Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists(buzzfeed.com)
buzzfeed.com
Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-dirt-on-journalists
369 comments
I'm writing this as a throwaway because this feels like mob and pitchforks. I'm a regular here and have no ties to Uber except using it.
This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy.
Meanwhile, Sarah Lacey comments publicly and insultingly on people's political positions, emotions, and dating life.
What the man said was very stupid. But it feels a lot like, "She wants to attack our sex lives, politics, and call us terrible people? We should dig in to what she's done."
That's still unacceptable, but seems like blowing off steam and being frustrated at someone who makes money off of being mean and generating outrage.
Again, the behavior is totally unacceptable. But making this out to be a conspiracy rather than a frustrated executive ranting at someone who is known to be rude and very personal about the rudeness and who gets paid on pageviews and outrage is a little much.
This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy.
Meanwhile, Sarah Lacey comments publicly and insultingly on people's political positions, emotions, and dating life.
What the man said was very stupid. But it feels a lot like, "She wants to attack our sex lives, politics, and call us terrible people? We should dig in to what she's done."
That's still unacceptable, but seems like blowing off steam and being frustrated at someone who makes money off of being mean and generating outrage.
Again, the behavior is totally unacceptable. But making this out to be a conspiracy rather than a frustrated executive ranting at someone who is known to be rude and very personal about the rudeness and who gets paid on pageviews and outrage is a little much.
In front of journalists, the man talked in detail about a plan to destroy journalists giving negative coverage. As far as I know, you're the only person calling it "a conspiracy". But plenty of people are taking that as a way of threatening journalists.
The "blowing off steam" theory doesn't strike me as plausible. If it had happened at his local alley while talking with his bowling team, sure, maybe. But the CEO and and SVP of a $16 bn company don't sit down with a bunch of journalists by accident. Either the guy was intending to intimidate journalists (and Lacy in specific) or he is so dangerously clueless that a) he should not be a senior executive of anything bigger than a lemonade stand, and b) it would be hard to explain how he made it this far.
A journalist friend said that powerful people threatening journalists is routine, and that this sort of thing has a chilling effect on coverage. When smart people "accidentally" do something very self-serving, a reasonable working hypothesis is that they actually knew what they were doing.
The "blowing off steam" theory doesn't strike me as plausible. If it had happened at his local alley while talking with his bowling team, sure, maybe. But the CEO and and SVP of a $16 bn company don't sit down with a bunch of journalists by accident. Either the guy was intending to intimidate journalists (and Lacy in specific) or he is so dangerously clueless that a) he should not be a senior executive of anything bigger than a lemonade stand, and b) it would be hard to explain how he made it this far.
A journalist friend said that powerful people threatening journalists is routine, and that this sort of thing has a chilling effect on coverage. When smart people "accidentally" do something very self-serving, a reasonable working hypothesis is that they actually knew what they were doing.
> If it had happened at his local alley while talking with his bowling team, sure, maybe.
Several relevant scenes from The Big Lebowski come to mind ... :)
(it'd make me seriously reconsider my choice of bowling-buddies, though :) )
Several relevant scenes from The Big Lebowski come to mind ... :)
(it'd make me seriously reconsider my choice of bowling-buddies, though :) )
Perhaps.
OTOH, it could also be (certainly if it was serious and possibly if it was just venting) a sign of something bad. Sarah Lacey's criticism was that Uber have an "asshole culture." This does not exactly disprove her statement.
I'm not touchy. I think a lot of "PC outrage" (including possibly hers, I haven't really dug) is the nasty "fun to be outraged" variety. This has a terrible effect, turning corporate (also police and every type of official) vernacular into an unnatural lifeless sludge. I'm usually on the other side of these kinds of debates. But, there is such a thing as misogyny, asshole culture and such. They exist, and this might be a sign of it here.
Uber are an extremely aggressive company. They need that aggression to do the job they're trying to do which brings them into conflict all the time. Aggressiveness can spread. Uber is now a big company. They have many people's livelihoods, safety & privacy in their hands. There's a standard they need to meet. If a senior exec talks like this to reporters off the record, it may be the kind of talk that happens a lot.
It is a little disturbing, even as just talk.
OTOH, it could also be (certainly if it was serious and possibly if it was just venting) a sign of something bad. Sarah Lacey's criticism was that Uber have an "asshole culture." This does not exactly disprove her statement.
I'm not touchy. I think a lot of "PC outrage" (including possibly hers, I haven't really dug) is the nasty "fun to be outraged" variety. This has a terrible effect, turning corporate (also police and every type of official) vernacular into an unnatural lifeless sludge. I'm usually on the other side of these kinds of debates. But, there is such a thing as misogyny, asshole culture and such. They exist, and this might be a sign of it here.
Uber are an extremely aggressive company. They need that aggression to do the job they're trying to do which brings them into conflict all the time. Aggressiveness can spread. Uber is now a big company. They have many people's livelihoods, safety & privacy in their hands. There's a standard they need to meet. If a senior exec talks like this to reporters off the record, it may be the kind of talk that happens a lot.
It is a little disturbing, even as just talk.
Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threats.
"Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became:
> threatening to reveal details of the location of their children
There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.
"Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became:
> threatening to reveal details of the location of their children
There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.
In the same story that they talk about digging up dirt on reporters' families, Uber revealed details of a different reporter's movements to her, without her consent, and supposedly an impossible thing to do. Is it such a stretch to think that revealing details about your family + revealing details about your movements and location could also = revealing details about the movements and location of your family?
Again, read Sarah Lacey's rebuttal piece in PandoDaily. Her first thought after hearing about the threats (by phone) is for the safety of her kids, who are not with her at that moment.
Again, read Sarah Lacey's rebuttal piece in PandoDaily. Her first thought after hearing about the threats (by phone) is for the safety of her kids, who are not with her at that moment.
It's not fair to make up a very specific statement, attribute it to someone, and then say it was in accordance with how you think their views run. You are right about uber being slime but don't pull a mark fuhrman.
Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it.
Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.
Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.
> Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces
1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable?
2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?
1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable?
2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?
1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's PandoDaily's business model.
2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's interpretation of them as a threat against her children, which is unwarranted by the original report and likely her own sensationalism.
2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's interpretation of them as a threat against her children, which is unwarranted by the original report and likely her own sensationalism.
1. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department.
2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.
2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.
I think Sarah's sensationalizing it because sensationalizing things is her business. That's all.
Let's assume that the Uber Executive was also doing his business then.
Seems to me very clear that one's quite a bit deeper in the wrong than the other, "doing their business".
(also, I disagree with the term "sensationalizing" when the facts of what actually happened are in fact already "sensational" enough to stand for themselves. Stating that you're worried about your children when someone calls to investigate and dig dirt on "your personal lives, your families" isn't really adding any extra "sensation" to what is already out on the table, it merely informs me that she has children to worry about)
Seems to me very clear that one's quite a bit deeper in the wrong than the other, "doing their business".
(also, I disagree with the term "sensationalizing" when the facts of what actually happened are in fact already "sensational" enough to stand for themselves. Stating that you're worried about your children when someone calls to investigate and dig dirt on "your personal lives, your families" isn't really adding any extra "sensation" to what is already out on the table, it merely informs me that she has children to worry about)
To "dig dirt" means to gather embarrassing private information about someone that could ruin their reputation. Exactly what information could you gather to embarass and discredit a small child? There's no logical way to interpret that as a threat against Sarah's kids, and I'm giving Sarah the benefit of assuming she's clever enough to realize that. Sarah brought her own damn kids into this to tug at the audience's heartstrings and make herself look more sympathetic.
Isn't it a clearly established principle of journalism that reporters should report only for the benefit of the people and organizations they're reporting on?
If she wasn't kowtowing to Kalanick's PR team, she was remiss and doubtlessly only hunting for page views. Definitely had it coming--turnabout is fair play.
If she wasn't kowtowing to Kalanick's PR team, she was remiss and doubtlessly only hunting for page views. Definitely had it coming--turnabout is fair play.
xorcist(2)
Regardless, there's a line: press intimidation is unacceptable from any company. Even if the press is biased and has an axe to grind. If their reports are factually untrue and you have evidence to the contrary, write a press release and present it publicly. If this happens to a reporter enough times, they'll be branded unreliable. If their reports are factually correct and the facts therein piss off your customers, well, that was always a risk of doing those things in the first place.
But this type of stuff has happened to Uber enough times that they've developed quite a shady reputation. Uber has lost the benefit of the doubt in many people's eyes because at the very best, they hire shady people to do shady things for them. At the worst, they're stalking private citizens and intimidating them to keep quiet.
But this type of stuff has happened to Uber enough times that they've developed quite a shady reputation. Uber has lost the benefit of the doubt in many people's eyes because at the very best, they hire shady people to do shady things for them. At the worst, they're stalking private citizens and intimidating them to keep quiet.
Are you saying that wasn't a threat?
Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?
Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?
>Does that make it better?
It avoids the "think of the children" reaction, so yes.
It avoids the "think of the children" reaction, so yes.
The guy never threatened to target children or reveal any information about them. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
How long would it take to get a restraining order if he had done as you say? And what would be the effect on the valuation of the company if that happened?
Play fair. Don't be a Prolog interpreter.
Play fair. Don't be a Prolog interpreter.
You clearly have no children of your own, Mr. Throwaway. While Asparagirl might have been a bit too creative when filling in the details, every parent would be very concerned when some hostile entity hints to be "looking into... your family".
While confrontational by nature, I do not see any of the parts displaying stupidity, but perhaps yourself. Please try to live up to your chosen handle for this exchange.
While confrontational by nature, I do not see any of the parts displaying stupidity, but perhaps yourself. Please try to live up to your chosen handle for this exchange.
> This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy.
A frustrated guy venting at a business dinner, attended by an influential crowd, specifically addressing a person they just hired that could (and probably would) make this "conspiracy" happen for real if he made the call.
See, personally, I think even in a perfectly informal off-the-record setting, what he suggested was simply wrong and should be called on it. Whether you're frustrated or not. Unless it was extremely clear from the context it was just a joking "haha we should .." with no intent to follow through, then, maybe then it becomes acceptable to say these sorts of things in an informal off-the-record setting, assuming you're sufficiently acquainted with the current company that you know they won't be put off by such a tasteless remark.
What he called for was a personal attack on someone's personal life. With a straight face, to his hired media mouthpiece. It's IMO not very different (though obviously less illegal) from telling your hired muscle "we should teach that person a lesson, beat them up a little", with no intent to follow through, obviously. The window to make that last bit over-abundantly clear evaporates within a minute or so. And even then, in what sort of company does he think it's okay to even begin to vent about that sort of thing, even without intent to follow through? Surely a lot more private than some fancy I-thought-it-was-off-the-record dinner.
Obviously his own moral compass didn't prevent him from saying these things, in the first place. That's exactly why he should be called on "venting" such ideas. Even when he honestly had no intent to follow through, he's a powerful man, speaking directly to someone whose task it would be to make this happen, someone might take it seriously and warm to the idea that such behaviour could be acceptable.
A frustrated guy venting at a business dinner, attended by an influential crowd, specifically addressing a person they just hired that could (and probably would) make this "conspiracy" happen for real if he made the call.
See, personally, I think even in a perfectly informal off-the-record setting, what he suggested was simply wrong and should be called on it. Whether you're frustrated or not. Unless it was extremely clear from the context it was just a joking "haha we should .." with no intent to follow through, then, maybe then it becomes acceptable to say these sorts of things in an informal off-the-record setting, assuming you're sufficiently acquainted with the current company that you know they won't be put off by such a tasteless remark.
What he called for was a personal attack on someone's personal life. With a straight face, to his hired media mouthpiece. It's IMO not very different (though obviously less illegal) from telling your hired muscle "we should teach that person a lesson, beat them up a little", with no intent to follow through, obviously. The window to make that last bit over-abundantly clear evaporates within a minute or so. And even then, in what sort of company does he think it's okay to even begin to vent about that sort of thing, even without intent to follow through? Surely a lot more private than some fancy I-thought-it-was-off-the-record dinner.
Obviously his own moral compass didn't prevent him from saying these things, in the first place. That's exactly why he should be called on "venting" such ideas. Even when he honestly had no intent to follow through, he's a powerful man, speaking directly to someone whose task it would be to make this happen, someone might take it seriously and warm to the idea that such behaviour could be acceptable.
a journalist's job often involves being "rude". some journalists specialize in "rude" reporting. scrutinizing powerful and wealthy people is one of the legitimate roles of a journalist, even when it comes across as "rude".
powerful and wealthy people NEED to be scrutinized. when we do, we often discover that they are sociopathic scum like several of the executives at Uber have turned out to be.
powerful and wealthy people NEED to be scrutinized. when we do, we often discover that they are sociopathic scum like several of the executives at Uber have turned out to be.
This is almost akin to a celebrity getting upset and punching a paparazzi. It happens due to stupidity, human emotion and rash behavior. Is it right? No, but it does shed light on some issues.
Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software developers. Not only are they talking about the companies, they are talking about the personal lives of the people that make up the companies.
Given the work/life balance of most startups and successful companies, it is tough to judge the differentiation between a tech company's executives. There are reasonable legal precedents being set for common tort law with celebrities, however when do the executives of a company become a 'Public Figure' and lose their right to privacy? Why is it okay to follow someone and publish everything they say and do?
The same thing, of course, can be said for journalists. The lines are being blurred all around.
Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software developers. Not only are they talking about the companies, they are talking about the personal lives of the people that make up the companies.
Given the work/life balance of most startups and successful companies, it is tough to judge the differentiation between a tech company's executives. There are reasonable legal precedents being set for common tort law with celebrities, however when do the executives of a company become a 'Public Figure' and lose their right to privacy? Why is it okay to follow someone and publish everything they say and do?
The same thing, of course, can be said for journalists. The lines are being blurred all around.
these aren't blurry lines. if Emil Michael feels like a journalist stepped over a line in reporting then he should have filed a civil suit. that's not what he suggested. he suggested utilizing millions of dollars of the resources of a billion dollar company to engage a campaign of systematic intimidation and harassment against journalists he didn't like.
Because this is what journalists do.
Ah, yes. Two wrongs make a right. Of course they do.
Is that really your position? Or do you want somebody in the room to be a responsible grownup?
(Of course, preferably both sides would be grownups, but one side crawling into the gutter does not excuse the other side for also doing so.)
Is that really your position? Or do you want somebody in the room to be a responsible grownup?
(Of course, preferably both sides would be grownups, but one side crawling into the gutter does not excuse the other side for also doing so.)
I agree. But does it justify idly suggesting, in frustration, that one do so?
So, journalists get a pass when they 'investigate' someone, but the people they're investigating can't do a 'counter-investigation'? Are journalists some kind of special beings?
You're equating the two kinds of investigating. The "counter-investigation" you're talking about is retaliatory — write something we don't like and we'll punish you with details about your personal life.
