That's the point - just because the other party is anonymous doesn't mean they deserve less empathy. Of course, we're biased to the more vivid human character, but it's just a bias. Let's try and correct it with reason.
I think you're right, I would just generalize your point. There are human beings on both sides of the story, we must remain moderate and refrain from making too much judgements until more facts are known and the justice has fully investigated this case.
Consider the following, which are presumably objectively verifiable facts:
A. Mr. Rabois doesn't name his accuser. If he was looking to inflict damage on them, he'd publicize it.
B. The accuser is seeking a payment of "millions of dollars."
C. The relationship began several months before the accuser's employment with Square.
D. The two came into relatively little contact at work.
These facts all show a high probability that the relationship was consensual, and also give a low probability that the accuser will be able to produce conclusive proof of coercion, such as:
. Texts or emails from the accuser saying Mr. Rabois's advances were unwelcome or made him uncomfortable.
. Evidence that Mr. Rabois gave the accuser job-related threats and/or rewards in exchange for the continuing relationship.
This does not conclusively show, of course, that Mr. Rabois is innocent. Nor does it mean the accuser doesn't have a solid case that will stand up in court. But based on the available information, this does seem to be the likelier outcome.
One factor is Bayes' theorem and prior probabilities. The probability of being accused of sexual harassment changes when you're a wealthy executive working for a successful company like Square.
That's from criminal law, this seems to be a civil act. Also, while we're there, the burden of proof is different -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities.
(IANAL, I just remember this from an engineering law class)
My point is, at this time we've only just now heard of the accusation. Until the time that I've personally seen all evidence, or it has been determined in a court of law that this man is guilty of the accusations, he has done nothing in my eyes.
I absolutely hate seeing innocent people have their reputations and lives trashed by someone who places a false claim against them. Innocent until proven guilty is a good policy to maintain, especially as everyone contorts a story to fit his or her views and agenda.
I don't disagree that what you point out is the ideal.
Given the 4 word response, I thought I'd mention that standards from criminal law will not apply here and that the case will be decided on a balance of probabilities. I don't know this guy but I do hope he gets a fair shake in court.
1. Know Keith or the accuser personally, and therefore have the capacity to make an educated guess as to the veracity of the claims?
2. Believe that rich people, well known people, or people with blogs don't have the capacity to do what Keith is accused of doing?
3. Believe the first side of the story you hear in any given situation?
If neither 1, 2, nor 3 is the case, I urge you to not jump to conclusions. There's a human being on the other side of the story.