Without specifics, there's not enough information in the allegations to attempt to speak up in defense - if you didn't personally witness one of these alleged assaults, you would be loath to say they didn't happen on a different occasion. Perhaps Appelbaum is careful in choosing victims, perhaps the assaults never happened. You just don't know, so you say nothing.

Putting specific details to the allegations on the other hand would make that quite possible - a lack of defense in that case would be an indication that the accusations were true. But without specifics that's not the case.

I refuted some of the claims, that which I am able-- most are completely impossible to respond to because they are so vague.

The prior claims of Jake plagiarizing that I've seen are patently untrue, and I think I refuted them conclusively the last time I saw them made: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.otr.devel/155...

Agreed.

In cases like this with multiple alleged victims, if everyone goes public with allegations at the same time that can reduce the risk of of reprisals; I hope that's what's actually going to happen here, rather than this being a smear campaign.

If the stories are true, then wouldn't he know who told them anyway? And in that case, only he would know, putting the victims at more risk, not less. On the other hand, if the story is false, he'd know who made it up. And while I understand that there may be a million valid reasons for people not wanting to attach their name to something like this, there's not just the identity of the people who posted the account, there's also the lack of dates and locations.

> As with everything involved in talking about abuse, you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And how does this not go both ways, being accused of abuse? You're damned if there is evidence, you're damned if there's none, because it's your fault there is none. That's what you said means.

As that tweet goes:

> Tick Tock. Your time has come rapist. Tick tock.

"shit is complicated, this is too important for any due diligence or details, chaaarge!", that's how I would sum a lot of this up.

Saying the website is not linked with this account is just something to save legal butt - in spirit the site and that message and acount handle are the same, it's ultimately just "he's doubleplusungood and must be destroyed". Literal death threat or not, Appelbaum obviously was supposed to be discarded with any huge interest in proof, even for the plagiarism. Which, by the way, are very unlike abuse in that if someone backs them up, they win (as does the originator who gets the credit they deserve), if they don't, that's weird.

edit: Especially considering the possibility or even likelihood he's a real piece of work and an abusive person, I would be more thorough, not more sloppy. The heavier the accusations, the more precise you have to be, not the other way around, which is what internet justice seems to look like. To write about how he "makes people think you're the problem", and then not even trying to not come across like a virtual lynch mob, is just about the worst way to go about this. Then when some people actually do believe that this might not be entirely fair, one can't just say "see? you side with the abuser, it's always the same!".

And then there is the fact that abuse breeds abuse. If you acknowledge to have been abused, you absolutely do have to watch out for being abusive yourself. Wanting to destroy a person while saying they're someone who destroys people is not healthy. Understandable, but people who aren't directly affected can't be expected to just go "makes sense". From the outside perspective, this is probably two parties being in the wrong in various ways. It's hard to tell who is worse atm.