Journalists are not special beings, but it is typically presumed that they report in good faith, and without ulterior motives. I know that isn't always true, but it's true often enough that I think the burden of proof would be on the people being investigated to prove that the journalist's intent was malicious.
Journalists are not special beings, but it is typically presumed that they report in good faith, and without ulterior motives. I know that isn't always true, but it's true often enough that I think the burden of proof would be on the people being investigated to prove that the journalist's intent was malicious.
How would they prove the journalist's intent was malicious without conducting an investigation of their own?
a) Organizations (for profit and not) should be monitoring journalists and columnists who write about them. Conflicts of interests are rampant and often undisclosed. Individuals, both writers and editors are courted and manipulated continuously. You should care if journalist X is getting invited to the White House or your competitor's private events. As a blatant example there is a certain NYT columnists whose contributions have included almost word for word the position of a lobbying group I'm familiar with. I'll leave him unnamed.
b) The page view journalism model rewards writers for being inflammatory and exaggerating. This means you really need to keep a close eye on writers for disinformation because when something spreads, it happens really fast, within hours. Rather than lengthy investigative pieces, the model is basically a fire hose of shit and watching which chunk sticks and goes viral. This also means writers tend to produce volumes of articles attacking the same or similar individuals and organizations. Some of the ludicrous stories I've seen recently track back to writers with minimal to no credentials and a long stream of irrelevant "stories." One piece of shit stuck and it blows up. What these guys are doing is more closely analogous to trolling and hate speech than informed research.
I'm not the kind of person who imagines the world is constantly devolving towards a lower state. I think the negatives from the current nature of "journalism" are outweighed by the positives we have gained from the same communications & publishing trends.
The best thing you can do as an individual is to not read stories from these sorts of groups. The headlines are misleading, the stories are often irrelevant and misinformed. Stick to places that publish accurate titles and require writers with some sort of credentials.
b) The page view journalism model rewards writers for being inflammatory and exaggerating. This means you really need to keep a close eye on writers for disinformation because when something spreads, it happens really fast, within hours. Rather than lengthy investigative pieces, the model is basically a fire hose of shit and watching which chunk sticks and goes viral. This also means writers tend to produce volumes of articles attacking the same or similar individuals and organizations. Some of the ludicrous stories I've seen recently track back to writers with minimal to no credentials and a long stream of irrelevant "stories." One piece of shit stuck and it blows up. What these guys are doing is more closely analogous to trolling and hate speech than informed research.
I'm not the kind of person who imagines the world is constantly devolving towards a lower state. I think the negatives from the current nature of "journalism" are outweighed by the positives we have gained from the same communications & publishing trends.
The best thing you can do as an individual is to not read stories from these sorts of groups. The headlines are misleading, the stories are often irrelevant and misinformed. Stick to places that publish accurate titles and require writers with some sort of credentials.
> The page view journalism model rewards writers for being inflammatory and exaggerating
Just look at this discussion
Just look at this discussion
Ya, on the record here, I think you're absolutely correct.
A lot of journalists, Lacy included, have written pieces targeting founders based on events in their personal lives and their pasts.
People are correct to freak out when someone targets another person by digging into their private lives, the problem is a lot of tech journalists have gotten away with this, especially when the founders or entrepreneurs in question have been libertarians or right-wingers.
People are correct to freak out when someone targets another person by digging into their private lives, the problem is a lot of tech journalists have gotten away with this, especially when the founders or entrepreneurs in question have been libertarians or right-wingers.
Sure, that could be the case.
Of course you would have to completely ignore the constant pattern of scummy behavior from Uber that is perfectly consistent with this particular incident.
Of course you would have to completely ignore the constant pattern of scummy behavior from Uber that is perfectly consistent with this particular incident.
[deleted]
I think it's sad that you feel the need to use a throwaway, because your interpretation is pretty much how I read things.
Amen.
They should probably fire Emil Michael or similar. The
"spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine"
proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be associated with that stuff.
"spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine"
proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be associated with that stuff.
Given the Benny Hill-esque series of blunders by Uber in recent memory, I'm not sure it's safe to think that Emil Michael and his behavior is the exception at Uber, rather than the rule, and that firing him would rid them of this type of behavior/culture.
And given the publicly documented exploits of Travis Kalanick I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.
And given the publicly documented exploits of Travis Kalanick I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.
You may be right, but its still clear that Emil Michael is toxic and not suited for a leadership position of anything larger than a shoebox. He should be fired.
>I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.
Culture always comes from the top, toxic or otherwise, imho.
Culture always comes from the top, toxic or otherwise, imho.
yeah, quite likely
And you have the love the sequence of events:
(1) First their senior business executive (Michael) not only floats his plan at very public venue, but mentions both the budget ($1M) and the number of researches (4) they were thinking of hiring.
(2) And then later, in damage control mode, the spokesperson (Hourdajian) tries to clean up by saying they've "never considered" doing opposition research -- despite Michael having just named both a specific budget they were thinking of allocating, and a specific number of researchers they were thinking of hiring.
(1) First their senior business executive (Michael) not only floats his plan at very public venue, but mentions both the budget ($1M) and the number of researches (4) they were thinking of hiring.
(2) And then later, in damage control mode, the spokesperson (Hourdajian) tries to clean up by saying they've "never considered" doing opposition research -- despite Michael having just named both a specific budget they were thinking of allocating, and a specific number of researchers they were thinking of hiring.
And apparently a specific rumor about a specific person they wanted to validate.
As if to drive the point home.
They want to "give the media a taste of its own medicine"? They already are. It's called marketing and advertising. The press, political parties and private businesses constantly manipulate people's opinions. They both use elements of fantasy and attention grabbing headlines.
Here's the marketing copy on Uber's website right now: "WELCOME TO ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE", "TIME, VALUE, AND CONVENIENCE — YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL", "HAVE MORE FUN WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER MOST", "YOUR SHORTCUT TO EVERYWHERE IS ARRIVING NOW".
Oh really, so you're fine spewing total bullshit but you're gonna have a hissy-fit and act like a toddler when someone writes a sensational article?
Get over yourselves!
Here's the marketing copy on Uber's website right now: "WELCOME TO ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE", "TIME, VALUE, AND CONVENIENCE — YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL", "HAVE MORE FUN WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER MOST", "YOUR SHORTCUT TO EVERYWHERE IS ARRIVING NOW".
Oh really, so you're fine spewing total bullshit but you're gonna have a hissy-fit and act like a toddler when someone writes a sensational article?
Get over yourselves!
To be fair, there's a big gap between saying how you could spend a million dollars and spending a million dollars.
But if someone who worked for me started talking about exacting revenge on enemies -- in a public forum or not -- I would definitely have a problem with that.
But if someone who worked for me started talking about exacting revenge on enemies -- in a public forum or not -- I would definitely have a problem with that.
I get the feeling that there's a side that Buzzfeed and Pando aren't mentioning.
The executive mentioned 'they'd be justified' in digging up dirt on Sarah Lacy. I wonder on what basis that one would justify that - the article mentions Lacy's criticism for a dumb ad campaign in France, but that doesn't seem like something that would provoke a response saying 'we'd be justified on digging up dirt about you'.
Does anyone know if Sarah Lacy has dug up dirt on Uber staff and their families?
The executive mentioned 'they'd be justified' in digging up dirt on Sarah Lacy. I wonder on what basis that one would justify that - the article mentions Lacy's criticism for a dumb ad campaign in France, but that doesn't seem like something that would provoke a response saying 'we'd be justified on digging up dirt about you'.
Does anyone know if Sarah Lacy has dug up dirt on Uber staff and their families?
That is extremely speculative. I know you're just asking questions, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Most people don't do things like that and it's not nice to imply otherwise absent any evidence.
It's speculative, but not extremely so. Most people don't randomly suggest they'd be justified going after other people's families after simple criticism, so let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
EDIT: according to other posters, who read the website in question, Sarah Lacy regularly reports on people's personal lives. Which sounds like exactly what the under person was talking about doing back.
EDIT: according to other posters, who read the website in question, Sarah Lacy regularly reports on people's personal lives. Which sounds like exactly what the under person was talking about doing back.
Most people aren't Uber.
[deleted]
What specifically did she do that would justify investigating her family?
I'm sure they should fire him, but from what I've seen and heard around town, this is an expression of their culture, not some outlier.
App was a great step forward, but it's clear they have a poisoned culture. Emil isn't a bad apple, he's the same as the rest of the barrel.
Perhaps this is not a case of a barrel full of rotten apples, but a barrel full of durians.
Anyway, the idiom is "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel."
yeah that is not....
In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals. I'm not going to defend the guy that made these comments, but I've heard enough from Sara and Paul to know that Pando has waged war on Uber, and should not be surprised that they've ruffled some feathers.
Pando also shares a common investor with Lyft, so there's that...
Pando also shares a common investor with Lyft, so there's that...
In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals.
I've desperately avoided commenting on anything related to his because I've known Travis for about a decade, but... you are sadly mistaken. Uber has a downright toxic culture. Sarah might have gone a little far here and there, but it is not because Travis is capitalistic, but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago.
I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery.
I've desperately avoided commenting on anything related to his because I've known Travis for about a decade, but... you are sadly mistaken. Uber has a downright toxic culture. Sarah might have gone a little far here and there, but it is not because Travis is capitalistic, but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago.
I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery.
I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery.
That sounds like a reasonable reminder of the rules and protocols. Unless you are suggesting that the power differential can be overcome and managers should have sex with their subordinates.
That sounds like a reasonable reminder of the rules and protocols. Unless you are suggesting that the power differential can be overcome and managers should have sex with their subordinates.
> but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of VC money does that to people. Looking forward to the documentary about Uber after its function is turned into a commodity.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of VC money does that to people. Looking forward to the documentary about Uber after its function is turned into a commodity.
> I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone.
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that?
... then Travis is playing right into their hands and feeding the troll.
Personal flame wars on the net are one thing, but involving your company in that shit? The minute you take money and hire other people it's not your personal sandbox. This 4chan crap should at best come with a huge "my opinions are my own" disclaimer and should never involve your company.
Personal flame wars on the net are one thing, but involving your company in that shit? The minute you take money and hire other people it's not your personal sandbox. This 4chan crap should at best come with a huge "my opinions are my own" disclaimer and should never involve your company.
> Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals
That sounds very speculative and about someone's state of mind. Could you give concrete examples of what you mean?
That sounds very speculative and about someone's state of mind. Could you give concrete examples of what you mean?
Acting like an ass is not necessarily a zero-sum game. But that doesn't change the fact that publicly musing about going after someone's family for revenge is totally unacceptable.
There was no mention of blackmail.
There was no mention of revealing the location of children.
There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist.
There was no "implication" about leaking customer data.
As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging.
If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exaggerating or making stuff up, otherwise you risk making legitimate critics look like sensational buffoons.
There was no mention of revealing the location of children.
There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist.
There was no "implication" about leaking customer data.
As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging.
If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exaggerating or making stuff up, otherwise you risk making legitimate critics look like sensational buffoons.
According to the article an Uber executive did indeed access a journalist's data without her permission, something the spokesperson said was not possible:
"In fact, the general manager of Uber NYC accessed the profile of a BuzzFeed News reporter, Johana Bhuiyan, to make points in the course of a discussion of Uber policies. At no point in the email exchanges did she give him permission to do so."
Or does "rifling" mean something else to you?
"In fact, the general manager of Uber NYC accessed the profile of a BuzzFeed News reporter, Johana Bhuiyan, to make points in the course of a discussion of Uber policies. At no point in the email exchanges did she give him permission to do so."
Or does "rifling" mean something else to you?
It wasn't clear what "accessed the profile" meant.
I guess it's talking about the travel logs from 2 paragraphs above?
I guess it's talking about the travel logs from 2 paragraphs above?
I suspect that the information pulled form the journalist's profile was pretty innocuous, or else they would have made more of a big deal about it.
But at the same time, the point isn't that "the Uber GM found some hideously private information about the journalist," the point is that regardless of what their "information policy" is, the GM could access the account of the journalist, and was apparently comfortable doing so based on his own discretion and sense of propriety rather than explicit permission. If his sense of propriety was fine, and the information was innocuous, then that particular event wasn't a big deal. But it kind of makes lie of the idea that another high-level individual at Uber who may have, shall we say, different ideas about propiety could not abuse the information that Uber is entrusted with.
But at the same time, the point isn't that "the Uber GM found some hideously private information about the journalist," the point is that regardless of what their "information policy" is, the GM could access the account of the journalist, and was apparently comfortable doing so based on his own discretion and sense of propriety rather than explicit permission. If his sense of propriety was fine, and the information was innocuous, then that particular event wasn't a big deal. But it kind of makes lie of the idea that another high-level individual at Uber who may have, shall we say, different ideas about propiety could not abuse the information that Uber is entrusted with.
Agree. In contrast, when I worked at Amazon, customer privacy was pretty religiously protected.
To access detailed customer information required getting a one-time-use key, which is generated from a request that references other documentation (bug reports, customer support requests, etc) as well as a justification.
This key would only work against a single customer, and expires after some time.
The requests themselves are regularly audited internally to prevent abuse.
This is the level of internal privacy guarantees a company like Uber needs. No employee should have unmonitored, carte blanche access to customer data.
To access detailed customer information required getting a one-time-use key, which is generated from a request that references other documentation (bug reports, customer support requests, etc) as well as a justification.
This key would only work against a single customer, and expires after some time.
The requests themselves are regularly audited internally to prevent abuse.
This is the level of internal privacy guarantees a company like Uber needs. No employee should have unmonitored, carte blanche access to customer data.
This is the point.
The fact that the CEO can access data at whim should be very troubling. That means they don't have even the most basic infosec guidelines in place.
The fact that the CEO can access data at whim should be very troubling. That means they don't have even the most basic infosec guidelines in place.
[deleted]
There's a difference between accurately representing a statement and being being willfully blind to the statement taken as a whole. It's not fair to take an isolated statement out of context, but it's also not fair to assert that a series of statements taken in context don't mean anything more than they do in isolation.
All of those things are in his statements. He doesn't have to spell it out for you to know what he means.
All of those things are in his statements. He doesn't have to spell it out for you to know what he means.
There was no mention of blackmail.
There was no need. It's kind of like when someone says "we know where you live", "watch your back", etc -- the implication is clear.
There was no need. It's kind of like when someone says "we know where you live", "watch your back", etc -- the implication is clear.
You don't say things like this to an audience containing media members and not expect it to get out. Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail. Are we supposed to assume Uber does not already buy 1MM PR spends?
Yeah, if this is the shit they do and talk about in public, WTF do they do and talk about in private?
EDIT: Oh my God, they also have the location data of the comings and goings of lots of politicians and industry regulators, don't they? Late night trips from locations some of those people might not want made public? If they'll so casually threaten a mother's kids, threaten journalists with $1M smear campaigns, what else have they already done?
