Uber has a law firm investigating me – Susan Fowler(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Uber has a law firm investigating me – Susan Fowler
https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/837339141520023552
119 comments
Fowler has probably received a letter from an Uber hired lawyer asking her to take down the blog and threatening to sue her for damages.
Why else would she hire a lawyer? I see no other reason why she would hire a lawyer except to respond to a scary letter on scary letterhead that was probably personally served to her doorstep. (Which alone is a horrible experience one wishes on no one.)
Everyone, buy that Microservices book! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491965975/ref=as_li_tl?ie...
(I grabbed the link directly from Fowler's blog in case it includes any affiliate juice for her.)
Why else would she hire a lawyer? I see no other reason why she would hire a lawyer except to respond to a scary letter on scary letterhead that was probably personally served to her doorstep. (Which alone is a horrible experience one wishes on no one.)
Everyone, buy that Microservices book! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491965975/ref=as_li_tl?ie...
(I grabbed the link directly from Fowler's blog in case it includes any affiliate juice for her.)
It includes an affiliate code ("tag=susanfowler-20"). I don't know how much that would pay out but I assume she'd end up with more if you just sent her $1. (I'm hoping she provides a way for others to contribute towards her legal costs.)
O'Reilly sends her royalty cheques, too, for every sale, so I'm sure it's worth more than $1 to her!
For context, "Names/blames me for account deletes" is probably related to: http://www.complex.com/life/2017/02/uber-users-deleting-app-...
https://twitter.com/FamousCeleb/status/834567373214539776/ph...
https://twitter.com/FamousCeleb/status/834567373214539776/ph...
Why does a user have to email a company to delete their account? How is that consumer friendly, especially after Uber lets your account get hacked/1k stolen!
This happened to me (I never used Uber.. signed up and forgot about it) and in my research I found out they know about the hacks and their PR message is its the user's fault for using a lame password.
What a horrible company.. run by the worst vile, corrupt, arrogant sociopaths ever!
This happened to me (I never used Uber.. signed up and forgot about it) and in my research I found out they know about the hacks and their PR message is its the user's fault for using a lame password.
What a horrible company.. run by the worst vile, corrupt, arrogant sociopaths ever!
To be fair here, having to send an email to delete your account is true of the vast majority of companies.
It is? Who else does this so I can avoid them!
It's an internet service .. I don't need to send an email to Facebook, twitter, etc to have my account canceled. Uber should be no different unless there's a pending charge then tell the user you can cancel after payment has cleared ...not wait until we feel like emailing you to handle your request because WE WANT TO LOCK YOU IN! I was and am still furious that I was unable to cancel my phantom Uber account immediately after my bank account got hacked.
Any web service following this scheme is not doing it for their users but for themselves!!!
It's an internet service .. I don't need to send an email to Facebook, twitter, etc to have my account canceled. Uber should be no different unless there's a pending charge then tell the user you can cancel after payment has cleared ...not wait until we feel like emailing you to handle your request because WE WANT TO LOCK YOU IN! I was and am still furious that I was unable to cancel my phantom Uber account immediately after my bank account got hacked.
Any web service following this scheme is not doing it for their users but for themselves!!!
Your Facebook account is never deleted. It is only deactivated.
It's gone off the Internet for the user and everyone.
Why are ppl defending this tactic because you use it at your startup and try to justify it as right when it's SO WRONG and hostile to your users.
Why are ppl defending this tactic because you use it at your startup and try to justify it as right when it's SO WRONG and hostile to your users.
It also has the name of her hired law firm in a frame, you can see it better here
https://mobile.twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/83733914152...
> despite being in quotes
Good point. That's bad. We removed the quotes above.
Good point. That's bad. We removed the quotes above.
I had an extended exchange with an Uber employee the other day, in which he steadfastly refused to believe that Uber was going after Fowler after the initial reports of this. Despite countless examples of this kind of behavior in the past, he kept insisting that everything was only "alleged" or "unverified."
I'm not sure what kind of cargo cult they have going on over there, but it sure is effective at getting people to see past the most obvious examples of straight up awfulness. Explains a lot about what happened to Susan.
I'm not sure what kind of cargo cult they have going on over there, but it sure is effective at getting people to see past the most obvious examples of straight up awfulness. Explains a lot about what happened to Susan.
It's not just Uber. When your identity gets caught up in your employment, political party, religion, etc. you end up suffering from serious cognitive dissonance regarding it.
They don't want to believe that an entity they identify with is a bad (ethical, political) actor. They see themselves as good (and maybe they are), and so this thing that they base their identity on must also be good (and in some ways, maybe even most, it could be). Criticism of the entity becomes criticism against the self, which they cannot help but deny because it destroys their own self-image.
They don't want to believe that an entity they identify with is a bad (ethical, political) actor. They see themselves as good (and maybe they are), and so this thing that they base their identity on must also be good (and in some ways, maybe even most, it could be). Criticism of the entity becomes criticism against the self, which they cannot help but deny because it destroys their own self-image.
