Whether we are in a court of law or not, the burden of proof must remain on the accuser. So far, Susan Fowler has provided no proof. There is no tape, no email, no corroboration by other witnesses. Are we just supposed to take her word for it and sharpen our pitchforks?
But basically, nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda.
Her blog post was straightforward and referred to events, people and communications which, I expect, can be referenced by the UBER HR department and I hope that she has retained the evidence if she needs it to protect herself. That seems perfectly reasonable.
> nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda.
It is suspicious that considering the number of people involved in this alleged systematic abuse, no one has stepped forward to corroborate her claims. The leather jackets story also strikes me as very far-fetched and a little incredible to believe (a company like Uber wouldn't care about the cost of 6 extra jackets and wouldn't take the PR risk of pulling shit like that).
> "Pitchforks" is a bit melodramatic.
Hashtag #DeleteUber is exactly what the proverbial pitchforks look like in 2017.
I don't see why we should assume that the Uber bureaucracy is wise and level-headed in decisions big and small, and that Susan Fowler would risk making up such a stupid and easily disprovable detail after alleging far more serious claims.
As for "the burden of proving" what, exactly, do you expect? Screenshots of the harassment?
The "hard proof" is for a court, if it comes to that, and not you, the general public.