EDIT: Oh my God, they also have the location data of the comings and goings of lots of politicians and industry regulators, don't they? Late night trips from locations some of those people might not want made public? If they'll so casually threaten a mother's kids, threaten journalists with $1M smear campaigns, what else have they already done?
They have the location data of everyone using their service. They also have "god view":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view-...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view-...
>"Sims got the text “from someone he hardly knew,” he recalls in a Medium post, asking him if he was in an Uber car at 33rd Street and 5th Avenue."
Wow I forgot about this fiasco. It literally reads like a scene from The Circle. Disturbing.
Wow I forgot about this fiasco. It literally reads like a scene from The Circle. Disturbing.
That fiasco is reason alone to never ride in an Uber.
Now, which of their executives is going to end up as a senator?
pravda(1)
> You don't say things like this to an audience containing media members and not expect it to get out.
You do if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac who got shoved money up the ass by shriveling old millionaires for having a business model that is based on siphoning money off less-than-minimum wage workers.
You do if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac who got shoved money up the ass by shriveling old millionaires for having a business model that is based on siphoning money off less-than-minimum wage workers.
> Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail.
This is a direct attempt to shut her up -- this an attempt to silence their critics via blackmail -- and they hoped it wouldn't get mainstream press coverage. They hoped she would find out just via whispers from those who were there.
This is a direct attempt to shut her up -- this an attempt to silence their critics via blackmail -- and they hoped it wouldn't get mainstream press coverage. They hoped she would find out just via whispers from those who were there.
It's not blackmail by either the legal or common-usage definition of blackmail. Even if Uber followed through with such a sleazy plan, it would not be blackmail. For blackmail, a demand must be made, accompanied by a menace. Floating an idea that you plan on digging up dirt? That might have been an incipient but ill-advised plan, it might be idle dreaming, or it might be it might be machiavellian FUD.
> For blackmail, a demand must be made, accompanied by a menace.
It may not meet the legal definition -- but there is a clear demand and menace:
The demand is that journalists do not write negative stories on Uber.
The menace is that Uber will retaliate against any journalists by digging up dirty on them personally and thus hurting either their reputation, careers, or relationships.
It may not meet the legal definition -- but there is a clear demand and menace:
The demand is that journalists do not write negative stories on Uber.
The menace is that Uber will retaliate against any journalists by digging up dirty on them personally and thus hurting either their reputation, careers, or relationships.
Except the "demand" is not a demand directed at anyone, but just the world in general -- since it's after the fact. They would dig up dirt on those who have already written negative articles. No demands are made of them. And no demands are made of any nameable individuals. If you ask "who are they blackmailing", the answer is "a hypothetical."
Not all blackmail is done by cartoon villains. This was clearly a threat, made by someone who has made more than a casual thought about it: “Stop reporting about us or we attack you personally”
I wonder... what if that's the point? What if mentioning it to an audience containing media members means that it does get out, and therefore they don't have to spend the million bucks?
Are you reading a different article? None of those threats were mentioned in the one I'm reading...
Emil Michael suggested that Uber should hire opposition researchers to investigate the personal and family lives of journalists, including but not limited to, harassment of their spouses and children.
Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families.
The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home.
The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.
Here's her response, in PandoDaily: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...
The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home.
The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.
Here's her response, in PandoDaily: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...
> Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families.
> The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.
Obvious implication? I think it's more of a convenient assumption you're making to suit your own personal grudge against Uber.
The comments he made were clearly idiotic, but your eagerness to interpret them in the most extreme and sensational way possible is no better.
> The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.
Obvious implication? I think it's more of a convenient assumption you're making to suit your own personal grudge against Uber.
The comments he made were clearly idiotic, but your eagerness to interpret them in the most extreme and sensational way possible is no better.
Please explain the NON "extreme and sensational" way to interpret comments talking about spending one million dollars to target, intimidate, and smear the press and to dig up dirt on their families.
What's really cute is that even Uber doesn't even deny that this happened. No, that's all on you, dear HN commenter.
What's really cute is that even Uber doesn't even deny that this happened. No, that's all on you, dear HN commenter.
DontBeADick(1)
Didn't the parent post already explain? The journalist writes details about people personal lives for a tech gossip site. The Uber person is non seriously (even accordion to the article) musing over what would happen if the company was to do the same thing back. No conspiracy theory needed.
I couldn't even install the app - it asks for way too much permissons.
The threat against the children was vile and terrifying. The investors of Uber should be ashamed of themselves. Needless to say, a lot of Uber users are parents, and this news will definitely spread.
The language you use makes it seem like this guy threatened to physically hurt people's children. That's quite manipulative, especially your choice of emotional words such as "vile" and "terrifying".
His language was indeed a bit hyperbolic. But this doesn't lessen the inherent creepiness -- and sure, let us also say vileness -- of what the Uber executive said in that meeting.
Where does the article say anything about children?
"Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine."
"your families" = "your children"
"your families" = "your children"
> "your families" = "your children"
I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make. "Your family" could just as easily be referring to adult family members only (spouses, siblings, parents, etc.).
It seems like you're jumping to that conclusion solely because it makes his comments more inflammatory.
I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make. "Your family" could just as easily be referring to adult family members only (spouses, siblings, parents, etc.).
It seems like you're jumping to that conclusion solely because it makes his comments more inflammatory.
Family refers to all members of a family - adult members AND children. So, by threatening someone's family, one implicitly threatens any members of a family who are children (as well as the other members of a family).
When they're talking about "digging up dirt" I don't see how that's going to apply to children. Context is important, and reducing it to 'threat' is misleading. Even though yes it is a subtype of threat.
Really? You don't know anyone who has a special-needs child? The public at large can be very unkind to any who aren't "normal". And that's leaving alone those disturbed individuals who just like to "break things" and are just looking for a target.
Even simply exposing that information is a threat, possibly causing a chilling effect - which is exactly what this Uber exec wants.
Even simply exposing that information is a threat, possibly causing a chilling effect - which is exactly what this Uber exec wants.
Knowing that a child exists with special needs doesn't hurt the child...
>disturbed individuals [...] looking for a target
What??? Where did you get here from "digging up dirt". (For one, you don't need dirt to post someone's name on /b/ or whatever you have in mind.) The level of hyperbole on this submission is awful and pains me to read.
>disturbed individuals [...] looking for a target
What??? Where did you get here from "digging up dirt". (For one, you don't need dirt to post someone's name on /b/ or whatever you have in mind.) The level of hyperbole on this submission is awful and pains me to read.
plus it's much more fun to get all spun up about the most uncharitable interpretation possible. it works for Internet fights, relationship fights, street fights... an amazingly versatile technique for disrupting harmony.
There were no threats. Stop making stuff up.
The comments were about "digging up dirt". Sleazy as that is, it doesn't even require personal contact.
The comments were about "digging up dirt". Sleazy as that is, it doesn't even require personal contact.
I don't think the comment was made to threaten her children, but any parent who hears those words is going to think about their kids first, and become very defensive.
[deleted]
It's not the sort of thing you should have to aprse in the first place. There's a narrow set of circumstances in which some family issues might be legitimate to discuss, eg if a journalist's spouse or other immediate relative was a senior officer or investor in a direct competitor - but then you could just say 'we think X is an unethical journalist because s/he has a major conflict of interest which biases articles s/he writes about our firm' because there's plenty of precedent for dealing with such issues in the world of financial journalism.
Vague talk of investigating 'your families' comes off more as an attempt to intimidate; arguably the vagueness is intended to provoke anxiety and worry to a greater degree than a specific allegation (as above) that could be refuted or debunked.
Vague talk of investigating 'your families' comes off more as an attempt to intimidate; arguably the vagueness is intended to provoke anxiety and worry to a greater degree than a specific allegation (as above) that could be refuted or debunked.
That's not really a statement that can be defended.
"No, no, we won't look ONLY into your children, we'll ALSO look into your spouses, siblings, and parents."
"No, no, we won't look ONLY into your children, we'll ALSO look into your spouses, siblings, and parents."
[deleted]
What a sensationalist reaction to a sensationalist article.
> These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days.
You won't consider them only because alternatives exist? What are you trying to say there?
> These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days.
You won't consider them only because alternatives exist? What are you trying to say there?
That's the lowest level of vote with your wallet statement.
Like "That's it facebook, you have abused my privacy one too many times, I will disconnect for a whole week-end."
Like "That's it facebook, you have abused my privacy one too many times, I will disconnect for a whole week-end."
How do you opt out of airports?
I believe she is referring to opting out of the full body scanners[1] in American airports. One can do that by telling the TSA agent that they'd like to opt out of the scanner. They will instead do a manual pat down.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
> Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR?
Every major company does this, just not in the ham fisted way that Uber has done. Want NYT tech reporter to give positive reviews of Apple? Give him special access to newsworthy stories from inside, early access to devices, free gear, fly him out to special events and treat him like a prince. He gives an overly critical review? Take it all away. He'll have to hear from his friends at WSJ how great this year's event was, or how cool the devices are. They'll be special, he won't.
Every major company does this, just not in the ham fisted way that Uber has done. Want NYT tech reporter to give positive reviews of Apple? Give him special access to newsworthy stories from inside, early access to devices, free gear, fly him out to special events and treat him like a prince. He gives an overly critical review? Take it all away. He'll have to hear from his friends at WSJ how great this year's event was, or how cool the devices are. They'll be special, he won't.
Surely you can see the difference between "loss of favorable treatment and perks" and "gross abuse of private data and anonymous slander"?
What you've described - while highly problematic - is a pretty big distance away from "blackmail".
What you've described - while highly problematic - is a pretty big distance away from "blackmail".
I'm not saying I support it, I'm just pointing out that companies manipulate journalists all the time and incentivize them not to "challenge the company's PR" as the GP put it. Uber's threats were extreme and beyond what is tolerated outside of politics. They could have manipulated her much easier by giving her unlimited free Uber "to better evaluate the service".
Oh I agree that there's a huge problem in using incentives to manipulate journalists and coverage - but I do think the comparison is a bit stretched.
It's like comparing a hang glider to a jumbo jet. Sure, both are bad behavior and have some common motivations, but the moral gap is gigantic.
It's like comparing a hang glider to a jumbo jet. Sure, both are bad behavior and have some common motivations, but the moral gap is gigantic.
That's very very different than ruining the journo"s life.
If I say: "I wish that guy/girl would get exposed" - that's a pretty non-specific statement. You can laugh that one off and it can be spun all kinds of ways.
If I say: "I should dig up dirt on that person" - that's much more specific, but not always. It's harder to ignore and it's far more difficult to put a just-kidding spin on it.
If I say: "I should spend a million dollars and hire four researchers to dig up opposition research on this person to expose their private life" - that's pretty damn specific. You can't unsay that. There's no way to spin that that it doesn't sound like a threat, especially if it's known, or at least believed, that you have the resources and connections to pull that off.
Michael may be a guy who was just spouting off in frustration without thinking first, which is fine - it happens from time to time. But he's also in the top tier of a very valuable company and he's paid to pay attention and be on his toes.
And he wasn't.
He then tried to laugh it off by saying "he doesn't think that way". Well, it came from somewhere in his brain. There weren't any flying monkeys dropping notions from the sky; no random inspiron from a long-dead galaxy just collided with a neuron and LOL I SEZ STUPID STUFF.
He screwed up badly. He needs to be held to account for that and harshly, because that idea is out there now. It might not be acceptable now, but sooner or later, given enough repetition, it will become acceptable.
If I say: "I should dig up dirt on that person" - that's much more specific, but not always. It's harder to ignore and it's far more difficult to put a just-kidding spin on it.
If I say: "I should spend a million dollars and hire four researchers to dig up opposition research on this person to expose their private life" - that's pretty damn specific. You can't unsay that. There's no way to spin that that it doesn't sound like a threat, especially if it's known, or at least believed, that you have the resources and connections to pull that off.
Michael may be a guy who was just spouting off in frustration without thinking first, which is fine - it happens from time to time. But he's also in the top tier of a very valuable company and he's paid to pay attention and be on his toes.
And he wasn't.
He then tried to laugh it off by saying "he doesn't think that way". Well, it came from somewhere in his brain. There weren't any flying monkeys dropping notions from the sky; no random inspiron from a long-dead galaxy just collided with a neuron and LOL I SEZ STUPID STUFF.
He screwed up badly. He needs to be held to account for that and harshly, because that idea is out there now. It might not be acceptable now, but sooner or later, given enough repetition, it will become acceptable.
[deleted](1)
I am surprised not to see the word misogynist on this page. Here, a SVP is not only threatening a reporter and her family (which is truly repugnant) and reporters generally, he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way:
"He said that he thought Lacy should be held “personally responsible” for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted."
The top comment on this page talks about a "visceral" feeling, I had the same one. I had the same feeling I had when I heard things like Todd Akin (a politican in the US) talking about "legitimate rape." Do we really want people like this shaping our future?
"He said that he thought Lacy should be held “personally responsible” for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted."
The top comment on this page talks about a "visceral" feeling, I had the same one. I had the same feeling I had when I heard things like Todd Akin (a politican in the US) talking about "legitimate rape." Do we really want people like this shaping our future?
> I am surprised not to see the word misogynist on this page.
Yeah. When a prominent dude is so upset by a woman accusing his company of sexism and misogyny that he publicly talks about spending a million dollars to destroy her life, it's hard not to see this as systemic misogyny in action.
Especially telling to me is that his CEO was there at the dinner. If one of my employees was talking like this in public, let alone to other journalists, his goose would be cooked. "I'm sorry, Mr. Michael has clearly had a little too much to drink. The press has an important role to play in our society, and Uber would never do anything like this." Then, the next morning Michael would announce that he was leaving to spend more time with his family.
But instead we get some mealy-mouthed damage-control PR.
Yeah. When a prominent dude is so upset by a woman accusing his company of sexism and misogyny that he publicly talks about spending a million dollars to destroy her life, it's hard not to see this as systemic misogyny in action.
Especially telling to me is that his CEO was there at the dinner. If one of my employees was talking like this in public, let alone to other journalists, his goose would be cooked. "I'm sorry, Mr. Michael has clearly had a little too much to drink. The press has an important role to play in our society, and Uber would never do anything like this." Then, the next morning Michael would announce that he was leaving to spend more time with his family.
But instead we get some mealy-mouthed damage-control PR.
+N. Its equally telling about the CEO as it is about Emil Michael.
he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way
While I hardly want to be in a camp that defends him in any way, he was specifically addressed her claims. How is it misogynist for him to argue that the risk of sexual assault are lower in an Uber vehicle, or vice versa?
While I hardly want to be in a camp that defends him in any way, he was specifically addressed her claims. How is it misogynist for him to argue that the risk of sexual assault are lower in an Uber vehicle, or vice versa?
I don't think it's wrong to argue that point, ie, "I wish this reporter would understand how we work to create a safer environment, look at the stats, etc" but I think it's far out of line to go beyond that and assign "personal responsibility" to someone who is arguing against your product, especially around these sort of crimes. To me, that seems like taking the argument to a really personal place and also, trivializing what should be a serious discussion.