Or as Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."[1]
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair
1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair
I steadfastly refused to
expect, pending more data, investigation with intent to discredit, disparage, or defame Susan Fowler.
This is still unclear but I certainly agree that it is very worrying. You can bet that we'll be asking tough questions about it on Tuesday.
As an aside, I believe you simply meant "cult" - "cargo cult" is specifically to do with performing actions superficially resembling things that work elsewhere without understanding (or replicating) the why of it. Your accusation, of persisting in believing bizarre things in the face of evidence, is more general.
This is still unclear but I certainly agree that it is very worrying. You can bet that we'll be asking tough questions about it on Tuesday.
As an aside, I believe you simply meant "cult" - "cargo cult" is specifically to do with performing actions superficially resembling things that work elsewhere without understanding (or replicating) the why of it. Your accusation, of persisting in believing bizarre things in the face of evidence, is more general.
Hey, thanks for commenting on this. I respect that you'll stand up internally against any attempt to go after Susan. Apologies for not giving you more credit in my original comment.
I used cargo cult because I expect that a lot of the willingness to dismiss this behavior is out of expectation of a maybe-never-to-be-delivered gift from the "IPO Gods."
Just to be clear, I'm not ascribing this to you, but I've had other conversations with Uber employees who were explicitly cynical in their stance, after this fashion.
I used cargo cult because I expect that a lot of the willingness to dismiss this behavior is out of expectation of a maybe-never-to-be-delivered gift from the "IPO Gods."
Just to be clear, I'm not ascribing this to you, but I've had other conversations with Uber employees who were explicitly cynical in their stance, after this fashion.
Thanks!
An alternate idiom that avoids the "cult" versus "cargo cult" confusion would be "I don't know what's in their [corporate] Kool-Aid over there...".
That evokes the image of Jim Jones People's Temple Jonestown mass murder-suicide, using poisoned Flavor Aid beverage mix. In a corporate context, "drinking the Kool-Aid" means to uncritically embrace the corporate culture, even if it is actually toxic.
Anecdotally, companies that try to impress a culture upon their employees always do it to obscure the otherwise obvious shortcomings in the business itself. Without fail, it is continuously reinforced propaganda, designed to create an irrational emotional attachment to the workplace. Subtler versions use "we" or "us" to refer to the employee labor, rather than the owners and managers.
Everyone does it to some extent, and once you can see the fnords, you can't stop seeing them.
The literal cargo cultists were south Pacific islanders that saw temporary military airfields constructed in World War 2, and planes filled with valuable cargo landing on them or making airdrops, correlated the two, and then built their own mock airfields so that the goods would once again rain down from the sky. The business of running a working airfield was transformed into a religious ritual to call down manna from heaven. In a modern figurative sense, "cargo culting" is something like instituting a daily stand-up meeting when your development process is not actually Agile Manifesto compatible.
While "cult" is in a literal sense nothing more than a group with a common religion, the word has acquired a derogatory shading that implies practices hostile and predatory to the membership, secrecy, and insularity. If your religion severely punishes heterodoxy or apostasy, attempts to supplant or replace your supportive institutions such as family, friends, and government, and encourages you to liquidate your own wealth and transfer it to the religious leadership, it will probably be referred to by non-members and the news media as a cult. Some businesses employ cult-like practices, and often replace the direct tithing with less obvious schemes, such as multilevel marketing or sweatshop labor.
That evokes the image of Jim Jones People's Temple Jonestown mass murder-suicide, using poisoned Flavor Aid beverage mix. In a corporate context, "drinking the Kool-Aid" means to uncritically embrace the corporate culture, even if it is actually toxic.
Anecdotally, companies that try to impress a culture upon their employees always do it to obscure the otherwise obvious shortcomings in the business itself. Without fail, it is continuously reinforced propaganda, designed to create an irrational emotional attachment to the workplace. Subtler versions use "we" or "us" to refer to the employee labor, rather than the owners and managers.
Everyone does it to some extent, and once you can see the fnords, you can't stop seeing them.
The literal cargo cultists were south Pacific islanders that saw temporary military airfields constructed in World War 2, and planes filled with valuable cargo landing on them or making airdrops, correlated the two, and then built their own mock airfields so that the goods would once again rain down from the sky. The business of running a working airfield was transformed into a religious ritual to call down manna from heaven. In a modern figurative sense, "cargo culting" is something like instituting a daily stand-up meeting when your development process is not actually Agile Manifesto compatible.
While "cult" is in a literal sense nothing more than a group with a common religion, the word has acquired a derogatory shading that implies practices hostile and predatory to the membership, secrecy, and insularity. If your religion severely punishes heterodoxy or apostasy, attempts to supplant or replace your supportive institutions such as family, friends, and government, and encourages you to liquidate your own wealth and transfer it to the religious leadership, it will probably be referred to by non-members and the news media as a cult. Some businesses employ cult-like practices, and often replace the direct tithing with less obvious schemes, such as multilevel marketing or sweatshop labor.
