This is a super common take, so let's discuss why it's wrong.

Innocent until proven guilty in criminal court makes sense; we're setting the process by which someone's freedom is taken by the state. But twitter isn't criminal court - we shouldn't have the same process/standard. https://twitter.com/summit1g/status/1275878825037987840

Ever wonder why OJ won his criminal case, but lost the civil suit? Part is what happened at court, but it's also the standard:

Murder: 12/12 jurors had to find him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Civil: 9/12 jurors had to find the preponderance of evidence showed he did it

Preponderance of evidence is just a fancy way of saying that it's more than 50% likely the thing happened. The burden starts w/ the plaintiff (accuser) to prove their case, but it SHIFTS to the defendant once a moderate amount of evidence establishes the claim.

In short, we're trying to figure out what happened, and not with 100% certainty. We adjudicate massive commercial disputes by this process/standard every day, and that's because it's the most just system we can find.

Also, businesses, administrative hearings, collegiate review boards, and many other bodies don't use innocent until proven guilty. So let's stop using it as a buzzphrase that promotes justice for all in all situations. It's not. It works for criminal court, but not everywhere.

Let's also stop to consider the context. When it comes to sexual assault, there is a massive issue of under-reporting. One of the chief reasons for that is we tend to put victims on trial. We don't believe them. We attack their credibility. This is a HUGE problem.

And it happens even though all of the data shows false reporting of sexual assault is incredibly rare. So, please, when you read a credible story of sexual assault, listen to what they're saying. Don't dismiss it because you haven't heard the other side yet.

Saying "innocent until proven guilty" in response doesn't actually mean anything. It's not remotely applicable to this context. We're not in court, and we're not decided whether to put someone in literal prison.

More importantly, it dismisses their reality and their pain.

BTW, this is absolutely not an attack on Summit. I think he's dead wrong here, but I don't think it's coming from a malicious place. I hear this kind of thing all the time, so I thought it was a good chance to educate people on why it's often misused.

PS - if you're a lawyer currently getting tilted by the way I jumble together a conversation about the presumption of innocence, standards, burdens of proof, and judicial philosophy... I'm sorry. I wanted to get more core message across in fewer than 50 tweets.