It's possible he's pissed of at Sarah Lacy for reasons other than that she's a woman.
Well, he's pissed at a woman journalist accusing his company of sexism and misogyny. He said so. This is already a gendered incident.
So sure, it's possible that he'd also talk about destroying a male journalist for the same thing. Heck, it's possible that he has the bodies of a dozen journalists, all male, buried in his back yard. But given that this was already about sexism and misogyny, given Uber's notoriously douchebro culture, and given that prominent women on the Internet are regularly attacked in ways that men aren't, interpreting this as a continuing pattern of misogynistic behavior seems reasonable.
So sure, it's possible that he'd also talk about destroying a male journalist for the same thing. Heck, it's possible that he has the bodies of a dozen journalists, all male, buried in his back yard. But given that this was already about sexism and misogyny, given Uber's notoriously douchebro culture, and given that prominent women on the Internet are regularly attacked in ways that men aren't, interpreting this as a continuing pattern of misogynistic behavior seems reasonable.
So all you have to do is accuse people of sexism, and anything they do in reaction to that is automatically sexist? Does that make Arthur Miller a communist?
That is not what I said. If you're really having trouble interpreting what I wrote, perhaps you could ask less loaded question, and one more specifically related to what you're replying to.
That is exactly what you said! You said that when a woman journalist accuses you of sexism, it's already a "gendered incident" (even if you didn't do anything to deserve the original accusation!) and getting angry at her can be "reasonably" interpreted as a "continuing pattern of misogynistic behavior". The logical consequence of that is that any woman journalist can indict someone for misogyny and it's automatically true, in your eyes, if they try to defend themselves.
Logical? By no-shades-of-gray, nuance-eliminating, crazy-person logic, sure.
Uber did some sexist stuff. A woman called them out for it. A man got upset and talked about a detailed revenge fantasy against her. He did not name any other journalists, even though plenty of people have been critical of Uber. Gender is part of this story.
I'm not saying that this guy is or is not a sexist or a misogynist, and I'm not saying that Uber does or does not have a culture that contributes to sexist or misogynist behavior. I wasn't present. I don't know enough to determine "true" here. Probably nobody does. Probably nobody ever will.
I am saying that is reasonable to suspect that gender plays a role here. Which is why I said "interpreting this as a continuing pattern of misogynistic behavior seems reasonable," and not whatever you think I said. We live in a world with a history millennia long of systemic sexism and endemic misogyny, a history we haven't entirely emerged from yet. People who see this incident as part of that history are not insane. They are reasonable.
I'm not saying that's the only reasonable interpretation. I'm saying reasonable people can differ on things like this, and you frothing at me won't change that.
Uber did some sexist stuff. A woman called them out for it. A man got upset and talked about a detailed revenge fantasy against her. He did not name any other journalists, even though plenty of people have been critical of Uber. Gender is part of this story.
I'm not saying that this guy is or is not a sexist or a misogynist, and I'm not saying that Uber does or does not have a culture that contributes to sexist or misogynist behavior. I wasn't present. I don't know enough to determine "true" here. Probably nobody does. Probably nobody ever will.
I am saying that is reasonable to suspect that gender plays a role here. Which is why I said "interpreting this as a continuing pattern of misogynistic behavior seems reasonable," and not whatever you think I said. We live in a world with a history millennia long of systemic sexism and endemic misogyny, a history we haven't entirely emerged from yet. People who see this incident as part of that history are not insane. They are reasonable.
I'm not saying that's the only reasonable interpretation. I'm saying reasonable people can differ on things like this, and you frothing at me won't change that.
You've qualified your words very well then; whenever someone calls you out for what you said, you can credibly backtrack to the fact that you didn't say much of anything. You would have a promising career in politics.
What you imply has troublesome connotations, which you seem unwilling to honestly address, so you just insult me instead.
What you imply has troublesome connotations, which you seem unwilling to honestly address, so you just insult me instead.
Your inferring something does not mean I implied it. Also, I didn't insult you, I mocked your eminently mockable argument. You're going to have to work on your reading comprehension if you want to be taken seriously.
I'm not backtracking at all. I said that gender was clearly in play, and that it seemed reasonable to see his behaviors as misogynistic given the context. I stand by those statements.
I'm not backtracking at all. I said that gender was clearly in play, and that it seemed reasonable to see his behaviors as misogynistic given the context. I stand by those statements.
> I didn't insult you... You're going to have to work on your reading comprehension if you want to be taken seriously.
That's the third time you've insulted me and you're saying you didn't insult me? It's reasonable to see your behavior as trolling. Learn to discuss things like an adult instead of making personal attacks and maybe I'll take your ideas seriously. As it stands, you're only discrediting yourself.
By the way, judging from my comment score at least four other people inferred the same thing from your comment that I did. That's a large enough number that maybe you're the one who didn't explain yourself clearly. Think about that before making any more comments about my reading comprehension.
That's the third time you've insulted me and you're saying you didn't insult me? It's reasonable to see your behavior as trolling. Learn to discuss things like an adult instead of making personal attacks and maybe I'll take your ideas seriously. As it stands, you're only discrediting yourself.
By the way, judging from my comment score at least four other people inferred the same thing from your comment that I did. That's a large enough number that maybe you're the one who didn't explain yourself clearly. Think about that before making any more comments about my reading comprehension.
> That's the third time you've insulted me and you're saying you didn't insult me?
You are failing to comprehend the exact words I wrote in a way that I am having a hard time seeing as other than willful. Because of that, I'm taking you as a person with an axe to grind, not someone who's serious. So if you would like to be taken seriously...
And given that you leapt in to accuse me of being part of HUAC, calling me a troll is a little rich. Regardless, gender issues in tech are an interest of mine going back 20 years, so no, I am not trolling. But by all means keep up with the drama.
> By the way, judging from my comment score at least four other people inferred the same thing
Yes, that is the only possible interpretation of an upvote on Hacker News. Oh no! You have showed me! Chastened, I retreat from the field.
You are failing to comprehend the exact words I wrote in a way that I am having a hard time seeing as other than willful. Because of that, I'm taking you as a person with an axe to grind, not someone who's serious. So if you would like to be taken seriously...
And given that you leapt in to accuse me of being part of HUAC, calling me a troll is a little rich. Regardless, gender issues in tech are an interest of mine going back 20 years, so no, I am not trolling. But by all means keep up with the drama.
> By the way, judging from my comment score at least four other people inferred the same thing
Yes, that is the only possible interpretation of an upvote on Hacker News. Oh no! You have showed me! Chastened, I retreat from the field.
> And given that you leapt in to accuse me of being part of HUAC
Speaking of failing to comprehend the exact words someone wrote. If you want to be taken seriously you should extend the same courtesy to others, even those who disagree with you, full stop. I was disagreeing with you in good faith because I was troubled by the implications of what I thought you were saying, and instead of providing any kind of helpful clarifications you provided personal attacks. Which one of us has the axe to grind?
Speaking of failing to comprehend the exact words someone wrote. If you want to be taken seriously you should extend the same courtesy to others, even those who disagree with you, full stop. I was disagreeing with you in good faith because I was troubled by the implications of what I thought you were saying, and instead of providing any kind of helpful clarifications you provided personal attacks. Which one of us has the axe to grind?
It's not gendered. A reporter discussed supposed sexism and misogyny at a company. The man is frustrated because it's probably untrue, but we don't have a clear picture because the press has been sensationalizing anything anti-Uber for a while now, and no credible evidence is ever presented.
That doesn't make his response or anything about it gendered. It doesn't matter who slanders, it's frustrating when it happens, and joking about digging up dirt to do the exact same thing back to a journalist so they know what it feels like is tantamount to wishing an abusive person would some day get to know what being on the receiving end of that feels like.
Also, you should really check your sources about harassment on the internet. Prominent men are harassed more often and more violently than prominent women. It's a recently constructed myth that's been hyped up by the media over the past few months that the internet is an especially hostile place for women.
That doesn't make his response or anything about it gendered. It doesn't matter who slanders, it's frustrating when it happens, and joking about digging up dirt to do the exact same thing back to a journalist so they know what it feels like is tantamount to wishing an abusive person would some day get to know what being on the receiving end of that feels like.
Also, you should really check your sources about harassment on the internet. Prominent men are harassed more often and more violently than prominent women. It's a recently constructed myth that's been hyped up by the media over the past few months that the internet is an especially hostile place for women.
I don't think he's pissed off because she's a woman, he's pissed about because she's critical. Still, when he says someone will be "personally" responsible for someone's sexual assault, he's essentially trivializing sexual assault. It's like saying that a rape victim is "partially at fault", it's wrong, indefensible and misogynistic.
stop putting words into other people's mouths
That is not in any way 'like' blaming people for being raped.
It's a world apart from blaming victims, obviously. But the Uber exec is clearly suggesting we should blame the journalist for other people's sexual assault.
sorry I respectfully disagree -- here a SVP of a company is essentially saying, "by recommending people to not use my product, you are responsible if they get assaulted" -- it's essentially shifting the blame around a sex crime in a way that to my eyes really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes, the perpetrators. It's also such a flippant remark that it seems to me to show a callous indifference to what it means to be a victim of such a crime.
ps, agree with scarmig's point -- he's not "blaming the victim" but it does feel like shifting the blame, which minimizes what these crimes mean.
ps, agree with scarmig's point -- he's not "blaming the victim" but it does feel like shifting the blame, which minimizes what these crimes mean.
Lacy says Uber make her feel unsafe. Using the same deeply flawed logic, doesn't that feel like shifting the blame around a sex crime in a way that really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes, the perpetrators?
No, it isn't. This culture of "words mean whatever I want them to mean" is ridiculous. His statement does not express hatred of women. So it is not misogynistic. Turning misogyny into a buzzword that everyone ignores because it is never used appropriately is not beneficial.
>This culture of "words mean whatever I want them to mean" is ridiculous
The culture of bending anything to suit the agenda / narrative where one's feelings are prioritized over reality.
The culture of bending anything to suit the agenda / narrative where one's feelings are prioritized over reality.
Uber has now been deleted from my phone. I hope others consider doing the same.
Ditto.
I took 2 uber rides this morning; I just uninstalled Uber and installed Lyft. They have the same amount of cars down in here in San Jose.
Lyft only exists because Uber cleared the way and they continue to benefit from Uber doing the hard work of fighting the taxi industry and regulators. If you don't want to be a hypocrite you will need to walk.
It just so happens that in almost every possible industry, there are some who clear the way and others who benefit from them clearing the way.
Some of them even manage to do it without threatening reporters.
Some of them even manage to do it without threatening reporters.
I just downloaded it to support them. The more absurd the PC bullshit gets, the more the rest of us will push back just to spite you. I can't wait for my new shirt to arrive.
It's not PC it's called the free market? If I don't like Uber I have the choice not to use them.
Anyway, watch this :-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc
Anyway, watch this :-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc
I didn't say you had to use them. I said that when you come out and say "I'm boycotting X because they violated SOCJUS law" you help them more than you hurt them. Because the number of people who think the PC/SJW nonsense has gotten absurd is much higher than the number of people who think it is cool.
I think far, far more people will find Emil Michael's statements unacceptable than not. Including, I think, Uber itself.
I think if the majority of people would find his statements unacceptable, then people would not feel the need to deliberately misrepresent his statements to make them seem less acceptable.
Well, its not PC is it? It is holding oneself to a standard. It is clear that this man - and Uber it would seem - are not behaving to a standard that people would support.
A concept so simple that is lost on so many.
A concept so simple that is lost on so many.
>Well, its not PC is it?
Really? Then why is it so notable that the person is a "female journalist"? Why are people deliberately distorting "journalists are dragging our private affairs out to use against us, we should do it to them" as "he's threatening to reveal the locations of people's children"?
>are not behaving to a standard that people would support.
Many people do support, that's precisely what I said. I am supporting them, lots of people are supporting them.
Really? Then why is it so notable that the person is a "female journalist"? Why are people deliberately distorting "journalists are dragging our private affairs out to use against us, we should do it to them" as "he's threatening to reveal the locations of people's children"?
>are not behaving to a standard that people would support.
Many people do support, that's precisely what I said. I am supporting them, lots of people are supporting them.
It would be quite hard to judge how many people 'kept Uber installed despite this incident'. A simple scan over HN and the comments under the stories about this do not support your stance that many do support Uber in this.
The simple idea of "journalists are dragging our private affairs out to use against us, we should do it to them" is where these people fell down. Sure, some people are distorting it and it could therefore give the appearance of being pc, but in reality this is a moral problem.
Had they (he) held themselves to a higher standard, behaving in a morally responsible way, none of these things would happen and indeed they could be a leader in more ways than they originally intended to be (transportation).
The simple idea of "journalists are dragging our private affairs out to use against us, we should do it to them" is where these people fell down. Sure, some people are distorting it and it could therefore give the appearance of being pc, but in reality this is a moral problem.
Had they (he) held themselves to a higher standard, behaving in a morally responsible way, none of these things would happen and indeed they could be a leader in more ways than they originally intended to be (transportation).
>A simple scan over HN and the comments under the stories about this do not support your stance that many do support Uber in this.
HN posters are not a random sample.
HN posters are not a random sample.
You are correct. I figure that HN and the commenters on the articles about the issue are the people who know about this issue, the general public perhaps not so much.
Going by those assumptions, rule out the general public, and while I still don't have a random sample, I have something. Pretty much the only thing around without actually polling. And that only thing concludes the opposite of "lots of people are supporting them." But whatever, that's all smoke.
Going by those assumptions, rule out the general public, and while I still don't have a random sample, I have something. Pretty much the only thing around without actually polling. And that only thing concludes the opposite of "lots of people are supporting them." But whatever, that's all smoke.
[deleted]
Well, Nixon used to be equally vindictive with reporters (conplete with typed up master plan), most of whom were men (only one woman made it onto his infamous "Enemies List.")
It's very dangerous when people in power cannot maturely handle conflict and disagreement.
It's very dangerous when people in power cannot maturely handle conflict and disagreement.
Personally, I've stopped using Uber because of the lack of the company/management's lack of ethics. Lyft comes off as a much friendly, consumer-focused company & frankly, my experiences have been better in a Lyft than an UberX.
Also - I'm not one to usually browse Buzzfeed, but this was their story to break, so props to them for getting it out there.
Also - I'm not one to usually browse Buzzfeed, but this was their story to break, so props to them for getting it out there.
The thing that’s crazy is that Uber’s service is terrific. They can succeed quite handily in the market without resorting to this sort of bullshit (like that crazy caper where they asked drivers to make phony ride reservations on competing services).
I think Yglesias has the right take — the very qualities necessary to make an legally-grey service successful are going to become antithetical to them succeeding as a normal, law-abiding, “legally white” service. http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7240295/uber-privacy
I think Yglesias has the right take — the very qualities necessary to make an legally-grey service successful are going to become antithetical to them succeeding as a normal, law-abiding, “legally white” service. http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7240295/uber-privacy
Success is a matter of expectations and degree. Uber is clearly capable of providing success in the form of "make a popular service that people use and which has value," and I'd say like 95% certain, "that is capable of turning a sustained profit."