Right, exactly.
> I'm not sure what kind of cargo cult they have going on over there
Cargo cultism has nothing to do with getting people to see past "straight up awfulness."
Is Uber practicing sympathetic magic in hopes that they'll receive what they're after? And if so, after what more-technicially-advanced society are they patterning their behavior?
Maybe you meant something like that (e.g., [tech figure/company] is predatory, they were successful, therefore being predatory might bring success–could go the argument), but I have no idea from your comment whether that's the case.
For anyone who isn't familiar with cargo cults, they're pretty interesting, yet for some reason the word "cargo" has become this word we prepend to "cult" when we want to make a cult sound more scary, but it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with what can happen when certain societies make contact with ones that are more technologically advanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
Cargo cultism has nothing to do with getting people to see past "straight up awfulness."
Is Uber practicing sympathetic magic in hopes that they'll receive what they're after? And if so, after what more-technicially-advanced society are they patterning their behavior?
Maybe you meant something like that (e.g., [tech figure/company] is predatory, they were successful, therefore being predatory might bring success–could go the argument), but I have no idea from your comment whether that's the case.
For anyone who isn't familiar with cargo cults, they're pretty interesting, yet for some reason the word "cargo" has become this word we prepend to "cult" when we want to make a cult sound more scary, but it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with what can happen when certain societies make contact with ones that are more technologically advanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
It's deeply ironic, in a sense.
You add the word "cargo" because you see other people do it and receive praise for their insight. It's almost like a superfluous landing strip...
You add the word "cargo" because you see other people do it and receive praise for their insight. It's almost like a superfluous landing strip...
Uber employee here. I don't believe Uber would be stupid enough to investigate or disparage Susan. She is and should be untouchable. In my opinion Uber should offer her a full apology, their thanks, and "make it right" financially.
I don't think you understand the level of support Susan has at Uber. And the level of anger that her blog post erupted within Uber towards management. She has every employees' support. And thanks to her, massive changes in culture and management are going to happen. She singlehandedly changed Uber more than anyone in management would or could.
So if Uber were investigating Susan, there would be massive revolt against management, guaranteed. It would be immediate.
I don't think you understand the level of support Susan has at Uber. And the level of anger that her blog post erupted within Uber towards management. She has every employees' support. And thanks to her, massive changes in culture and management are going to happen. She singlehandedly changed Uber more than anyone in management would or could.
So if Uber were investigating Susan, there would be massive revolt against management, guaranteed. It would be immediate.
...but she says this is happening, so where's the revolt? I'm not sure how you can support Susan but than pick and choose what to believe about her experience, then and now with Uber. That's not support.
It appears there is already a revolt going on, fwiw.
https://twitter.com/physicsNcoffee/status/834566962998960128
https://twitter.com/physicsNcoffee/status/834566962998960128
That number was a lie btw.
Because she is unfortunately incorrect. Just because I support her doesn't mean I can't be factually objective. It sounds like some sort of miscommunication.
Here is the official statement from Uber:
"The law firm Perkins Coie is looking into the specific allegations raised by Susan. They will report into Eric Holder, who is responsible for the overall investigation into Uber's workplace practices. To be clear: they are investigating Susan's claims, not Susan personally."
In an email from one of our lawyers, she specifically mentions that Uber has been in constant contact with Susan's lawyers so this was a surprise. And that Uber of course doesn't hold Susan to blame for anything.
Here is the official statement from Uber:
"The law firm Perkins Coie is looking into the specific allegations raised by Susan. They will report into Eric Holder, who is responsible for the overall investigation into Uber's workplace practices. To be clear: they are investigating Susan's claims, not Susan personally."
In an email from one of our lawyers, she specifically mentions that Uber has been in constant contact with Susan's lawyers so this was a surprise. And that Uber of course doesn't hold Susan to blame for anything.
I'm sorry, but I'll wait for futher word from Susan on this. Uber and it's surrogates have little in the way of credibility in this regard, given that they've intentionally lied about similar behavior in the past.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12201134/uber-ergo-admit-l...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12201134/uber-ergo-admit-l...
That's your prerogative. I choose to believe this was a misunderstanding on the part of Susan. Of course, if there is further evidence then I would love to hear it and make a new decision then.
[deleted]
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
That's just a regular cult. It isn't as if they are applying poorly understood management advice here.
Of course everyone that knows more facts on both sides of the story and draws a different conclusion is a victim of cargo cult.
Sadly, no one is willing to state the facts on the other side because they will be labeled as, cargo cult victim, if not worse. And we might lose our critical thinking skills along the way.
The media environment is partly to blame. They are chasing shiny objects that generate clicks, while leaving fact-based reporting in the backseat. There was an actual harassment case against Tesla filed in court last week by a current employee. How many stories have we seen on that?
