Women falsely accuse men of rape and other serious crimes all the time.

Isn't it better that he choose a judicial (or quasi-judicial) method to discourage this behavior rather than extrajudicial?

> Schmidt has denied the accusations under oath. The arbitrator said that Ritter did “everything she could possibly do” to avoid discussing the rape accusations under oath.

Uh huh. Everyone knows that it's physically impossible to lie under oath. I don't believe you, Mr. Arbiter.

>on a yacht off the coast of Mexico in 2021. She also alleged Schmidt forced her to have nonconsensual sex at the Burning Man festival in 2023.

Do people normally stay in contact with their supposed rapist and organise holidays together ect?

Seems odd.

These people never had any shame, but at least the PR blowback, and potential (probably minor) legal punishment, was enough to deter them from attacking the victim again. Now they see the POTUS get away with raping, being "proven" innocence by someone bought and paid for, then suing the victim, so they know they can get away with it too.

If you are worth $52 Billion how petty do you have to be to go after your ex girlfriend for cash for any reason?

Also the arbiters write up is incredibly biased and not at all what I would expect a neutral party to write. “One can also conclude that Ritter engaged in self-centered efforts to obtain revenge against Schmidt in a way that was more damaging than helpful to her cause.”

This is about a man who went after a girl less than half his age and then decided the power imbalance wasn’t severe enough so went into business with her as well. Are we really supposed to believe sexual assault is outside the realm of possibility in those circumstances?

"If you are worth $52 Billion how petty do you have to be to go after your ex girlfriend for cash for any reason?" How is this petty? If a party was being legally liabile, this is 100% a reasonable vector for enforcement.

"Also the arbiters write up is incredibly biased and not at all what I would expect a neutral party to write. “One can also conclude that Ritter engaged in self-centered efforts to obtain revenge against Schmidt in a way that was more damaging than helpful to her cause.”"

That just means the evidence is exhausting, this is not a criminal court, there is no innocent until proven guilty - the level is much, much less to prove and there was a coordinated effort which means if a neutral arbirter can write the above, thats probably most likely what happened.

"This is about a man who went after a girl less than half his age and then decided the power imbalance wasn’t severe enough so went into business with her as well. Are we really supposed to believe sexual assault is outside the realm of possibility in those circumstances?"

That's biased itself, you write about bias but write it more so. If there was sexual assault it would be a criminal case - easily.

So, why are you defending someone that openly accused someone of a sexual crime which did not happen?

And I did not want to be writing to defend a google ceo, but here we are - why do you believe someone can accuse someone of a serious crime and not suffer reprecusions for it?

Many people are accused falsely and have their repution ruined by it. There is no shortage of stories about it from all genders.

Excuse me, this was a false tape accusation, not an accidentally crashed supercar.

I'd absolutely do the same, including forcing her to publish apology on all her SM accounts and in the press.

A rich guy is always a target for certain women that are motivated by money. He has every reason to protect his reputation and money by proactively settling the matter officially. Sexual assault is a serious allegation

I mean just Look who you are talking about.

This man took a major role in logging and selling every single thing about every single person without them noticing. He is sick in the head and a piece of shit human being for violating all of humanity’s privacy.