liked it more before....

[N1AK]

You are aware that the "all actions are self interested" thing is pretty much a nonsense that economics stubbornly maintains over the objections of psychology and philosophy.

The issue with disproving, and proving, what someone's motivations are is that it's impossible to directly observe. In an experiment where someone can 'cheat' without risk of getting caught and benefit, you might consider someone who didn't cheat as acting against self-interest; however, they might have a strong moral compass and consider the value of cheating to be lower than the challenge to their self image; thus either decision could be based on self-interest.

Re:I liked it more before....

[drinkypoo]

You are aware that the "all actions are self interested" thing is pretty much a nonsense that economics stubbornly maintains over the objections of psychology and philosophy.

[citation needed]

By the way, you did notice that many of the studies upon which psychology is based couldn't be replicated? It's only barely a science, while philosophy is emphatically not a science. But you want to use them to make declarative statements. Good luck!

psychologists point out that the claim simply doesnt line up with what we know about how the brain works.

What we know about how psychologists work is that psychology is at least half bullshit, and I don't ask psychologists how the brain works. They don't get far enough into the chemistry to make useful statements. They're stuck at another level of abstraction.

Of course everything is about self-interest. If our upbringing is "normal" because we are surrounded by "good" people who are smart enough to recognize that you should do good things for people who do good things for you and actually do so, then we learn to do good things for people in the hope that they will do good things for us. Some people don't have that. They turn out to be shitheels, or anonymous cowards.

Re:I liked it more before....

[drinkypoo]

psychologists point out that the claim simply doesnt line up with what we know about how the brain works. Most people will balance self-interest with the interests of the people that they perceive as their tribal group (which, for some people, can be very large).

It takes a special kind of obstinacy and disingenuousness to fail to understand that this is working in one's own self-interest, especially when you're limiting it specifically to their tribal group. If that's the argument that psychologists are working on, then they're a bunch of morons. I hope the argument is more nuanced than you're making it out to be, because of course supporting your tribal group is acting in your own best interest. Nothing could be more obvious! Even sports fans get [misplaced] feelings of belonging, so they think that supporting the team is supporting themselves.

Why are you willfully refusing to think? Just because you want to believe that people basically inherently behave the way you want them to? The evidence runs the other way.

There is a reward loop for doing nice things to people. It's self-reinforcing, so we should not be surprised. The more surprising reward loop is making people angry. It turns out that sociopaths get a rise out of making people make a mad face. Just seeing that they made them mad makes them happy. A lot of people out there learned the wrong lessons. We may well naturally tend towards helping one another, but it's clearly not the dominant force. If it were, the world would look very different. How many of us don't even know our neighbors?

Re:I liked it more before....

[Gavagai80]

Tautologies are meaningless. If you've defined self-interested action in a way that makes it impossible not to act in your self-interest, then you're no longer communicating anything meaningful. The trick people use is to come up with a tautological definition when pressed to defend their point, but imply a different definition the rest of the time so that people will take it as having meaning. This tricks people into thinking that people are choosing to be selfish, even though your hidden definition makes it not a choice at all.

Re:I liked it more before....

[khallow]

It is often easy to tell when someone is voting against their own interest. For example, they vote democrat or republican.

And I can easy tell from the way you write that you voted for Kang.

Re:I liked it more before....

[DarkOx]

The other problem with determining self interest that you assume you know what someone wants in the first place.

Extending your example. Lets say I know I can rig one of the few video games my girlfriend is will to play. There is a zero chance I will be discovered. She isn't going to look into the source code and see that I added:

die_roll +=1 if player == 1 && die_roll 6

You might assume I would want to win. After all she may attribute my victories to a superior sense of strategy and deeper understanding of the game. After all it might make me seem smart and you would assume I'd like to impress her. I know on the other hand she can become frustrated with games she never wins at and if she can't win at least some of the time she will loose interest and I'll be stuck playing against the terrible computer AI again. So I actually have no incentive to rig the game in my favor, I might even want to rig it in her favor.

     

Re:I liked it more before....

[jimbolauski]

People don't vote against their self interest, take welfare for example there are two kinds of people that voted for it, the ones who will benefit from it and the others who feel good about themselves for doing so. In my experience it is impossible to vote against your self interest it's just that people value different things more then others.

Re: I liked it more before....

[kenh]

I don't know about that. People vote against their own self-interest all the time, both at voting booths and with their money in the marketplace. All it takes to get them to do that is a little propaganda (or PR, or whatever you like to call it - I prefer the old term "manufactured consent" because it's more honest). It works all too well, even in the case of advertising in which the bias of the message is obvious.

No, they believe they are voting/acting in their own self interest (as previous commenter asserted), but in actuality they are voting against their own best interest because their understanding of the issue is wrong, based on propaganda/mis-information, whatever.