Sadly, no one is willing to state the facts on the other side because they will be labeled as, cargo cult victim, if not worse. And we might lose our critical thinking skills along the way.
The media environment is partly to blame. They are chasing shiny objects that generate clicks, while leaving fact-based reporting in the backseat. There was an actual harassment case against Tesla filed in court last week by a current employee. How many stories have we seen on that?
Umm, okay. I would fully expect this. Ms. Fowler seems to be a large liability for Uber. I don't find it unreasonable that "Uber has a law firm investigating <her>", if for no other reason than to find what she knew and when she knew it (or something along those lines), were she to sue what are the potential ramifications, et. al.
IOW, I'm not going to run in circles over a seven word tweet that could mean about anything.
IOW, I'm not going to run in circles over a seven word tweet that could mean about anything.
I think this is probably right. It is very common when a company has been sued (or, in this case, probably worries that it will be sued) for the company's lawyers to conduct a pretty deep background investigation on the (would-be) plaintiff.
It's not necessarily a savory practice, nor is it universal, but it is definitely common.
I think it's unfortunate that Fowler has to go through this indignity as well as what she dealt with when she was actually working for Uber. But I'd frankly be surprised if Uber's lawyers weren't investigating her, just in case.
It's not necessarily a savory practice, nor is it universal, but it is definitely common.
I think it's unfortunate that Fowler has to go through this indignity as well as what she dealt with when she was actually working for Uber. But I'd frankly be surprised if Uber's lawyers weren't investigating her, just in case.
Just to nitpick ... 'on the (would-be) plaintiff.' ... IIRC, Susan has not made any indication she intends to sue. Her article merely commented on her experience at Uber and I didn't pick up any language which indicated she was still annoyed or angry enough to want to sue.
It's cheaper to investigate their potential liability than to risk it though.
The seven words in the HN title are not the tweet.
Part of the actual tweet is: "Uber names/blames me for account deletes" That's a much more aggressive approach than the defensive reasoning you're conjuring out of thin air.
Part of the actual tweet is: "Uber names/blames me for account deletes" That's a much more aggressive approach than the defensive reasoning you're conjuring out of thin air.
By the way - what a stupid logic they apply.
Similarily it would be fine to say that I blame the cop for losing my job because he pulled me over drunk and now I cannot drive to my work with suspended DL.
Similarily it would be fine to say that I blame the cop for losing my job because he pulled me over drunk and now I cannot drive to my work with suspended DL.
The seven words in the HN title are not the tweet.
Then it shouldn't have been in quotes (I see that it's since been changed).
Then it shouldn't have been in quotes (I see that it's since been changed).
A previous tweet implied this may be a part of a smear campaign: https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833
> IOW, I'm not going to run in circles over a seven word tweet that could mean about anything.
It's not a 7 word tweet. Full text of linked tweet:
"Uber names/blames me for account deletes, and has a different law firm -not Holders - investigating me. I have hired"
The "names/blames for account deletes" is kinda weird. In either case, the title of this submission is a strict paraphrasing (despite being in quotes) of an already short tweet, which is pretty meh.
It's not a 7 word tweet. Full text of linked tweet:
"Uber names/blames me for account deletes, and has a different law firm -not Holders - investigating me. I have hired"
The "names/blames for account deletes" is kinda weird. In either case, the title of this submission is a strict paraphrasing (despite being in quotes) of an already short tweet, which is pretty meh.
[deleted]
Pro tip for whistleblowers: Hire an attorney before you blow the whistle, and listen to their advice. Preferably an attorney who has litigated against your employer in the past. If you simply must write a diatribe beforehand then stick the facts of the issue at-hand (eg. discrimination) and avoid the temptation to author a tell all. Even the best future employers will be given pause upon learning of your tell all blog post, regardless of the rock solid merits. In short: Don't let you feelings get in the way of your desired result.
That depends entirely on what your goal is.
Her goal wasn't to protect herself from an Evil Corp, but to shed light to Evil Corp's actions. She achieved that probably better than she ever expected.
Her blog post also was one of the most "rantless" posts I've ever read about events of that nature. Compare, for example, to Leah Rowe's public posts about the GNU foundation. It wasn't written because her feelings got in the way.
Her goal wasn't to protect herself from an Evil Corp, but to shed light to Evil Corp's actions. She achieved that probably better than she ever expected.
Her blog post also was one of the most "rantless" posts I've ever read about events of that nature. Compare, for example, to Leah Rowe's public posts about the GNU foundation. It wasn't written because her feelings got in the way.
And people were asking why these women just don't sue. It seems people need to be careful and think twice even when writing a blog post let alone sue.
Sueing a gigantic company requires lots of money, courage, and could leave you a marked person. It's not that easy of a thing to do.
Short answer is that their employment contracts probably don't allow them to sue. Almost all employment contracts contain binding arbitration agreements now.
