> sexual harassment in the workplace

I had only heard about a consensual relationship.

Not sure about the sexual harassment angle you're pushing... it's about trust isn't it? If you have consensual affairs as a CEO, you are still liable to be fired if it becomes public, that's my opinion anyway.

A good point and the line of thinking you're describing implies that power should override anything else. Rather than rules that apply to everyone, what level of power within a company should no longer be subject to firing for engaging in a power-abuse sexual relationship?

Misbehavior without consequences seems to have become more noticeable in politics within the past ten years, with mainstream news outlets reporting on insider trading and potential bribes for favors. This ethos of power over accountability seems to be having a trickle down effect on general sentiment.

In any scenario it’s not appropriate. Among peers, everyone knows about the “special relationship” and it directly attacks any perception of fairness and enables others to justify similar or worse behavior in the org.

I think the angle is more so on lack of equal accountability.

Musk has done worse, yet nothing has really happened to him.

Do we know that he offered? It is possible that she went after him. These things aren't always so cut and dry.

I mean I said in 2016 Hillary basically behaved this way with Bill in regards to others (notably monica lewinsky) and against basically anyone else (i.e. say whole democrat party field) except Trump that should have been a disqualifying thing (and worse, if the republicans put up a decent person, I suspect Hillary would have won!)

At the end of the day, I wouldn't bash everyone here too strongly when everyone who lined up early behind Hillary basically acted in the same way. (And yes, even though Bill did the act, Hillary lined up easily to defend him, much like the people you mention here)

> The number of people here who don’t take sexual harassment in the workplace by the CEO of a world-leading company to be a serious, fireable offense—and the fact that so many of you claim to care about things like women’s rights and social justice—is mind-boggling to me.

It's mindboggling that you describe an apparently completely consensual affair as "sexual harassment". That's absurd.

Let's dispense with the theatrics. Having a relationship with someone in your chain is not even close to sexual harassment. Yes, it can lead to it but generally it doesn't. It's not at all illegal either.

When I entered the workforce not so long ago most companies didn't even have policies against it. My university didn't make a policy about it until 2012. I know a very happily married couple who got married this way (a little earlier - perhaps around 2006 or 2007). I don't think they'd be happy if I referred to their behavior as "sexual harrasment".

I think it's a good policy and it's fair they enforce it, but equating it to sexual harassment is nonsense.

The number of people here who don't think women can consent to sexual relationships is thankfully not quite as high.

> But we live in an age where the only truth people believe is the one that makes them feel a certain way

The irony is so sweet here.

money before principles. Not to be crass but this is the ycombinator forum, not bluesky. do not expect principles before money, this is the absolute opposite of trying to preach to the choir.

Who do you work for? Curious why you're pushing an unproven narrative? In America, we are innocent until proven guilty. Let's not forget that :)

wait who said hn supported social justice and women's rights generally? that's not really been my impression wherever it comes up

The sex is a nothing burger. He would have been fine if they were for instance, latin American and not Chinese.

If a billionaire can't have consensual sex with women what is the point of it all?

"Subordinate", get a grip!

That chick could very well be an American spy who did everything she could to get him into bed, you have no idea what the truth is.

I'm... not shocked. Politically, HN skews pretty heavily right. Some of them will claim otherwise, putting rainbow flags in bios and such, but here is where the rubber hits the road. I also believe that the affair with the subordinate was the big problem. He can paint himself a victim of a Chinse spy.

Consider the case of Regina Santos-Aviles [1]. She committed suicide by setting herself on fire and had revealed that she'd been having an affair with her boss.

The power dynamics here are insane. Huang was the CEO and a billionaire. The legal liability that NVidia has or could have because of this is huge, particularly if they did nothing. Now there are big questions about who knew what when.

The reporting says somebody say them in a San Jose hotel and was basically hushed with an NDA, and probably a big payment (I'm guessing; I don't know). Was that from NVidia or Huang personally? What NVidia staff, if any, authorized that?

If the board wants to really clean house they should authorize a thorough external investigation of that and any other possible affairs.

[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tony-gonzales-aide-affair-texts...