Politicians often promise 'middle-class tax cuts' in the US, and millions of voters who believe they are middle-class will vote for them, thinking they will see their taxes cut... Then once elected, the candidate actually goes on to increase taxes. The voter voted out of self-interest, but the results were the opposite of what they expected.

Re:I liked it more before....

[vinlud]

of course supporting your tribal group is acting in your own best interest

That is a nice statement but individuals, even atheistic ones, sometimes do things for the benefit of their tribal group when it involves a certain death, instant or not. Soldiers, policemen, heroes, etc. The person itself cannot benefit anymore of these 'nice' things but still they will do whatever they think is the right thing. Your statement subsequently cannot cover everyone and every action, and therefor your subsequent statement that people refuse to think seems a bit ironic.

Re:I liked it more before....

[lucm]

the Women's Temperance Movement wasn't very different from what the MPAA/RIAA and others are doing today

Don't forget MADD, another corrupt organization of women where they pocket half the money they raise from the gullible public.

Shame on you, women.

Re:I liked it more before....

[chihowa]

In my experience, tautologies have a tendency of being true.

If you redefine "tautology" to mean "something that has a tendency of being true", then yes: "tautologies have a tendency of being true." In reality, tautologies carry no information at all and are completely meaningless.

Re:I liked it more before....

[JesseMcDonald]

That is a nice statement but individuals, even atheistic ones, sometimes do things for the benefit of their tribal group when it involves a certain death, instant or not. ... The person itself cannot benefit anymore of these 'nice' things but still they will do whatever they think is the right thing.

Everyone dies eventually; not everyone gets a chance to make their death mean something. If you have an interest in having a meaningful death, or you are interested in securing a benefit for your tribe, even an action which results in your own death may still serve your own self-interest.

Self-interest is not limited to mere material benefit; it extends to anything you want to achieve. That is why in economics we say that everyone follows their own self-interest; it isn't a statement about selfishness or altruism, it's a definition. Self-interest is defined by what a person chooses to do. The only way to know a person's preferences is by observation of their choices, and those choices are the only authoritative source of information that exists about what is in that person's self-interest. Claiming that a person does not choose to act in their own self-interest amounts to claiming that you know their real preferences better than they do, which is nonsense.

Re:I liked it more before....

[jimbolauski]

None of your examples would be people voting against their self interest. A religious person voting for a pro life candidate because of their views on abortion would not fit as that person values the lives of unborn children more then their financial interests. What you value in life and what you think is in other people's best interest does not matter.

Or...

[joocemann]

....maybe there are two separate things going on here. One is Dan's pay, and the other is how much they're paying everyone else. How is it that they're conflating the two issues so that one seems like a smoke screen for the other? Is there even a rational connection between the two other than being about pay for people within the company?

Is it possible that Dan wants to get paid a lot, but also wants everyone else to get paid well? Clearly the motivations to pay everyone else well are quite different from the motivations to pay himself lots of money. I think it's more reasonable to consider these as two separate things.

Re:Or...

[Crashmarik]

The motivation is that Dan doesn't want the company to show a profit so his brother's share is worthless.

Re:Or...

[roninmagus]

This. Looks pretty cut and dry to me. I love how everyone gushed all over it when it was announced. Made no sense to me that a business owner would make a decision like that out of the goodness of his heart. I know. I sound like a Scrooge.

But that's how it is. Start your own business so you can be a shot-caller.

Re:Or...

[Thunderf00t]

As has been noted elsewhere, the plans for the wage increase predate the lawsuit by a wide margin (the original wage discussion goes back to 2010), and short-term profitability has actually increased substantially since the wage increase. Also, it seems quite unlikely that a CEO could just raise wages in the time-frame necessary to act as the smokescreen suggested in the article.

I'm not saying that Dan Price's motives are squeaky clean, but sometimes things that look pretty cut and dry really aren't... unless, of course, you decide that your preferred narrative is more important than the details.

Re:Or...

[seebs]

In which case, it's backfired horribly, since all the coverage I've seen has said that it's actually been very good for business.

Re:Or...

[MyAlternateID]

In which case, it's backfired horribly, since all the coverage I've seen has said that it's actually been very good for business.

Yes, but a lot of people get some kind of strange visceral satisfaction from seeing a plan backfire, even when it has no effect on their own lives. That tendency is especially noticable when the person implementing the plan is famous, wealthy, powerful, or generally successful in some way.

Thus, several posters seem to have a vested emotional interest in a cynical motivation for this particular plan. Apparently their worldview would take a swift kick to the gonads if they were wrong about this one.

Personally I'd be delighted to know that something somewhere was done for a good reason, and that this good reason was also the real reason. I'm not remotely naive enough to assume that, but if it should turn out to be true, it would be good news all the same.

Re:Or...

[Crashmarik]

Predate the lawsuit, not the dispute.

Now who is clinging to a narrative ?

Re:Or...