I suspect that Fowler may very well have done that (and then some) before even writing the blog post. Looking back in retrospect, the timing was uncannily excellent and very media savvy.
This situation would require immense courage from anyone, and she's been handling it perfectly. I don't think she needs a pro-tip !
This situation would require immense courage from anyone, and she's been handling it perfectly. I don't think she needs a pro-tip !
"Consult an expensive attorney before you speak out against a powerful person harassing you"
smdh.
smdh.
I may be missing something but why isn't the burden of proving those allegations on Susan Fowler? Why are we so quick to point fingers at Uber without even giving them the chance to defend themselves?
Many people hate Uber and what they do. There is a strong incentive to smear the company. Smearing Uber has been done in the past when the whole #deleteUber was started becaude Uber drivers were not force to participate in the airport boycotts.
Many people hate Uber and what they do. There is a strong incentive to smear the company. Smearing Uber has been done in the past when the whole #deleteUber was started becaude Uber drivers were not force to participate in the airport boycotts.
This is not a court of law.
We as individuals can take a look at all of the evidence available about the illegal things that Uber does, and decide for ourselves if the allegations are credible.
This is not about 1 story by one woman who was harassed. This is a story about a dozen women who are already coming forward, and a toxic culture that anyone at Uber can confirm exists.
If Uber wants people to give them the benefit of the doubt, then maybe they should stop doing so many terrible things.
Similarly, if I had 10 separate female friends that I trust tell me about how this one guy had harassed them in different situations, I wouldn't bother going to each of them and demand that they give me video evidence. I would just stop talking to the guy, and warn my other friends about him. Doubly so if the guy just responded by saying, "I will not confirm or deny any allegations, but I would like to point out that nobody has any proof!".
If you are reduced to saying "No proof has been shown yet!", as opposed to actually making an argument, putting your reputation on the line, then you have already lost.
Or in otherwords, in order for me to give ANY weight to the "There are 2 sides to any story", then Uber needs to come out and claim that there are 2 side. Silence doesn't count. Silence in this case is admitting that they are in the wrong.
We as individuals can take a look at all of the evidence available about the illegal things that Uber does, and decide for ourselves if the allegations are credible.
This is not about 1 story by one woman who was harassed. This is a story about a dozen women who are already coming forward, and a toxic culture that anyone at Uber can confirm exists.
If Uber wants people to give them the benefit of the doubt, then maybe they should stop doing so many terrible things.
Similarly, if I had 10 separate female friends that I trust tell me about how this one guy had harassed them in different situations, I wouldn't bother going to each of them and demand that they give me video evidence. I would just stop talking to the guy, and warn my other friends about him. Doubly so if the guy just responded by saying, "I will not confirm or deny any allegations, but I would like to point out that nobody has any proof!".
If you are reduced to saying "No proof has been shown yet!", as opposed to actually making an argument, putting your reputation on the line, then you have already lost.
Or in otherwords, in order for me to give ANY weight to the "There are 2 sides to any story", then Uber needs to come out and claim that there are 2 side. Silence doesn't count. Silence in this case is admitting that they are in the wrong.
Also there's an overall pattern of behavior, its not just women in the company being harassed, its also the treatment of the drivers, all the things Lyft is suing them over doing, and even their sketchy "rides of glory" post show that their corporate culture just doesn't understand how to not be a complete asshole.
Because Kalanick is awkward and unlikeable.
Just look at how he behaves in that video in the back of an Uber - rather than empathizing with his driver and saying nothing substantial, he actually discusses the business reasons for creating UberX. He treated his driver a a rational human being like himself rather than an emotional being to be placated.
See also this blog post by Jeff Atwood, where he advocates for pointless theatrics and emotional manipulation. It's quite insightful, and Kalanick's refusal to do such things is probably hurting him: https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-unti...
Just look at how he behaves in that video in the back of an Uber - rather than empathizing with his driver and saying nothing substantial, he actually discusses the business reasons for creating UberX. He treated his driver a a rational human being like himself rather than an emotional being to be placated.
See also this blog post by Jeff Atwood, where he advocates for pointless theatrics and emotional manipulation. It's quite insightful, and Kalanick's refusal to do such things is probably hurting him: https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-unti...
Well put.
I've noticed a phenomenon where people seem to substitute PR/optics for their own morality. That is, people will criticize a public person not for what they've done or said, but for how it looks or how it is likely to be perceived by others.
I've noticed a phenomenon where people seem to substitute PR/optics for their own morality. That is, people will criticize a public person not for what they've done or said, but for how it looks or how it is likely to be perceived by others.
I have a Hansonian theory that we actually want powerful and visible people to engage in PR for us in spite of knowing it's BS. The reason is that this suggests to us that they care what we think, at least enough to signal tribal loyalty to us, to tell us that they need us.