But they've raised money at a $17 billion+ valuation, from people who invested on the theory that they at least have a shot at a x5 profit -- so they need to target a valuation of $100 billion or so.
Which means that "make a popular service that people use and which has value and that is capable of turning a sustained profit" is now abject failure for them.
Success for Uber looks like "become part of the fundamental infrastructure of large parts of the world." It is NOT clear that they are on track to do that, and failure to do that is a real possibility, in a way that "failure to have a popular service that can make money" is not really a possibility.
But they've raised money at a $17 billion+ valuation, from people who invested on the theory that they at least have a shot at a x5 profit -- so they need to target a valuation of $100 billion or so.
Which means that "make a popular service that people use and which has value and that is capable of turning a sustained profit" is now abject failure for them.
Success for Uber looks like "become part of the fundamental infrastructure of large parts of the world." It is NOT clear that they are on track to do that, and failure to do that is a real possibility, in a way that "failure to have a popular service that can make money" is not really a possibility.
I don't want to sit in the front seat and I hate those stupid mustaches.
Same here, it's idiotic.
[deleted]
There's also Sidecar, it's pretty great. It is usually cheaper and let's you select from available drivers. You see their price upfront.
Sidecar is a joke in Chicago. They have only 2-3 drivers available at any time, wait times of 15-30 min, and 98% of the time they refuse your request anyway.
I fully expect Sidecar to just give up in Chicago any day now.
I fully expect Sidecar to just give up in Chicago any day now.
Uber is quite ok and i have not felt any of the problems which any of the news articles are reporting.
I think we all know what a lack of ethics gets you in the business world: more money and power.
Lyft only exists because Uber cleared the way. They also continue to benefit from Uber doing the hard work of fighting the taxi industry and regulators. If you don't want to be a hypocrite you will have to walk.
I can see how being assholes, intimidating the press, undermining rivals via dirty tricks, and other such behavior, can maximize shareholder value.
So maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal and we should all focus on how we can play dirty tricks on our competitors, how we can intimidate the journalists who have written bad stories on us or haven't covered us. Where does the strategy to use intimation via oppo-research stop? Can we apply this to any dealings with politicians, angles, VC, policy makers? I bet it can be effective in these areas as well. Maybe a company's strategy to "force outcomes" should be a required slide in all pitch decks now?
I wonder if Uber stops at just using intimidation in less developed countries where things are rougher and governments are more pliable than in the US and Canada? If there are few limits to Uber aggressiveness and they have money, you can easily pay people in a lot of developing nations to improve outcomes in a large variety of "creative ways", and you can easily distance yourself from how those outcomes are achieved.
It does seem that Uber teaches us that this is the new normal and if we are not doing this, we are not maximizing shareholder value.
So maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal and we should all focus on how we can play dirty tricks on our competitors, how we can intimidate the journalists who have written bad stories on us or haven't covered us. Where does the strategy to use intimation via oppo-research stop? Can we apply this to any dealings with politicians, angles, VC, policy makers? I bet it can be effective in these areas as well. Maybe a company's strategy to "force outcomes" should be a required slide in all pitch decks now?
I wonder if Uber stops at just using intimidation in less developed countries where things are rougher and governments are more pliable than in the US and Canada? If there are few limits to Uber aggressiveness and they have money, you can easily pay people in a lot of developing nations to improve outcomes in a large variety of "creative ways", and you can easily distance yourself from how those outcomes are achieved.
It does seem that Uber teaches us that this is the new normal and if we are not doing this, we are not maximizing shareholder value.
maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal
No we do not; this is the time to push back on it. Otherwise, as you say, you end up making the country more lawless and less developed by sending the thugs round to "achieve outcomes".
No we do not; this is the time to push back on it. Otherwise, as you say, you end up making the country more lawless and less developed by sending the thugs round to "achieve outcomes".
You can still compete by just being better. Stories like these definitely turn me off Uber, but for all the people saying "just use Lyft or Sidecar instead"... neither service is available in my country yet, let alone my city. But Uber is here.
Uber (for me, so far) has been far superior than local taxis, and it's all low hanging fruit: credit card billing, email receipts, comfortable cars, GPS tracking & ETA, friendly drivers who don't harass you, tips included in price, global business accounts, discounts & perks. Local taxis don't offer any of that, they're not even trying. Maybe Lyft & Sidecar offer that, but they're not in any of the cities I travel to globally. The world is not just San Francisco.
Make a damn good service first. I can't switch to your service if you won't even offer it to me.
Uber (for me, so far) has been far superior than local taxis, and it's all low hanging fruit: credit card billing, email receipts, comfortable cars, GPS tracking & ETA, friendly drivers who don't harass you, tips included in price, global business accounts, discounts & perks. Local taxis don't offer any of that, they're not even trying. Maybe Lyft & Sidecar offer that, but they're not in any of the cities I travel to globally. The world is not just San Francisco.
Make a damn good service first. I can't switch to your service if you won't even offer it to me.
Thats defeatist. We have labels for organic food, so why not have something certified asshole-free? You know, a certificate for ethical behavior or something.
I'm only glad that he really looks like the asshole he is (and so does weev btw.). At least you can still trust your gut instincts.
I'm only glad that he really looks like the asshole he is (and so does weev btw.). At least you can still trust your gut instincts.
That kind of labelling is never going to happen. But really it has always been the wrong way round. For example, you shouldn't really need to have "dolphin friendly tuna" anymore than "kitten friendly chocolate". If a company spends millions on marketing but does horrible things it is incredibly disineguous. Having unethical practices and not telling customers is like selling vegetarian food which contains animal products.
I wouldn't count on that. In the financial market, its already happening. You can buy information from a ratings agency that assesses a companies ethical behavior. If they don't meet the investor's targets, they won't invest in that stock.
I could see that happening on a consumer level as well, all you need is that data and a smartphone.
I could see that happening on a consumer level as well, all you need is that data and a smartphone.
I agree with you in that any attribute which an investor is interested in can be certified by an agency willing to do the legwork.
However what I do wonder is how actually effective something so ambiguous is? and how much it would be gamed? This is after 2007-2008 when we find out that financial institutions were able to game the risk classification of investment vehicles despite being wrapped in supposedly ambiguity-busting red-tape.
However what I do wonder is how actually effective something so ambiguous is? and how much it would be gamed? This is after 2007-2008 when we find out that financial institutions were able to game the risk classification of investment vehicles despite being wrapped in supposedly ambiguity-busting red-tape.
Well there are standards that can be checked against, and they go to the companies and talk to them. The good ones often already have CSR departments.
If theres something shady happening, it is often not hard to find - there are lots of environmentalists and NGOs that regularly dig up dirt. Also, a company can't just fake a reputation.
Not saying that nothing can be hidden, but its not just bits and bytes and paperwork that can be faked, its the real world.
If theres something shady happening, it is often not hard to find - there are lots of environmentalists and NGOs that regularly dig up dirt. Also, a company can't just fake a reputation.
Not saying that nothing can be hidden, but its not just bits and bytes and paperwork that can be faked, its the real world.
It could just as easily be banned on a consumer level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws
Wow, thats horrible. The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them.
Still, there must be ways to protect such information as freedom of speech?
Still, there must be ways to protect such information as freedom of speech?
> "The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them."
We have many of them, and we used to have more: journalists and news organizations. The press is supposed to serve as a very wide barrier against gross abuses.
But of course, we - not just politicians, but all of us - have spent the last few decades throwing our wallets at the least journalistic news outlets and away from the ones conducting actual investigation and reporting.
We very much made the bed we are sleeping in right now.
We have many of them, and we used to have more: journalists and news organizations. The press is supposed to serve as a very wide barrier against gross abuses.
But of course, we - not just politicians, but all of us - have spent the last few decades throwing our wallets at the least journalistic news outlets and away from the ones conducting actual investigation and reporting.
We very much made the bed we are sleeping in right now.
> The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them.
We have them (or have had them -- they are hard to keep together because interest doesn't remain intense) -- formed of the people opposed to the laws.
We also have organizations -- much better-funded, and that stay together better, because the interest is more concentrated and wealthy -- that go after the careers of politicians that refuse to pass those kinds of laws.
We have them (or have had them -- they are hard to keep together because interest doesn't remain intense) -- formed of the people opposed to the laws.
We also have organizations -- much better-funded, and that stay together better, because the interest is more concentrated and wealthy -- that go after the careers of politicians that refuse to pass those kinds of laws.
I'm assuming you're trying to ironically parody Uber apologists, and techno-utopians in general, who argue that the supremacy of x is simply inevitable and the only thing we can do is learn to accept it (where x currently seems to include smart locks, app-driven email, bitcoin, autonomous cars, autonomous corporations, google glass and 3d printing.)
However, it may be worth mentioning that none of what you describe is really a 'new normal,' except perhaps in application. It only seems that way because we've had decades of regulation against various underhanded practices which used to be standard operating procedure. 'Intimidating the press' used to mean simply buying all the newspapers, firing everyone and having company men print whatever you wanted. Or getting some Pinkertons to beat someone half to death.
However, it may be worth mentioning that none of what you describe is really a 'new normal,' except perhaps in application. It only seems that way because we've had decades of regulation against various underhanded practices which used to be standard operating procedure. 'Intimidating the press' used to mean simply buying all the newspapers, firing everyone and having company men print whatever you wanted. Or getting some Pinkertons to beat someone half to death.
Isn't this basically Rupert Murdoch's MO, in countries around the world including the US and Australia? I'd suggest "still is" rather than "used to be".
Does it though?
There is very little lockin with Uber at the consumer level, so goodwill is incredibly important for the company. At some point if they keep this shit up they are going to come up snake eyes and something will go viral.
Beyond that they are more or less loading the gun for anyone who wants to make the argument that the industry needs regulation.
If I was an investor I'd want heads rolling.
There is very little lockin with Uber at the consumer level, so goodwill is incredibly important for the company. At some point if they keep this shit up they are going to come up snake eyes and something will go viral.
Beyond that they are more or less loading the gun for anyone who wants to make the argument that the industry needs regulation.
If I was an investor I'd want heads rolling.
This is just a typical Prisoners' Dilemma scenario. An individual company can gain an advantage with dirty tricks, but everybody is worse off if all companies try it.
The optimal position (with no dirty tricks) is unstable. We stay there by punishing those who deviate. This is why the pitchforks come out in cases like this.
The optimal position (with no dirty tricks) is unstable. We stay there by punishing those who deviate. This is why the pitchforks come out in cases like this.
To be clear, I wrote the above in a sarcastic fashion to illustrate the downward spiral this would cause.
I'm trying to put together a panel on that topic, but it's hard to find people to represent the "asshole" side of the discussion.
Original call for speakers: "For the 2015 edition, we are looking for speakers and panelists. A touchy topic we’d like to address is "ethics in Silicon Valley – startups playing dirty can't be the new normal". If you are qualified and willing to discuss this topic on stage, get in touch"
So far, no takers...
Original call for speakers: "For the 2015 edition, we are looking for speakers and panelists. A touchy topic we’d like to address is "ethics in Silicon Valley – startups playing dirty can't be the new normal". If you are qualified and willing to discuss this topic on stage, get in touch"
So far, no takers...
This is why Uber's investors are blindly defending Uber's actions. Uber's scummy tacticts = more money in investors pockets
After re-reading what you wrote you may wish to delete the post or change your profile.
The executive, Emil Michael, made the comments in a conversation he later said he believed was off the record. In a statement through Uber Monday evening, he said he regretted them and that they didn’t reflect his or the company’s views.
They "don't reflect his or the company's views?" How can they not be 100% reflective of his views? And how can we possibly take anything said by anyone at the executive level at Uber seriously at this point?
They "don't reflect his or the company's views?" How can they not be 100% reflective of his views? And how can we possibly take anything said by anyone at the executive level at Uber seriously at this point?
because his comments have been twisted out of control
When Godaddy came out in support of SOPA, after a string of other obviously bad actions, I thought for sure it would harm their business. It didn't.
Unfortunately I don't think this Uber story will be different. Most people don't take a stand on anything (unless it involves consuming even more fast food, like a Chick-fil-a "reverse boycott").
Unfortunately I don't think this Uber story will be different. Most people don't take a stand on anything (unless it involves consuming even more fast food, like a Chick-fil-a "reverse boycott").
> When Godaddy came out in support of SOPA, after a string of other obviously bad actions, I thought for sure it would harm their business.
It hurt them enough to reverse their stance on SOPA in mere hours. Have you been to godaddy.com lately? "Internet freedom!" is actually one of the things they advertise on their page.
Now, I too was hoping in those days that the company would just die... and that's unlikely to happen to Uber as well, considering that dollar is kind and a lot has been given to Uber by so many investors. The best you can hope for is a massive firing of executives at the top, since that's where a lot of toxicity seems to be coming from.
It hurt them enough to reverse their stance on SOPA in mere hours. Have you been to godaddy.com lately? "Internet freedom!" is actually one of the things they advertise on their page.
Now, I too was hoping in those days that the company would just die... and that's unlikely to happen to Uber as well, considering that dollar is kind and a lot has been given to Uber by so many investors. The best you can hope for is a massive firing of executives at the top, since that's where a lot of toxicity seems to be coming from.
Chik-fil-a lost at least one customer for life - me. I have not eaten their food since the story broke, and I never will again.
Uber just came to Raleigh, NC where I live, and I was pretty stoked to try them out. Not gonna happen now - I'll stick with Taxi Taxi.[1]
[1] http://www.taxitaxiofraleigh.com/
Uber just came to Raleigh, NC where I live, and I was pretty stoked to try them out. Not gonna happen now - I'll stick with Taxi Taxi.[1]
[1] http://www.taxitaxiofraleigh.com/
I try to act in accordance with my political beliefs. In the past, I've boycotted Coca-Cola and Nestle, become a vegetarian for 5 years (vegan for 1 of those...), given up Facebook, and etc. You could argue all of these actions are pretty trivial and, really, do more to placate myself than they affect the real world. But I live this way nonetheless, and I believe there are millions of other people like me.
I'm ethically opposed to Chick-fil-a's stance, but I like their sandwiches. Most of the time I don't eat them, but every once in a while, the beast takes over and I have to eat.
I just ask at the counter "Is this hateful message day? I don't want to endorse your hateful message." If they say no, then I order a sandwich.
Lyft and Uber seem pretty interchangeable, so having a reason to choose one over the other is not good for them.
Also, it was Travis who said “We’re in a political campaign, and the candidate is Uber and the opponent is an asshole named Taxi,"
Well, it seems we have come full circle. Who's the asshole now?
Well, it seems we have come full circle. Who's the asshole now?