[Amouth]

Some companies do still have integrity and really do care about their employees. I'm about to walk into a meeting in 6 hours where I will propose that the leadership receive no raises or bonuses this year so we can ensure steady cash flow for the business while being able to provide typical raises and bonuses to non leadership staff.

I'll use the argument that it is our (leadership's) job to ensure the continued health of the business. When there is a downturn we must be accountable for it, not the people we lead, and therefor we should shoulder the burden and minimize the organizational impacts.

Not sure how well it will go over with the other managers, but i know what I will do this year, and i'm confident that they will arrive to the same conclusion.

Re: Or...

[kenh]

short-term profitability has actually increased substantially since the wage increase.

the last Slashdot article on this story talked about the brain drain this caused when long-term employees that worked their way up from entry-level positions to mid-level positions paying $70K/year over the course of several years resented the new employee with no experience starting at the same pay level. The story also described how some (not a majority, but some) clients left because they felt the company was taking a political position they didn't agree with, and as a final note - the story also outlined how the CEO himself had to cut back on his own living expenses because of his own personal cut in pay. In the payment processing industry it takes 2-3 years to recoup customer acquisition costs before a given account is profitable - the company couldn't afford to lose long-term profitable clients and it will be years before new clients start boosting the bottom line.

But I'm sure you've got a source that supports your claim that profits are up at the company, please share it...

Re: Or...

[kenh]

If they never fired a shot, how was "conceal carry" relevant???

If someone with a concealed carry permit pulls out their gun and holds the perpetrator at gun point until police arrive then the gun is relevant. You don't have to fire a gun for it to be "relevant" - the bad guy just needs to see you have the gun and believe you might use it.

Re:Or...

[Amouth]

Actually on break now, and they did they agree with my recommendation.

Not all companies are evil and not all in leadership are PHBs

Profits soar since pay hike, so

[mijkal]

"Since the lawsuit is trying to force the CEO to buy out his co-founder based on the CEO's prior greed, lowering the short term profitability of the company while boosting his positive PR seems to be a likely motive for the pay hike."

Except that short-term profitability has DOUBLED since wages increases commenced (source). Did his plan then backfire?

Re:Profits soar since pay hike, so

[BarbaraHudson]

Lawyers have to say what lawyers have to say - when the facts are against you, pound on the law. When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When both are against you, pound on the desk.

I would think that a CEO who quickly doubles profitability and increases customer satisfaction is worth more than a run-of-the-mill CEO.

Re:Profits soar since pay hike, so

[Anonymous Coward]

NO short term profitability has NOT doubled. rate of Revenue growth has doubled. That is not profitability. You can double the rate of revenue growth while at the same time double the amount you are losing. the article you linked to does not mention profitability and in fact says he invested another 3 million into the business. a finance company rolling in profit does not need additional cash injections and large pay cuts for the CEO.

Re:Profits soar since pay hike, so

[mijkal]

From TFA, second paragraph: "Revenue is growing at twice the rate it was before Chief Executive Dan Price made his announcement this spring, according to a report on Inc.com. Profits have doubled."

Re:Profits soar since pay hike, so

[mijkal]

The article clearly states in second paragraph:

"Revenue is growing at twice the rate it was before Chief Executive Dan Price made his announcement this spring, according to a report on Inc.com. Profits have doubled."

Re:Profits soar since pay hike, so

[Straif]

Since he was effectively paying himself $1.1 million thereby reducing reported profits (the cause of the lawsuit) and he has yet to actually fully implement his new employee pay structure (it's a 3 year plan) wouldn't his cutting his salary by over $1 million in a company that only reported a $2.2 mill profit previously be responsible for the majority of the new bump.

Just from his pay cut from what was a questionably legal salary the company's profits immediately jumped 50%. With the huge boost in free publicity as well as some other major cash infusions an additional 50% short term increase would not be too surprising.

You left out the waterboarding

[Nova Express]

Later in the talk, Colón recalled once locking herself in a car, “afraid he was going to body-slam me into the ground again or waterboard me in our upstairs bathroom like he had done before.”

Of course, take everything in a divorce filing with several grains of salt...

I feel as if /. is now a shitty tabloid.

[Anonymous Coward]

No facts. Rampant speculation/innuendo/suspicion. Why do I read this page again?

Re:I feel as if /. is now a shitty tabloid.

[sexconker]

Oopoooooooh pick me, pick me! I know this one!
It's because we're all cows!

SlashTMZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Drama by Dice, served hot. Next up, women in tech!

Re:Where there's smoke, there's fire

[unixisc]

Whatever, I'd have loved to have worked in his company

Re:Because no one lies about a dead marriage...

[lucm]

Are you aware that there are like 5 other women who came forward to also accuse him of rape?

I don't know if he did rape all those women or if he's just such a big asshole that so many of them "bare false witness" to hurt him, either case fuck him.

Re:Because no one lies about a dead marriage...

[operagost]

These kinds of people need to be sued for slander, because it devalues the plight of women who were actually abused.