One of the greatest fears of the modern world is that the higher quality people might one day exit. We demonize companies for outsourcing, rich people for living in gated communities and sending children to private schools, tech bros for using Uber/google bus/etc rather than riding the broken SF public transit.
A person like Kalanick (or Thiel, to name a similarly disliked figure) who refuses to engage in this kind of PR is scary; it's a reminder that they don't need us.
One of the greatest fears of the modern world is that the higher quality people might one day exit. We demonize companies for outsourcing, rich people for living in gated communities and sending children to private schools, tech bros for using Uber/google bus/etc rather than riding the broken SF public transit.
A person like Kalanick (or Thiel, to name a similarly disliked figure) who refuses to engage in this kind of PR is scary; it's a reminder that they don't need us.
Uber has a history of atrocious behavior. If you want to talk about "smearing" ask Sarah Lacy about Uber circa 2014.
As for "the burden of proving" what, exactly, do you expect? Screenshots of the harassment?
The "hard proof" is for a court, if it comes to that, and not you, the general public.
As for "the burden of proving" what, exactly, do you expect? Screenshots of the harassment?
The "hard proof" is for a court, if it comes to that, and not you, the general public.
Uber's opponents also have a history of atrocious behavior. I could cite numerous assaults against Uber drivers by taxi drivers, unfair lobbying of politicians, slander and hit pieces by so-called journalists etc.
Whether we are in a court of law or not, the burden of proof must remain on the accuser. So far, Susan Fowler has provided no proof. There is no tape, no email, no corroboration by other witnesses. Are we just supposed to take her word for it and sharpen our pitchforks?
Whether we are in a court of law or not, the burden of proof must remain on the accuser. So far, Susan Fowler has provided no proof. There is no tape, no email, no corroboration by other witnesses. Are we just supposed to take her word for it and sharpen our pitchforks?
"Pitchforks" is a bit melodramatic.
But basically, nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda.
Her blog post was straightforward and referred to events, people and communications which, I expect, can be referenced by the UBER HR department and I hope that she has retained the evidence if she needs it to protect herself. That seems perfectly reasonable.
But basically, nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda.
Her blog post was straightforward and referred to events, people and communications which, I expect, can be referenced by the UBER HR department and I hope that she has retained the evidence if she needs it to protect herself. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Yes, let's hope she has retained the evidence and she shows some of it.
> nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda.
It is suspicious that considering the number of people involved in this alleged systematic abuse, no one has stepped forward to corroborate her claims. The leather jackets story also strikes me as very far-fetched and a little incredible to believe (a company like Uber wouldn't care about the cost of 6 extra jackets and wouldn't take the PR risk of pulling shit like that).
> "Pitchforks" is a bit melodramatic.
Hashtag #DeleteUber is exactly what the proverbial pitchforks look like in 2017.
> nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda.
It is suspicious that considering the number of people involved in this alleged systematic abuse, no one has stepped forward to corroborate her claims. The leather jackets story also strikes me as very far-fetched and a little incredible to believe (a company like Uber wouldn't care about the cost of 6 extra jackets and wouldn't take the PR risk of pulling shit like that).
> "Pitchforks" is a bit melodramatic.
Hashtag #DeleteUber is exactly what the proverbial pitchforks look like in 2017.
Re: the leather jackets, I think you might be underestimating the ability of people to be simultaneously stubborn and incompetent. I don't find that story to be at all unbelievable.
> The leather jackets story also strikes me as very far-fetched and a little incredible to believe (a company like Uber wouldn't care about the cost of 6 extra jackets and wouldn't take the PR risk of pulling shit like that).
I don't see why we should assume that the Uber bureaucracy is wise and level-headed in decisions big and small, and that Susan Fowler would risk making up such a stupid and easily disprovable detail after alleging far more serious claims.
I don't see why we should assume that the Uber bureaucracy is wise and level-headed in decisions big and small, and that Susan Fowler would risk making up such a stupid and easily disprovable detail after alleging far more serious claims.
Uber has a history of sketchy behavior, such as investigating journalists who have written less than complimentary stories. Uber has basically done the Exact thing Fowler is explaining before. To me, that provides a pretty convincing argument that they are more than capable, and more than willing to do it again.
The reason I believe her is the track record. Uber is so sleazy it's hard to imagine a worse company imho.
In her blog post she claims she took and shared many screenshots, among other items, with Uber management of messaging she received. There is proof. Will it come out in public forums? Why would it?
The odds of a lawsuit from one side or the other seems high, at least right now. Why air that all publicly? Doing so can and has undermined cases for both sides in the past.
Besides that, does our justice system now use Twitter to try and convict? Are trials by public opinion what matter now? When did that change?
What exactly is stopping Uber from defending themselves? They have a lot of money, top-notch PR folks, and I suspect top-notch legal representation. If they could easily disprove this, would they not have done so already?
The odds of a lawsuit from one side or the other seems high, at least right now. Why air that all publicly? Doing so can and has undermined cases for both sides in the past.
