When it comes to remembering a childhood event that supposedly happened in 1998 in 2020, even if a process produced the memory that doesn’t mean that it really happened. There are plenty of cases of “Satanistic ritual abuse” where there are memories but where we generally think those memories are not matching to real events.
Annie wanted to talk on air about the psychological phenomenon of projection: what we put on other people. The brothers steered the conversation into the idea of feedback — specifically, how to give feedback at work. After she posted the show online, Annie hoped her siblings, particularly Sam, would share it. He’d contributed to their brothers’ careers. Jack’s company, Lattice, had been through YC. “I was like, ‘You could just tweet the link. That would help. You don’t want to share your sister’s podcast that you came on?’” He did not. “Jack and Sam said it didn’t align with their businesses.”” I find this account to be plausible, yet do not think it entirely dispels the objection.
The fact that Sam and the other brothers showed up for the podcast suggests that they wanted to support her at that moment in time.
It seems that something happened that made him not willing to link to the podcast. It might be a random interpersonal conflict. Maybe Annie was very pushy about Sam linking and Sam didn’t like that she was pushy so he didn’t do it.
Annie carries out her plan as intended. However,Sam, as well as Annie’s mother and some of her other relatives, exploit a loophole that allows them to withhold the money that Annie’s Dad left to her in his will. At some point, Annie is connected with one of Sam Altman’s lawyers. Annie is told that she will only receive money if she starts taking Zoloft again (c.f. this source and this source), which she had stopped taking at age 22 (c.f. this source and this source.)
We don’t know what loophole was used. This would be consistent with the loophole being a provision in her will that her father wanted her to take Zoloft to receive the money.
I am confused as to why there has been basically 0 coverage of her claims in the media? [...] So—since it seems like no writer or journalist on the planet, besides me, for some reason, has ever properly answered this question
It’s worth noting that this is the case. Given how long the claims have been made, it seems like the kind of thing that would have likely come to the attention of the New York Times and it’s likely that they investigated the story.
The fact that they didn’t publish a story most likely suggests that Sam either pressured them or the journalist investigating it found that there’s not really a good story here after looking into the details.
Given the current stance of the NY Times on reporting in that area it seems unlikely that they would have let themselves be pressured not to publish if they think it would have been a good story.
It’s unfortunate that the NY Times doesn’t have a policy of publishing “We did an investigation into a story and don’t think it has legs”-pieces. It’s similar to publication bias in science where nonresults unfortunately aren’t well published.
When it comes to remembering a childhood event that supposedly happened in 1998 in 2020, even if a process produced the memory that doesn’t mean that it really happened. There are plenty of cases of “Satanistic ritual abuse” where there are memories but where we generally think those memories are not matching to real events.
The fact that Sam and the other brothers showed up for the podcast suggests that they wanted to support her at that moment in time.
It seems that something happened that made him not willing to link to the podcast. It might be a random interpersonal conflict. Maybe Annie was very pushy about Sam linking and Sam didn’t like that she was pushy so he didn’t do it.
We don’t know what loophole was used. This would be consistent with the loophole being a provision in her will that her father wanted her to take Zoloft to receive the money.
It’s worth noting that this is the case. Given how long the claims have been made, it seems like the kind of thing that would have likely come to the attention of the New York Times and it’s likely that they investigated the story.
The fact that they didn’t publish a story most likely suggests that Sam either pressured them or the journalist investigating it found that there’s not really a good story here after looking into the details.
Given the current stance of the NY Times on reporting in that area it seems unlikely that they would have let themselves be pressured not to publish if they think it would have been a good story.
It’s unfortunate that the NY Times doesn’t have a policy of publishing “We did an investigation into a story and don’t think it has legs”-pieces. It’s similar to publication bias in science where nonresults unfortunately aren’t well published.