I think its abundantly clear at this point that Uber is an immoral company with a greed driven management team that has no ability whatever to properly think about the social consequences of their actions. Or worse still, perhaps they deliberately pursue malfeasance, as was suggested by the executive who made the comments discussed in this article.
There is another recent HN article. It links to a Pando post by Sarah Lacy, the journalist being threatened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622187
There's also previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622403
While in SF earlier this month, I noticed that people were using Lyft and Uber interchangeably and given the consistent stories about Uber's management, it seems likely that people will switch to Lyft as a primary option with Uber as a backup.
It's quite possible that Uber will create the market by and then be eclipsed by other players who are less unethical.
It's quite possible that Uber will create the market by and then be eclipsed by other players who are less unethical.
There is not enough general awareness of Uber's assholeness in the general public to have a meaningful effect. That may change but it hasn't yet.
You know what I find the most disturbing about this whole story?? "He also sits on a board that advises the Department of Defense"
Yeah, that jumped out at me also, and is likely to give the story legs considering the pushback against sexual assault in the military.
Just looking at my uber rides, I am pretty certain Uber could already infer some interesting facts about my life.
Cross-referencing with geo-data, time, and weekly occurences, I am pretty sure Uber could infer who's in my social circle, and under which category (coworker, wife, arm-candy...)
The day Uber links its userbase with Facebook we are doomed.
Cross-referencing with geo-data, time, and weekly occurences, I am pretty sure Uber could infer who's in my social circle, and under which category (coworker, wife, arm-candy...)
The day Uber links its userbase with Facebook we are doomed.
Seeing as Uber now has distinct ties to Google, I doubt that they are an acquisition target for FB.
There's been a number of negative articles about Google during the past years. Some for good reasons, some for bad. Some honest, some paid shills.
Imagine Larry Page saying: We'll sift through whatever data we've got on you and see what dirt we can find.
No need to imagine the threats against family. No need for any of the more nasty details. Just the basic premise, but in the setting of an established Silicon Valley company.
Done yet? No. Because you couldn't. Because any serious CEO worth their salt simply wouldn't.
And all those of you whose natural reponse is to defend these people, please imagine yourself doing it for Page as well. Would you, really?
Imagine Larry Page saying: We'll sift through whatever data we've got on you and see what dirt we can find.
No need to imagine the threats against family. No need for any of the more nasty details. Just the basic premise, but in the setting of an established Silicon Valley company.
Done yet? No. Because you couldn't. Because any serious CEO worth their salt simply wouldn't.
And all those of you whose natural reponse is to defend these people, please imagine yourself doing it for Page as well. Would you, really?
If someone high up at google or facebook threatened to sift through the data they have on me, I would be worried. If they said they would hire external investigators, I would not be more worried than if any random person was going to do so.
Did I miss something, because I'm pretty sure this story is the latter scenario.
They're both bad actions, but only one is an abuse of trust and/or resources.
Did I miss something, because I'm pretty sure this story is the latter scenario.
They're both bad actions, but only one is an abuse of trust and/or resources.
Both. The article talks about how he accessed the data they had on a journalist, without explicit persmission from the person in question.
Not only is it not nice, it shouldn't even have been possible without logging this against a ticket number at the very least.
Not only is it not nice, it shouldn't even have been possible without logging this against a ticket number at the very least.
Uber's only purpose and meaning is exploitation. Yes, the app is handy, but it's no disruption. The disruption is in destabilizing the taxi cooperatives and weakening the drivers' position.
We should all cut the crap, there is nothing to be surprised by here.
We should all cut the crap, there is nothing to be surprised by here.
Destabilizing taxi monopolies is a very positive societal disruption. I don't know where you're from but here Uber is half the cost of a cab, better service, and they actually have clean cars.
If you don't think they're disruptive, I'm not sure how you define disruptive.
If you don't think they're disruptive, I'm not sure how you define disruptive.
Read my comment again, that's more or less exactly what I said. Except I do not see such a simple black and white picture. Taxi monopolies have formed to enable the drivers a better bargaining position. Uber is achieving lower prices by destroying this, and as we can see, once that is done, nothing stops them from turning the tables and driving the price too low for the drivers to survive. The drivers are not their employees, and so not their responsibility. That is the core of their model. I think they're a little more disruptive than needed, basically :)
Taxi monopolies easily grow into a problem. They overprice the rides and stifle the market. But this can usually be sorted out through political action, through opening competition, all without automatically destroying all semblance of security for the workers.
Taxi monopolies easily grow into a problem. They overprice the rides and stifle the market. But this can usually be sorted out through political action, through opening competition, all without automatically destroying all semblance of security for the workers.
Uber is just not a nice company, they skirt laws around the world, and do very shoddy business.
We used to laugh when our CEO/Head went to extremes to put customers first with things like creating a "Customer Bill or Rights." We thought it was overreaction after some glitch or dumb one-off call center rep violating PC correctness. But now I think Uber should get a transfusion.
All rides free New Years Eve and Halloween. No ride will ever cost more than $X (should not be hard to figure out - with an * too) To show good faith, ride once, the next is on us (for x weekend). Publicly terminate knuckelheads ("Jimmy the Greek") [1] Establish & Invite consumer, safety and the driver community to form an oversight group to ensure Uber holds itself to community standards.
My Luddite world has no idea what a Uber is, but they sure know how to ask and find out. New things to my Luds come from hearing human voices - asking neighbors/friends is still #1. Nothing out there now says "Uber has cleaned up its act" First impressions have to be disproven and last the longest.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB7IsmOegE
All rides free New Years Eve and Halloween. No ride will ever cost more than $X (should not be hard to figure out - with an * too) To show good faith, ride once, the next is on us (for x weekend). Publicly terminate knuckelheads ("Jimmy the Greek") [1] Establish & Invite consumer, safety and the driver community to form an oversight group to ensure Uber holds itself to community standards.
My Luddite world has no idea what a Uber is, but they sure know how to ask and find out. New things to my Luds come from hearing human voices - asking neighbors/friends is still #1. Nothing out there now says "Uber has cleaned up its act" First impressions have to be disproven and last the longest.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB7IsmOegE
I get the competitive nature that Uber's taken against Lyft / Sidecar, but this seems like the worst thing yet.
I would love to know if http://blog.uber.com/applepay means that Uber won't be able to track who they are taking to various locations. That alone would be a big win for Apple Pay.
That's not how Apple Pay works; other than using a proxy CC# and hiding your info from the actual sales clerk, Apple Pay isn't more private than magstripe cards — merchants can still identify you, and it actually adds another party to the transaction: Apple.
How does the merchant identify you? My understanding is that, unlike a credit card, you don't share your name with them during an Apple Pay transaction. Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the hardware which hosts the secure element.
> My understanding is that, unlike a credit card, you don't share your name with them during an Apple Pay transaction.
If you check the EMVco specs (they're a doozy! http://www.emvco.com/specifications.aspx?id=21), merchants still receive your name.
The only thing that tokenization provides is a proxy card number.
> Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the hardware which hosts the secure element.
That's not actually true; if you read the fine print (or the emvco specs), you'll note that they can track a lot more than they might claim to.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_20...
They disclose up-front: "Apple may receive anonymous transaction information such as the approximate time and location of the transaction, which helps improve Apple Pay and other Apple products and services."
If you check the EMVco specs (they're a doozy! http://www.emvco.com/specifications.aspx?id=21), merchants still receive your name.
The only thing that tokenization provides is a proxy card number.
> Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the hardware which hosts the secure element.
That's not actually true; if you read the fine print (or the emvco specs), you'll note that they can track a lot more than they might claim to.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_20...
They disclose up-front: "Apple may receive anonymous transaction information such as the approximate time and location of the transaction, which helps improve Apple Pay and other Apple products and services."
Why would Uber, a company who's entire business is based on location data and the analysis, sign such a deal?
Someone @Lyft PR needs to be on this stat. I've hardly seen Lyft take any advantage of fuckups like these by Uber.
It's a complicated decision: whether or not to get into the smear war. I have more respect for Lyft if they don't.
If your competition is doing something really stupid, all you have to do is get out of the way...
That would be the worst idea. They should stay far, far away and not say word one. You do not ever get involved in controversy if you can help it. Say a word and get you and yours investigated by those looking for a follow-up story.
Some things are just too radioactive to touch.
Looks like it's time to a) uninstall Uber and b) subscribe to PandoDaily.
I think making comments this stupid as a SVP is a fireable offense and I can somewhat see how the "family" mention makes Sarah Lacy worried about her children, but I totally don't get where this gender angle is coming from in this story. I don't read any of that in the original comments by Emil Michael.
It seems that most are commenting on why Uber executive shouldn't be doing this. But none has viewed this from Uber's perspective. If your startup was being threatened by a brown-nosing bonus-loving trigger-happy reporter, what are you going to do? Publish a press statement? Hire more reporter to spread positive propaganda? A cost-benefit analysis would show it is simply cheaper to hire a hitman to take her out. Before you argue with me over ethics and human rights, this isn't the first time a company has did this. Do a google on volkswagon and Glaxo-smith klein cost-benefit analysises and they are equally expedient. So why our society allows large corporations to trade capital for human lives while we condamn a startup for doing the exact same thing?!?
I think this article is relevant context- Sarah Lacy is a professional troll:
http://www.cnet.com/news/journalist-becomes-the-story-at-mar...
Just one more shining example that the easiest way to be successful in business is to be a sociopath.
http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/18/sarah-lacy-ube...
All this overreacting and exaggeration is getting to me. Such terrible writing and she really is going overboard with all this.
All this overreacting and exaggeration is getting to me. Such terrible writing and she really is going overboard with all this.
As wrong-footed as Uber appears lately, don't take buzzfeed's word for anything. Dishonest trash-talking + a financial conflict of interest. Headline-baiting 'journalists' trying to steal attention+emotion for profit w/ gossipy attacks do need to consider their own glass house, especially when their sole productive output is stirring up drama.
Being agnostic on the Uber CEO's character (don't know him) I'd caution him to stop giving material to a nascent angry mob and those stoking it.
Being agnostic on the Uber CEO's character (don't know him) I'd caution him to stop giving material to a nascent angry mob and those stoking it.
Despite being an impressive company, generating sales, growth fast, expanding internationally, it seems that these founders are a little immature.
This isn't the first story about the lack of ethics of the company, and if I was them I would worry about this potential shift in widespread support. Today's shining light can easily be changed into the tomorrows demon. Maybe they could spend $1M on PR to improve the image.
Maybe they could spend $1M on PR to improve the image.
Or spend $0 and actually improve things in the company so they don't need PR to tell people they're not horrible.
Or spend $0 and actually improve things in the company so they don't need PR to tell people they're not horrible.
Why bother when people continue using it?
Trust me, people will continue to use it as long as there is a value add - cheaper, better etc. In general, nobody cares about what happens behind the scenes.
Trust me, people will continue to use it as long as there is a value add - cheaper, better etc. In general, nobody cares about what happens behind the scenes.
A better idea is to reveal potential special interests or personal biases of the journalists, especially if it compromises their professional integrity.
Are there legal reasons why this SVP does not apologize to the journalist he specifically targeted while recognizing he threatened her and regreting it?
He did. He called her (though she has no idea how he got her number) and asked to speak off the record.
No, really. He did. "Hey Sarah, I realise there's this massive story blowing where I threatened to wage war on you and your family and I know you're a high profile journalist in this area but can we just have a quick friendly chat off the record?"
Scroll to the bottom of her article: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...
No, really. He did. "Hey Sarah, I realise there's this massive story blowing where I threatened to wage war on you and your family and I know you're a high profile journalist in this area but can we just have a quick friendly chat off the record?"
Scroll to the bottom of her article: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...
Thanks, the parent link did not mention this.
His email reads like something sincere. Still confused why he did apologize on the phone. Harder to CCI your CEO on the phone maybe.
[deleted](1)
I won't use Uber (I live in Paris), because of what they did with Lyft, because some executive harassing a woman (story of yesterday on hn), because of this story as well. There are a lot of competitors who do not have their hands that dirty. I'm using Chauffeur Price here, never had to complain.
> A senior executive at Uber suggested that the company should consider hiring a team of opposition researchers to dig up dirt on its critics in the media — and specifically to spread details of the personal life of a female journalist who has criticized the company.
Is it at all relevant that the journalist is female?
Is it at all relevant that the journalist is female?
It's totally irrelevant to what happened but totally relevant to the current mainstream narrative of women versus men.
It allows them to take something non-gendered and create an absolute shitstorm from it.
It allows them to take something non-gendered and create an absolute shitstorm from it.
So they would investigate the journalists's private lives and publish all their embarrassing details in order to cause drama and controversy to further their own goals.
You mean like the media does with every public figure, ever? Like the media is doing with this exact story right now?
You mean like the media does with every public figure, ever? Like the media is doing with this exact story right now?
I have to wonder if this guy is executing a David Plouffe strategy to take a severance payout and become a lobbyist. That's one way people wouldn't know any developments from this were driven by Uber.
The most interesting thing to me about all this is that the tech media is probably about 50 percent responsible for pushing out tech start-ups to the wider world. If you go back and look at the beginnings of companies like Twitter (blogged about by prominent bloggers) and Facebook (published by the Harvard student newspaper), the initial snowball effect to get these companies going is largely based on journalists pushing these startups to their readership.
And now we have the case where a company that has successfully navigated the hardest part of the cycle (becoming a big enough snowball to be self-sustaining) that they can turn around and challenge the journalists.
It's like a child who has grown up and now comes back to challenge the parent. Fascinating in an abstract general way.
And now we have the case where a company that has successfully navigated the hardest part of the cycle (becoming a big enough snowball to be self-sustaining) that they can turn around and challenge the journalists.
It's like a child who has grown up and now comes back to challenge the parent. Fascinating in an abstract general way.
Publicly considering such STASI tactics for me is the last nail in the coffin, I'll never use a product of this strange company.
(I'm from Germany, maybe we are more sensitive to such threats)
[deleted]
As long as the valuation keeps going up, the VC's will keep making excuses and looking the other direction. Remember, profits make everything all better.
I live in a city where Uber was/is trying to break in. Council has been very vocal that these actions by the Uber executive is harming their chances. I would say that their chances of being given approval is dwindling and they will lose this 1.3 million citizen market.
Let's call it like it is. Yellow journalists are going to stop at nothing to smear any company with a libertarian founder.
[deleted]
Poke a bear with a hot stick and you might get bit. I don't see what the big deal is.
This was closer to being growled at. "Getting bit" is more like the robber baron sending half-a-dozen of pinkertons to your home, and neither you nor your family is ever seen again.
And the big deal is that is very much on the public interest to not see the days of the pinkertons come back again, so the bears have to be trained and get used to being poked at.
And the big deal is that is very much on the public interest to not see the days of the pinkertons come back again, so the bears have to be trained and get used to being poked at.
Just deleted uber from my phone and installed lyft. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.
[deleted]
This story is plummeting suspiciously fast from the HN front page...