Besides that, does our justice system now use Twitter to try and convict? Are trials by public opinion what matter now? When did that change?
What exactly is stopping Uber from defending themselves? They have a lot of money, top-notch PR folks, and I suspect top-notch legal representation. If they could easily disprove this, would they not have done so already?
I only regret that I have but one app to delete
Does anyone know if apps get a chance to phone home about their deletion?
Is the owner going to see a specific stat about this action?
Is the owner going to see a specific stat about this action?
I imagine quite a lot who were motivated enough to delete the app because of this would also delete their Uber account. As I understand it (I've never had an Uber account) there's an optional feedback thing where you can say why you're deleting the account.
They can definitely see the stats for when users click the "Delete Account" button.
Also they can see the usage metrics drop for existing consumers, who have not deleted their accounts but have simply deleted the app.
Also they can see the usage metrics drop for existing consumers, who have not deleted their accounts but have simply deleted the app.
iOS has no documented event for apps to be notified when an app is deleted. I assume it is the same in Android.
[deleted]
What about Uber Eats? I got to delete two apps, myself.
just keep installing/deleting it repeatedly.
Theoretically, you can also keep allowing Push Notification permission every time you install and then delete. This will cause the number of push tokens (unique per device per install) they see to increase.
There are ways to overcome this of course - they might have a routine to send silent push notifications at regular intervals to test for this and purge inactive ones or retire extremely old tokens. Just a lot of housekeeping.
P.S: Not posting to incite any malicious behavior - just issues i've seen with trying to count "unique" installs for mobile apps.
Edit:typo
Edit:typo
That will do nothing.
What you want to do is delete your account after logging into the UBER website. That is permanent, but it does allow you enter a reason why you are deleting the account. In this case, I suppose thousands of people entered "Susan Fowler" as the reason.
It sends a message. Whether the company is destined to become a shadow of itself before it understands the message is another question.
What you want to do is delete your account after logging into the UBER website. That is permanent, but it does allow you enter a reason why you are deleting the account. In this case, I suppose thousands of people entered "Susan Fowler" as the reason.
It sends a message. Whether the company is destined to become a shadow of itself before it understands the message is another question.
Exactly. I suspect a lot of people who deleted the Uber app (quick and easy) never bothered to subsequently log in and go through the process of actually deleting their account. In fact, many likely assumed (incorrectly) that deleting the app deleted their account as well.
i thought the harassment story was bad but did everyone miss the totally malfunctioning hr review process and awful culture in susan's story? I just thought that was the hidden part of the iceberg - that there is some kind of crazy lord of the flies thing going on there that is the root of all the harassment and the other bizarre behaviour between teams there. I just don't see it as a very nice place to work unless you thrive in these kind of lawless every-man-for-himself environment.
Same piece, right? Or was there a mini-series?
same piece! i guess everyone was caught up in the sexual harassment story, and the crazy story of her getting her review post hoc revised and transfers/scholarships cancelled became a side story? i found every single part of her story aggravating, the hr process, the backstabbing, the politicking, the sexual harassment, all of it.
It seems to me, that any decent Law firm would have told her not to tweet about it imho. /ianal
Disagree. Speaking up about Uber's conduct is a personal risk that Ms. Fowler has apparently decided to take, perhaps for reasons of personal integrity. A good lawyer would advise her of the scope and magnitude of risk, and then support her if she chooses to run that risk.
You are right. A lawyer's job is to minimize your legal risk. The least risky thing to do is to keep silent. That's what he'll reliably tell you to do.
It's your job to decide how much risk you are willing to take to speak out. Some fights are worth fighting.
It's your job to decide how much risk you are willing to take to speak out. Some fights are worth fighting.
[deleted]
Trying a case via the media to push a large company into a settlement is hardly a new strategy, especially with a company like Uber that's getting large amounts of bad PR.
> that's getting large amounts of bad PR.
Do you mean that is caught doing a lot of nasty stuff? The company has problems, it pushes against workers rights, it leaves towns that don't bow to their business tactics, it is sexist, etc. The "bad PR" is the symptom not the problem. Their actions are the problem.
Do you mean that is caught doing a lot of nasty stuff? The company has problems, it pushes against workers rights, it leaves towns that don't bow to their business tactics, it is sexist, etc. The "bad PR" is the symptom not the problem. Their actions are the problem.
Under other circumstances I'd agree this is poor strategy w/r/t preparing for possible future legal defense. Detail here may be that Fowler may soon find herself gagged from disclosing further details, especially if surviving terms in her employment contract with Uber allow for it.
If Uber tries to use employee covenants to silence Ms. Fowler, what do you think the reaction is going to be? This is just the beginning. If the problems are as systemic as alleged by Ms. Fowler, the litigation will be working its way through courts for years to come.
It has to be this bad or worse! You dont hire ex attorney general who is corrupted on record (currently works for clients that he initally was investigating as GA and of course never got anywhere) if you dont need a player that has "get free from jail" card.
