The fact that the story got the traction it did means that the response couldn't have possibly been anything other than what it was (disgust and a promise to look into it). Even if the CEO was directly responsible for this culture the response would be the same. I don't think it's possible to extract anything meaningful from it whatsoever at this point.

He did box himself in a bit with "...will be fired". At least boxed into firing somebody. Not at all saying his outrage is genuine, but initial corporate responses don't usually go that far.

I don't know if that really counts as 'boxed in'. The behaviour Susan described as widespread is absolutely unacceptable and in any sane company would be grounds for instant dismissal. If the CEO is acting in good faith then he wouldn't hesitate to act on any cases found - the fact that they have a new head of HR might indicate that a purge has already begun.

You appear to be reading something into my comment that I didn't mean, or say. The behavior described is absolutely appalling. All I'm saying is that the CEO's initial statement about it goes farther than usual...these are usually carefully crafted to convey sympathy but avoid liability or commitment to action. Usually words like "appropriate action" and not words like "fired".

I noted it solely because it's unusual.

Typical Travis. Reacting too late, and pretending to care only when a situation threatens revenue.

And the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39024445