It was only on the front page because the mods put it there. Buzzfeed is a penalized site and this story is getting flagged. Normally it would be on page 10 by now. The mods can't hold it up forever, though, so now it's falling.
This story has been on the front page for 24 hours.
Buzzfeed stories are normally penalized, but we take the penalty off for major stories. We've done that here. HN tends to frown on media controversy, but since this story seems destined to be above the line in any case, it may as well be the original source. We've demoted the other posts on the same story as duplicates.
To say that this is "media controversy" borders on the absurd: this is entirely inappropriate and indefensible behavior from a top executive at a top company -- and it raises all sorts of legitimate questions about corporate culture and how companies internalize public criticism. You use the passive voice when you say that "it seems destined to be above the line" when in fact it is above the line because many in the HN demographic feel that this story is important. In this case, HN's strange paternalism is going to cause this discussion to happen three separate times in three separate threads. Can the HN community really not be trusted to decide what we think is important?
I'm a bit confused, because this comment mostly seems in vigorous agreement with what we actually did. We restored the story to the front page, where it still is. But let me try to address your concerns as I understand them.
The posts were obvious duplicates, so we did the routine thing and demoted all but one of them. It's true that we didn't merge the threads (which we've recently begun doing in many such cases), but IIRC that's because most of the discussion in the other threads at that point was about why they weren't the Buzzfeed story. Did I get that wrong? If so, it was for the mundane reason that at 1 A.M. I was tired and less meticulous than I try to be.
By "seems destined, etc." I meant that many people here obviously cared about the story. "Media controversy" doesn't strike me as absurd at all, but let's not quarrel over wording; let's seek each other's meaning instead.
FWIW, my personal opinion is that, assuming the story is accurately reported, it's outrageous. But it's our duty to try to factor personal opinions out of moderation decisions.
You seem to be complaining that HN's front page isn't decided by votes alone. It never has been; it has always been a blend of voting and curation. Voting alone would cause HN to be dominated by outrage, gossip, fashion and promotion. That would kill the site. [1]
I dislike that fact as much as any HN user, and probably have more reason to dislike it. But there's no question that it's true. It's so true that it's an interesting question why it's true, given that this is a community of smart people, and I even have a whole theory about it... but I'll spare you.
1. I'm just echoing what tptacek already said in this thread, as well as regurgitating what I've posted dozens of times, but it does seem necessary to regurgitate.
The posts were obvious duplicates, so we did the routine thing and demoted all but one of them. It's true that we didn't merge the threads (which we've recently begun doing in many such cases), but IIRC that's because most of the discussion in the other threads at that point was about why they weren't the Buzzfeed story. Did I get that wrong? If so, it was for the mundane reason that at 1 A.M. I was tired and less meticulous than I try to be.
By "seems destined, etc." I meant that many people here obviously cared about the story. "Media controversy" doesn't strike me as absurd at all, but let's not quarrel over wording; let's seek each other's meaning instead.
FWIW, my personal opinion is that, assuming the story is accurately reported, it's outrageous. But it's our duty to try to factor personal opinions out of moderation decisions.
You seem to be complaining that HN's front page isn't decided by votes alone. It never has been; it has always been a blend of voting and curation. Voting alone would cause HN to be dominated by outrage, gossip, fashion and promotion. That would kill the site. [1]
I dislike that fact as much as any HN user, and probably have more reason to dislike it. But there's no question that it's true. It's so true that it's an interesting question why it's true, given that this is a community of smart people, and I even have a whole theory about it... but I'll spare you.
1. I'm just echoing what tptacek already said in this thread, as well as regurgitating what I've posted dozens of times, but it does seem necessary to regurgitate.
The entire point of clickbait sensationalist journalism is to get people fighting about non-issues. A guy who landed a probe on a fucking comet was forced to apologize in tears because he wore a shirt that these same people disliked. Now even the MSM is pointing out how ridiculous that was. He was called sexist, exemplifying why women don't work in STEM. They just found evidence of organic matter on the comet. This is groundbreaking. But the fucking shirt. Scientific achievements don't generate the clicks and outrage like sensationalist "fuck ethics" journalism.
Let's make HN about sensationalist articles about shirts and off-hand jokes at private dinners.
Why not just unmod all of the websites that do this routinely. This is hardly as big as half of their "stories", and then let the front page be covered with stories that sit there for 2 days because they have 3000+ upvotes?
This place has become a more toxic version of Reddit. Oddly, this story isn't on the front page there, or even on the front of /r/programming. Or even in the first 4 pages. I guess they're doing something better.
How about we take it a step further and ban positive mention of Uber, since it seems the majority here hates Uber for one reason or another, even if they're mostly uninformed (and yes, quoting BuzzFeed or PandoDaily as fact makes one uninformed) or do so because someone poked their feelings. Maybe next we can ban gendered pronouns and require people disclose their full names, place of employment, and home address, because anonymity is the cause of online toxicity. We definitely need to lower the downvote bar to 0 so that new people can immediately begin downvoting anyone they don't like or disagree with. Let's see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
Let's make HN about sensationalist articles about shirts and off-hand jokes at private dinners.
Why not just unmod all of the websites that do this routinely. This is hardly as big as half of their "stories", and then let the front page be covered with stories that sit there for 2 days because they have 3000+ upvotes?
This place has become a more toxic version of Reddit. Oddly, this story isn't on the front page there, or even on the front of /r/programming. Or even in the first 4 pages. I guess they're doing something better.
How about we take it a step further and ban positive mention of Uber, since it seems the majority here hates Uber for one reason or another, even if they're mostly uninformed (and yes, quoting BuzzFeed or PandoDaily as fact makes one uninformed) or do so because someone poked their feelings. Maybe next we can ban gendered pronouns and require people disclose their full names, place of employment, and home address, because anonymity is the cause of online toxicity. We definitely need to lower the downvote bar to 0 so that new people can immediately begin downvoting anyone they don't like or disagree with. Let's see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
You obviously care about the quality of HN, as do I, as does the GP. What makes this a hard problem is that the community doesn't agree on what constitutes quality.
Serious discussion about how to manage HN needs to begin with the insight that many people here disagree with one, and most are participating in as much good faith as oneself. If you don't take that in, you're not grappling with the real problem. (I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us.) In that case it inevitably feels like there are obvious solutions which for dark reasons we're refusing to implement. In reality, it's just a lot harder than that. That's incredibly frustrating, but we can't get anywhere by ignoring it.
Serious discussion about how to manage HN needs to begin with the insight that many people here disagree with one, and most are participating in as much good faith as oneself. If you don't take that in, you're not grappling with the real problem. (I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us.) In that case it inevitably feels like there are obvious solutions which for dark reasons we're refusing to implement. In reality, it's just a lot harder than that. That's incredibly frustrating, but we can't get anywhere by ignoring it.
> In this case, HN's strange paternalism is going to cause this discussion to happen three separate times in three separate threads. Can the HN community really not be trusted to decide what we think is important?
If you're interpreting mods' behavior in maintaining this site as paternalism and think a set of randos voting on articles that attract their attention is an entity to which the verb "trusted" could even be applied, you are completely out of touch with reality.
If you're interpreting mods' behavior in maintaining this site as paternalism and think a set of randos voting on articles that attract their attention is an entity to which the verb "trusted" could even be applied, you are completely out of touch with reality.
It's disrespectful that the community cannot allowed to at least see the stories we want to see bubble to the top, good or bad. There are good lessons to be learned in all of these issues, moreso than a lot of articles that bubble up to the top here.
Ehh, I can see where dang is coming from - some moderation is needed in order for the community not to descend to Reddit levels of intelligibility.
That said, I do agree that painting this as a "media controversy" is grossly off the mark. This isn't your usual (somewhat entertaining) mud slinging between trashy bloggers, this addresses real misbehavior by a real tech company.
Imagine if Glenn Greewald and Snowden were treated as merely "media controversies".
The Asshole Problem(tm) is becoming a huge, gigantic, glaring issue that will only get bigger. The deafening silence from our industry whenever deplorable behavior like this surfaces is itself worth addressing. This especially includes the usual deafening silence from investors (including YC) whenever their companies are caught doing something overtly evil.
That said, I do agree that painting this as a "media controversy" is grossly off the mark. This isn't your usual (somewhat entertaining) mud slinging between trashy bloggers, this addresses real misbehavior by a real tech company.
Imagine if Glenn Greewald and Snowden were treated as merely "media controversies".
The Asshole Problem(tm) is becoming a huge, gigantic, glaring issue that will only get bigger. The deafening silence from our industry whenever deplorable behavior like this surfaces is itself worth addressing. This especially includes the usual deafening silence from investors (including YC) whenever their companies are caught doing something overtly evil.
I agree that moderation is necessary, but it needs to happen at the comment level, not the post level.
HN has always been moderated at the post level, from the beginnings of the site. If it wasn't, the site would be flooded with fluffy recaps of whatever current event story was making people angriest right now, and there would be no place for stories about Linux on solderless breadboards and Latex-like math programming languages; instead, we'd get HuffPo, Buzzfeed, Pando, and ValleyWag's take on whatever the controversy-du-jour was, day after day.
So there's no place for reasoned discussion on topics that are clearly of interest to many here? That sounds like a poor excuse for improper moderation. Some level of post level moderation I can understand, but to the degree practiced here, you might as well have sanctioned curators instead of moderators for that - at the least, it'd be far more accurate, and far more transparent.
Instead we get a heavyhanded version that allows a few to destroy possible reasoned discussion by squelching it as a side-effect of this rationale, and instead we get lots of topics that don't really foster discussion, are often not interesting or important (even to those intellectually minded) - there are plenty of banal articles on startups that get upvoted and end up on the front page, but no similar policy gets instituted simply because they are "not controversial", and yet they take up the same space, and certainly are less fulfilling. The process is opaque, and I know I'm not the only one here who has questioned this.
There are sometimes situations where flags are deemed inappropriate, and yet the effects don't get raised when moderators even acknowledge when the flags were incorrect.
Instead we get a heavyhanded version that allows a few to destroy possible reasoned discussion by squelching it as a side-effect of this rationale, and instead we get lots of topics that don't really foster discussion, are often not interesting or important (even to those intellectually minded) - there are plenty of banal articles on startups that get upvoted and end up on the front page, but no similar policy gets instituted simply because they are "not controversial", and yet they take up the same space, and certainly are less fulfilling. The process is opaque, and I know I'm not the only one here who has questioned this.
There are sometimes situations where flags are deemed inappropriate, and yet the effects don't get raised when moderators even acknowledge when the flags were incorrect.
I guess my point was, a cri de coeur at the end of 2014 probably isn't going to change a policy that has been in place since early 2007. You are effectively arguing with the premise of the site.
It's a valid point, but there are plenty of fluffy stories about HN's favourite companies (which have included Uber in the past); how many stories about Tesla (the company), Uber, and the like are about their technology, and how many are breathless enthusiasm?
It does look a little rank when there's been heaps of "rah-rah Uber, disrupt, disrupt, disrupt" type articles in the past to have negative ones pruned.
It does look a little rank when there's been heaps of "rah-rah Uber, disrupt, disrupt, disrupt" type articles in the past to have negative ones pruned.
If it looks that way, you should question your assumptions, because that's not what's happening. What's instead happening is that a controversy-du-jour is spawning lots of little stories, and the mods are working to make sure they don't co-opt the front page, which (because it is a linear list of individual links) is especially vulnerable to controversies-du-jour.
This is not corporate culture it's politics. Personal destruction has been near the front page of the playbook since about forever.
This isn't a major story. It's an out-of-context clickbait dressed recount of a hypothetical story painted by a frustrated man at a private dinner.
If there was a criminal suit filed along side the allegations made, perhaps you'd have a major story. This is just another in a long line of hit pieces that seem to have no basis in reality.
If there was a criminal suit filed along side the allegations made, perhaps you'd have a major story. This is just another in a long line of hit pieces that seem to have no basis in reality.
I'll respectfully disagree. There's nothing "hypothetical" about it, the guy laid out a budget and a game plan for targeted harassment and intimidation of journalists who dared to write negative press. There were multiple high-profile witnesses, and after it all came to light, he called and then emailed the journalist he threatened, to apologize profusely.
This is just one more event in a long history of Uber being an extremely bad actor. They use dirty tactics to try to run their competitors out of business instead of competing on their merits, they treat their drivers and riders like shit, they gleefully flaunt their ability to track anyone, anywhere, any time and use it against them. Now they've gone on record (his emailed apology puts the entire affair on the record, no matter what he thought during the dinner in question) admitting that they are willing to harass, intimidate, and even threaten the lives of journalists and their families.
In short, this company is ran by a bunch of sociopaths who think they can do no wrong. It's going to bite them in the ass, and I hope sooner than later.
This is just one more event in a long history of Uber being an extremely bad actor. They use dirty tactics to try to run their competitors out of business instead of competing on their merits, they treat their drivers and riders like shit, they gleefully flaunt their ability to track anyone, anywhere, any time and use it against them. Now they've gone on record (his emailed apology puts the entire affair on the record, no matter what he thought during the dinner in question) admitting that they are willing to harass, intimidate, and even threaten the lives of journalists and their families.
In short, this company is ran by a bunch of sociopaths who think they can do no wrong. It's going to bite them in the ass, and I hope sooner than later.
Even the author of the story said it was hypothetical. Multiple times.
I can understand your frustration, it certainly is agreed by the buzzfeed author it's hypothetical, but try not to call people morons.
> Even the author of the story said it was hypothetical. Multiple times.
Really? Hmm...Ctrl+F "hypothetical" 0 of 0 results.
And here's a screenshot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ifydpomabnm8ijb/bfss.png?dl=0
Troll harder.
Really? Hmm...Ctrl+F "hypothetical" 0 of 0 results.
And here's a screenshot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ifydpomabnm8ijb/bfss.png?dl=0
Troll harder.
> Troll harder.
Please don't bait other users, even when they seem to you to be trolling.
Please don't bait other users, even when they seem to you to be trolling.
Sorry, I didn't mean it as baiting, just venting a little. Just based on this conversation and his other posts, it's obvious what he is.
It's OK for frustrated people to threaten children now?
There's nothing in this article alleging that. There is someone in the comments here who has been vehemently anti-Uber on other social media who makes the claim, though.
Let's get facts before we throw around slanderous accusations. Or even apply some basic reasoning.
Let's get facts before we throw around slanderous accusations. Or even apply some basic reasoning.
"I opt out at airports, I donate to the EFF, I don't use Uber or any other app that targets people's privacy and actively threatens the freedom of the press"
Freedom of the press cannot exist under capitalism, who controls the hiring and firing and owns the organization controls the information.
Freedom of the press cannot exist under capitalism, who controls the hiring and firing and owns the organization controls the information.
The US government, FBI and NSA don't mind doing that, why should Uber and other companies obey the law if federal agencies refuse to?
/devil's advocate.
/devil's advocate.
Misleading headline, from article it wasn't in any way a serious suggestion.
