Because its pointless and unpleasant, we have zero means of verifying or discomfirming the story and it won't go anywhere because its unprovable.
We don't know whether there's any means of verifying the story until people actually put some effort into verifying the story. Also, it's not unprovable. Perhaps in a mathematical sense, but that's not even required in a courtroom.
Consider all that's been written about Altman's character, using such weak signals as "this former co-worker said this about him". Meanwhile there's this disturbing piece of information that could be a strong signal that is completely ignored.
Have you spoken to anyone in your life who has been molested, or abused? It really cuts through the abstract arguments and illustrates that this dynamic is how abusers get away with it.
No it really is. Unless Sam explicitly confesses it's completely impossible to prove to a courtroom standard.
It would have happened two decades ago, with a person he had frequent private physical access to. There is no possible physical or witness evidence.
It can't go anywhere.
Also, remembered allegations of sexual assault from when someone is four are much weaker signals than recountings of behavior by an adult in a workplace setting.
Hypothetically, if a little girl were molested by her older brothers, how should she proceed in order to satisfy your sensibilities?
Distraction: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman...