Sure, but your initial post did not express that sensible middle ground, but rather invoked decade-long grudges using hyperbolic petulance, as if being a founder grants the power to hellban someone from society.

It goes both ways. If anything, I would argue that employees have way more cancel power than founders, and it's far more common for employees to get their founders in trouble than the other way around. No VC will ever do an equity round without doing some research. Not to mention the open letters to founders that have gotten so many fired. Honestly, it's also how it should be - I've seen more founders misbehave than employees. Some founders really think that just because someone gave them a check, they are somehow untouchable.

But regardless if founder or employee, I don't see why we should lie about people misbehaving. If I know someone is a bad apple, I am not going to lie about it - especially if I can prevent someone I care about going through the same ordeal. I also don't know why I should change my mind about someone just because some time has passed. People don't change.

It's frankly pretty appalling that I have to spell this out to you. I suppose you didn't think much of the Me Too movement? While clearly not on the same scale, the fundamental societal mechanics that justify outing perpetrators of sexual harassment are the same ones that justify outing people who break contracts. The society would be a much better place if people knew that karma is real.

The VC connection is another reason not to pursue scorched earth campaigns.

It’s a double-edged spear. Eventually someone you dislike will have a VC deal pending; if your defamatory comments cost them the deal (or even appear to have had a role), that person will end up owning everything you have and everything you ever will have after a massive court judgment.

And on the flip side, VCs dislike investing in people who are in litigation or who have faced it. You will have to do a lot of explaining about why you were sued, and if there was a judgment against you, it’s hard to imagine your professional judgment not getting questioned.

It doesn’t matter- Whatever merit there is to your position, your original post was so wrapped up in hyperbole and aggression you completely undercut your own argument, which is why there is such a bevy of responses. I don’t even disagree with some of your points, but the tone-deafness is just completely ridiculous. Let us simply agree to disagree where we do, agree to agree elsewhere, and have peace.