It now reads, "Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists " which is exactly what he did. (Actually, he even went further and said it would be acceptable do so)
He 'suggested considering' this at a dinner party, and 'Michael at no point suggested that Uber has actually hired opposition researchers, or that it plans to.' according to Buzzfeed - they're trying to imply it was a serious suggestion while actually sticking to the facts, which imply it very much wasn't. It's fascinating.
The most recent Pulitzer Prize winner for journalism (Glenn Greenwald) says journalism is an "adversarial" process. However, adversarial is by nature a two way street. Journalists who go digging into the lives of people and businesses need to be prepared for adversarial response.
If I'm a business owner that's being investigated by a journalist, I want to find out the who, what, where, when and why.
I am entitled to investigate the people who are investigating me.
journalism startups are businesses. they make money by investigating businesses like uber. Uber is entitled to investigate in return
If I'm a business owner that's being investigated by a journalist, I want to find out the who, what, where, when and why.
I am entitled to investigate the people who are investigating me.
journalism startups are businesses. they make money by investigating businesses like uber. Uber is entitled to investigate in return
To what extent are you "entitled" to "investigate" into the personal lives of journalists and public critics?
If your goal is not to intimidate, what purpose does it serve and accomplish? Freedom of the press is important and is part of the Constitution. Journalists can investigate a business even if you think they shouldn't.
Looking into the financial ties of journalism is game. But the industry and business of journalism is not the same as someone's personal life, their sexual preferences, children, family, etc.
If your goal is not to intimidate, what purpose does it serve and accomplish? Freedom of the press is important and is part of the Constitution. Journalists can investigate a business even if you think they shouldn't.
Looking into the financial ties of journalism is game. But the industry and business of journalism is not the same as someone's personal life, their sexual preferences, children, family, etc.
To what extent are you "entitled" to "investigate" into the personal lives of entrepreneurs and people building real value.
If your goal is not to intimidate, attack, or slander, what purpose does it serve and accomplish? Freedom of speech and self publication is important and is part of the Constitution. Entrepreneurs can investigate shady journalists who seem to have a bias and who are crossing ethical lines even if you think they shouldn't.
Looking into the financial ties of companies is game. But the industry and business is not the same as someone's personal life, their sexual preferences, children, family, etc.
If your goal is not to intimidate, attack, or slander, what purpose does it serve and accomplish? Freedom of speech and self publication is important and is part of the Constitution. Entrepreneurs can investigate shady journalists who seem to have a bias and who are crossing ethical lines even if you think they shouldn't.
Looking into the financial ties of companies is game. But the industry and business is not the same as someone's personal life, their sexual preferences, children, family, etc.
I have difficulty seeing how this is a quality contribution to any discussion and not trolling.
You know I didn't advocate probing the personal lives of entrepreneurs, and if you honestly believe I did advocate that then the problem is you are reading something that I didn't say.
If anything, saying something like "investigating the personal lives of entrepreneurs building real value" sounds more like a sound bite a bad politician or PR rep would concoct to shield a business from public scrutiny. Instances of 'entrepreneurs building real value' is also something that is fair to cover by journalists.
You know I didn't advocate probing the personal lives of entrepreneurs, and if you honestly believe I did advocate that then the problem is you are reading something that I didn't say.
If anything, saying something like "investigating the personal lives of entrepreneurs building real value" sounds more like a sound bite a bad politician or PR rep would concoct to shield a business from public scrutiny. Instances of 'entrepreneurs building real value' is also something that is fair to cover by journalists.
Nope.
Journalism is a constitutionally protected activity that is a cornerstone of democracy. Without an informed public, democracy cannot work. Attempting to subvert that by threatening journalists is flat out wrong.
If you are a business owner, sure, you can legally investigate journalists. But that is very different than threatening to leak material about them to influence press coverage.
Also, your "turnabout is fair play" logic is ridiculous. Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.
Journalism is a constitutionally protected activity that is a cornerstone of democracy. Without an informed public, democracy cannot work. Attempting to subvert that by threatening journalists is flat out wrong.
If you are a business owner, sure, you can legally investigate journalists. But that is very different than threatening to leak material about them to influence press coverage.
Also, your "turnabout is fair play" logic is ridiculous. Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.
>Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.
I'm sure the NSA disagrees!
I'm sure the NSA disagrees!
> Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.
Isn't the underlying theme behind the secrets that Greenwald got that the NSA feels that it is entitled steal everyone's secrets, whether or not the targets have first gotten the NSA's secrets, because NSA?
Isn't the underlying theme behind the secrets that Greenwald got that the NSA feels that it is entitled steal everyone's secrets, whether or not the targets have first gotten the NSA's secrets, because NSA?
Sure. And I'm saying that's wrong.
Uber is not entitled to investigate by delving into private details of people, though. And just because Uber happens to hold that data doesn't mean they're entitled to grovel through it for whatever purpose they feel like. If a journalist gets into a fight with a hospital, should that hospital be entitled to use the journalists's private health records to fight back? I say, of course not. Uber is in the same position qualitatively. Of course, in the case of the hospital it's actually illegal while for Uber it's probably not, but that's just because the law on privacy is way behind the times.
Here we go again, more Uber drama. The only reason why this is a story is the (pardon the term) disruption of a protected industry, and the misplaced attention on the supply-side. Consumers are awash in convenience and choice right now, but the media and the politicos protecting the industry are ignoring that and going after the biggest member of the disruption so that it can be controlled.
I'm sure there are sleazy execs at Uber, but if the media pointed its glare at any other similar-sized company, I'm sure it would find them there, too. Uber may have more because it has grown so fast. It would behoove of them to start cleaning house so that this type of story doesn't kill the golden goose.
I'm sure there are sleazy execs at Uber, but if the media pointed its glare at any other similar-sized company, I'm sure it would find them there, too. Uber may have more because it has grown so fast. It would behoove of them to start cleaning house so that this type of story doesn't kill the golden goose.
[deleted]
I cannot treat complaints from journalists about digging up dirt seriously. This has essentially become their job.
Were was this criticism when some guy's personal phone calls were broadcasted and dissected? When Gawker was buying people's sex tapes? And not months ago, although then too, last week[1].
This is the world you created. Enjoy.
EDIT: And if you're downvoting, I'd love to hear why.
[1] http://defamer.gawker.com/somebody-is-selling-an-usher-sex-t...
Were was this criticism when some guy's personal phone calls were broadcasted and dissected? When Gawker was buying people's sex tapes? And not months ago, although then too, last week[1].
This is the world you created. Enjoy.
EDIT: And if you're downvoting, I'd love to hear why.
[1] http://defamer.gawker.com/somebody-is-selling-an-usher-sex-t...
Bad behavior by some journalists doesn't justify personal attacks by companies against journalists.
One can hope that once it happens a few times, journalists will maybe rediscover the basic ethics of their profession. Right now, they simply seem to demand a monopoly on digging for dirt.
Not necessarily a bad idea...
Edit FWIW, I personally do not and refuse to use Uber. I think that they are vile. But...
I find that too many journalist hide behind 'freedom of the press' when they are axe-grinding. A lot of online tech reporting that I encounter is knee-jerk reaction and factless click-bait. Personal blogs, where you'd expect to find this behaviour, in my experience tend to be far more credible...
Edit FWIW, I personally do not and refuse to use Uber. I think that they are vile. But...
I find that too many journalist hide behind 'freedom of the press' when they are axe-grinding. A lot of online tech reporting that I encounter is knee-jerk reaction and factless click-bait. Personal blogs, where you'd expect to find this behaviour, in my experience tend to be far more credible...
[deleted]
On a side note, Uber should also sue all those companies piggy-backing on its name, dragging its name down. What I mean is, that every other month, I'm seeing a case of "Uber-for-X", like Blowhorn, is a startup that claims to be uber for mini-trucks.
What is happening is that, UBER is still going through its real challenge and hasn't established itself as a household name, like Microsoft, Apple, Google. Lot of people are still critical of its intent (including me perhaps), and its ultimate success, but these small startups that are piggybacking on its name are making matter's worse.
Most of these Uber for X startups, are not going to succeed, generally speaking, and when a start-up fails, brand value gets hit as people associate "failure" "didn't work" "not so good" with that name. Uber in that sense, is taking a hit on its brand name due to failure of other businesses (which I think is a bit unfair).
What is happening is that, UBER is still going through its real challenge and hasn't established itself as a household name, like Microsoft, Apple, Google. Lot of people are still critical of its intent (including me perhaps), and its ultimate success, but these small startups that are piggybacking on its name are making matter's worse.
Most of these Uber for X startups, are not going to succeed, generally speaking, and when a start-up fails, brand value gets hit as people associate "failure" "didn't work" "not so good" with that name. Uber in that sense, is taking a hit on its brand name due to failure of other businesses (which I think is a bit unfair).
That's called "getting disrupted."
Why is this here? This is a non story. All I see in this article is that someone was ranting in a conversation that was entirely assumed to be off the record (they go to great lengths to justify talking about it, as if private dinners require contracts of nondisclosure). I find it beyond hilarious that here Buzzfeed stands appalled that someone would joke about hiring people to dig up dirt when they find their way into private dinners and report every unsavory thing said in confidence and without context, essentially writing off that context as "this is never appropriate." Does anyone else see the outrageous hypocrisy here? One man is joking about something because he's frustrated with poor media coverage (which is arguably of questionable ethical validity) while Buzzfeed is actually doing that thing and now everyone here on HN is joking about how terrible Uber is and how they've distanced themselves. This is HN.
This is gossip about a man's frustrated rant at shitty media coverage. It's a non story and is totally off topic. If there was evidence he had hired people to dig up dirt with intent to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce people, we could be talking about criminal proceedings. But seeing as there's no mention of any criminal wrongdoing, this is complete and utter trash, and they know it. Another in a very long list of reasons never to read Buzzfeed.
I'm not here in a position in support of Uber because I literally have no idea what is and isn't fact. If every article negative of them is as misguided and useless as this one, I can't possibly hope to form a coherent and well informed opinion about a company. Definitely not based on clickbait headlines and opinion pieces without solid evidence of wrongdoing. You can hate Uber for all the valid reasons you can find, but getting angry at someone for expressing frustration is truly next level pathetic. This clickbait shit. What the fuck.
Some people are linking a Pando article, which says, as a direct quote:
> Earlier this evening, a bombshell story by Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith proves the reality is way worse than anyone on our team could have expected.
In reference to this article. You can see why this shit can't be taken seriously. Referring to garbage like this article as a "bombshell" or "proof" of activity is completely divorced from reality.
This is gossip about a man's frustrated rant at shitty media coverage. It's a non story and is totally off topic. If there was evidence he had hired people to dig up dirt with intent to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce people, we could be talking about criminal proceedings. But seeing as there's no mention of any criminal wrongdoing, this is complete and utter trash, and they know it. Another in a very long list of reasons never to read Buzzfeed.
I'm not here in a position in support of Uber because I literally have no idea what is and isn't fact. If every article negative of them is as misguided and useless as this one, I can't possibly hope to form a coherent and well informed opinion about a company. Definitely not based on clickbait headlines and opinion pieces without solid evidence of wrongdoing. You can hate Uber for all the valid reasons you can find, but getting angry at someone for expressing frustration is truly next level pathetic. This clickbait shit. What the fuck.
Some people are linking a Pando article, which says, as a direct quote:
> Earlier this evening, a bombshell story by Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith proves the reality is way worse than anyone on our team could have expected.
In reference to this article. You can see why this shit can't be taken seriously. Referring to garbage like this article as a "bombshell" or "proof" of activity is completely divorced from reality.
"Off the record" is a specific construct used by journalists. This was not off the record.
Threatening journalists who write negative articles is indefensible. It's a stupid thing to say, especially to a room full of journalists.
It's firmly on topic here because it speaks to ethics of company founders.
Threatening journalists who write negative articles is indefensible. It's a stupid thing to say, especially to a room full of journalists.
It's firmly on topic here because it speaks to ethics of company founders.
Even the author of this article recognizes, and confirms, that it was a hypothetical.
It's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can never be frustrated.
Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it? If there was no confusion about it being "off the record", there's no need to mention any of it. And it still doesn't matter.
It's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can never be frustrated.
Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it? If there was no confusion about it being "off the record", there's no need to mention any of it. And it still doesn't matter.
When you're in a public place: do not say that you're rich and could fund a secret team of researchers to trash the reputation of journalists who write negative pieces about you.
Feel free to say that in your boardroom.
But if you say it in front of journalists don't then be surprised if journalists then report it.
Of course they carefully report the off-the-record status of the meeting, otherwise (as has already happened) you get people saying "what about ethics?" Establishing the nature of the meeting in advance closes those threads quickly.
Feel free to say that in your boardroom.
But if you say it in front of journalists don't then be surprised if journalists then report it.
Of course they carefully report the off-the-record status of the meeting, otherwise (as has already happened) you get people saying "what about ethics?" Establishing the nature of the meeting in advance closes those threads quickly.
"That's a nice car/set of teeth/daughter you are having there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."
The gap between a funny hypothetical and a veiled threat is small, but it does exist. This, to me, comes over as a veiled threat. As such, it wouldn't completely surprise me if this would lead to a criminal prosecution and possibly to a small conviction in court. It certainly feels more real than the typical "I have a bomb" joke at an airport that gets people in trouble.
The gap between a funny hypothetical and a veiled threat is small, but it does exist. This, to me, comes over as a veiled threat. As such, it wouldn't completely surprise me if this would lead to a criminal prosecution and possibly to a small conviction in court. It certainly feels more real than the typical "I have a bomb" joke at an airport that gets people in trouble.
> It's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can never be frustrated.
I haven't read anything suggesting that people should go to jail. I know I'm unlikely to use a taxi service that contemplates blackmailing or retaliating against me using private information if they decide that I'm too annoying, though, even if they decide not to do it. I'm kind of surprised other people feel differently, TBH.
> Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it?
So that the reporter's future sources will feel comfortable giving explicitly "off the record" information with the expectation that it will stay confidential. It has literally nothing to do with the accuracy of this story one way or the other.
I haven't read anything suggesting that people should go to jail. I know I'm unlikely to use a taxi service that contemplates blackmailing or retaliating against me using private information if they decide that I'm too annoying, though, even if they decide not to do it. I'm kind of surprised other people feel differently, TBH.
> Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it?
So that the reporter's future sources will feel comfortable giving explicitly "off the record" information with the expectation that it will stay confidential. It has literally nothing to do with the accuracy of this story one way or the other.
Off the record is privilege given by the journalist at its own discretion, not a right.
These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days.
I opt out at airports, I donate to the EFF, I don't use Uber or any other app that targets people's privacy and actively threatens the freedom of the press.
(Oh, and like Sarah Lacey, I'm a mom of young kids too. Reading that article induced such a shudder of horror, and will likely do the same for any parent who reads, or even hears about, that story. Uber has done major, major damage to their brand on a visceral level.)