There does not appear to be genuine contrition, that is for sure...
It doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. If they're investigating her to mount a smear campaign, getting out in front of it sounds like a good idea. But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?
Under normal circumstances, yes.
However, in this case, it is already largely public and making Uber look the villain is a viable strategy given that Uber likely is the villain.
However, in this case, it is already largely public and making Uber look the villain is a viable strategy given that Uber likely is the villain.
that, or they're giving her a sweetheart deal (i.e. low/no fee) because her case is high profile and they can write it off as an advertising expense.
Care to elaborate?
I'm pretty clueless about the law, but I don't really see what case Uber has against her. How could they prove that she's the one that resulted in account deletions?
Even if you suppose she's the one to blame, if what she claimed is true then wouldn't their point be moot?
Even if you suppose she's the one to blame, if what she claimed is true then wouldn't their point be moot?
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/02/27/it-admin-was-aut...
They are probably thinking they can go that route.
They are probably thinking they can go that route.
I think going through the court system would be much better way to find out the truth and serve punishment if needed, but only if the ground is a bit more even between a major corporation and an individual.
Is there a way to support Fowler in some way, like contributing to a legal fund?
Is there a way to support Fowler in some way, like contributing to a legal fund?
Not surprising. Depressing, but not at all surprising.
Why is it depressing? The company needs to know where it stands. This tweet could mean anything from her being stalked to legal representatives taking pre-deposition interviews.
While it seems pretty cut and dried to me that Uber is in the wrong, don't they have the responsibility and the right to investigate for themselves?
While it seems pretty cut and dried to me that Uber is in the wrong, don't they have the responsibility and the right to investigate for themselves?
Holder is supposedly investigating the situation for Uber.
A 2nd firm looking at Fowler specifically would imply a different (addl) strategy--like litigation against her personally, or a PR campaign to smear her.
A 2nd firm looking at Fowler specifically would imply a different (addl) strategy--like litigation against her personally, or a PR campaign to smear her.
Well I had not yet deleted the Uber app, but now? Gonzo! And it's not just Susan's account, but all the revelations of how crappy their company culture is, the immaturity and general misbehavior of their CEO (who clearly doesn't understand how being a CEO of such a huge company means he needs to grow up super fast and act like a decent moral human being).
rfdub(2)
First off, I empathize her horrendous experiences of being harassed at Uber and applaud her courage to speak out.
Susan runs a book club [1][2] and is a published author[3]. Her quick fame rising from the recent press and a 24k+ follower and the amount of product placements on her tweet feed has reminded that old saying: All Press is Good Press.
[1]: https://twitter.com/susansbookclub
[2]: http://www.susansbookclub.com/
[3]: https://www.amazon.com/Susan-Fowler/e/B01L8LPRWK
Susan runs a book club [1][2] and is a published author[3]. Her quick fame rising from the recent press and a 24k+ follower and the amount of product placements on her tweet feed has reminded that old saying: All Press is Good Press.
[1]: https://twitter.com/susansbookclub
[2]: http://www.susansbookclub.com/
[3]: https://www.amazon.com/Susan-Fowler/e/B01L8LPRWK
It seems unwise to trot out "all press is good press" given the onslaught of bad (and objectively damaging) press that has gone Uber's way in the past week, which is to say nothing of the rest of your comment.
Somehow, even at scale, "all press is good press" still rings true for Uber, as "bad press" has a way of reaching an unaware, untapped market for them. Uber would regularly experience their largest spurts of user growth during times of "bad press". Taxi protest in the UK? Record numbers across the board in Europe that week. Driver accidentally kill a child? Millions download the app to see what that's all about. Best yet is when a metro's city council poo-poo's Uber's model or regulations, you'll see record growth in that city based off of local news, and now Uber has a localized movement of riders they can lobby to campaign for Uber against the city council. There's a playbook for that.
The number of deletes rarely surpassed the number of signups during any given "PR crisis" or #delete campaign. Fowler wasn't the first time, and it won't be the last.
The number of deletes rarely surpassed the number of signups during any given "PR crisis" or #delete campaign. Fowler wasn't the first time, and it won't be the last.
> the amount of product placements on her tweet feed
Not on her twitter feed. It's on the feed of her product susansbookclub, which is where it should be. What's wrong with that?
Not on her twitter feed. It's on the feed of her product susansbookclub, which is where it should be. What's wrong with that?
On what planet do you live on in which fame for running a book club and/or being an author of niche engineering books has profit potential that outweighs the costs of lawsuits and character assassination?
Your insinuation makes no sense at all. Possible legal costs for defending herself against Uber would greatly outweigh any increased profit
The full tweet is: "Uber names/blames me for account deletes, and has a different law firm -not Holders - investigating me. I have hired"
"Uber names/blames me for account deletes" is a pretty bold claim, and doesn't feel like a routine investigation.