this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2026
480 points (95.8% liked)
Technology
89504 readers
4392 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sam Altman has been credibly accused of raping his sister.
...not going anywhere with this, just felt compelled to share.
What makes it credible?
An under-oath deposition by the alleged victim in which she affirmed Altman sexually abused her starting when she was age 3 and lasting until she was age 12.
There are also countless former associates of Altman who have gone on record stating that he's a compulsive liar and narcissist. That's obviously not direct evidence of anything, but it establishes a clear pattern of untrustworthy and potentially abusive behavior from Altman.
The civil case was ultimately dismissed because the alleged victim refused to submit to an independent medical examination requested by the Judge... but such refusals are extremely common among people who have been traumatized by sexual abuse and don't want some stranger poking around their private parts.
How do you define credible in this context?
And how do you know that she and/or the former associates don't lie?
Do you mean an medical examination years after the abuse happened? What is that supposed to accomplish?
A victim giving a deposition under oath is considered a credible accusation on its face.
I've never understood how a oath somehow creates a form of credibility with out some other proof to back it up
It's still just words. I know lying under oath is a crime and all that. But when most shit just gets settled and rarely actually has teeth towards the rich or famous.
It feels like an oath is just a pretend make believe thing that only the deranged actually think is real.
OK.