> he's supposed to be in control of his emotions and able to make the best decisions without letting his emotions interfere.
I agree but that ship sailed a long time ago and this action is being blown out of proportion.
Look at the president of the US that is a guy who has to go (and all the people around him) and is still in office.
Quite frankly he has had an affair with consenting adult women not trafficked children why are the knives out for him when this is all he has done?
He said he wouldn’t do a thing, and then he did it anyway.
He’s already proven himself to be untrustworthy… what else is he lying about, hmm?
> Quite frankly he has had an affair with consenting adult women not trafficked children why are the knives out for him when this is all he has done?
Because he made commitments to people to not do this.
If you promise to do (or not do) something, and then you break that promise, you should be held to account for it. It should be obvious that you cannot be trusted to keep promises in future. Nothing you say should be believed, because you are clearly an untrustworthy person. You should not be trusted to make decisions that involve other people's money.
And, in addition. If you're a manager, you are responsible for the people reporting to you. You're the adult in the room. If your idea of managing people includes having sex with them, then that is an indication that you are unable to manage people.
This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand. This is about Huang not living up to the professional standards that we expect from people in authority. It's about being a good, trustworthy, custodian of other people's money, and about being a good choice as CEO of this business. Not having enough self-control to avoid these situations is a really good indicator that he is not a good choice for this role, because of that lack of self-control. If he can't control himself, how can he be relied on to control the organisation?