Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 534 posts

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#451

Post by tlogan »

geofft wrote: post #439
tlogan wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just came here to say that. I do not trust Uber and I do not trust her. And without evidence it is "he-said-she-said". I really do not know what to say here. Personally, I'm also worried that girlfriend of my wife working in Uber HR might be accused of "hiding sexual harassment" and subsequently just fired (because they are liability). In these cases kind of cases, "investigation by CEO" will cause low-level employ…

> Personally, I'm also worried that girlfriend of my wife working in Uber HR might be accused of "hiding sexual harassment" and subsequently just fired (because they are liability). In these cases kind of cases, "investigation by CEO" will cause low-level employees to be fired - even if they did nothing wrong. That's a reasonable thing to worry about, but regardless of whether the accusation is true, the worry is abo…

This is conundrum we have.

Uber CEO and top-level management will not suffer as much as low level employees :( And nothing nothing will be fixed.

I'm saying that this kinda of witch hunt on internet is not helping and just makes us feelgood. Yeah - evil Uber (like people working there do not have kids, boyfriends, husbands, etc.). And nobody will come up with actual actions: the only action taken in action by Uber to do "internal investigation" - which I said it will only hurt low level employees.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#452

Post by eropple »

spangry wrote: post #447
eropple wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not wrong. 'hueving's comment history around here pushes an extreme-right-wing viewpoint that is cloaked in just enough civility to make the decent folks I know around here reconsider whether or not it's worth engaging with him. (Many don't, because it's exhausting to be alternative-facted to death.) I wouldn't expect a woman--or anyone--to tell me jack and/or shit if I was comfortable expressing worldviews that…

I really don't see how personal attacks, or attaching pejorative labels to others (conservative, reactionary etc.) enhances your argument. It just makes it seem like you don't have a convincing counter-argument and need to resort to appeals to emotion / preaching to those who already agree with you. If you actually want to convince people who don't share your views, perhaps consider a different tactic. And there's ju…

If "conservative" is a pejorative--well, that's their own doing. I called myself a conservative for a very long time until it became obvious that American conservatism required of its adherents a level of misanthropy that I could not ever support. Hell, I worked for Republican congressional campaigns, twice!

But you seem to misapprehend me, and maybe that's my fault. I don't want to convince any extremist. My intention is to deny them the legitimacy of the chin-stroking, pince-nez-adjusting "thoughtfulness and reason" that they so earnestly adopt. Because that posture is very, very good at convincing the low-information reader that they are credible. They are not. The extreme right wing understands that this isn't about facts (but are happy to retreat to the sinecure of "what about your facts?!" when challenged), but about narratives. I will (and 'DanBC did) challenge 'hueving's narrative because his narrative doesn't make sense: of course he doesn't see it, those who experience it would have to be themselves reality-averse not to realize it would just be an invitation for a battery of well-actuallys and backhanded snipes. It's who he chooses to show himself as. He has no credibility when he leans on what he sees, and shouldn't.

As far as "going through someone's comment history": I'm a known quantity around here and I use my real name. Others may choose to use pseudonyms and that's fine, but their histories here are important for context. 'hueving I recognize by sight. The poster to whom I replied is not one I recognize, but he has comments blurfing about "liberals" literally on the first pace of his comment history. I'm not going to go digging, but I like knowing whether I'm dealing with somebody who's actually acting in good faith. He wasn't, and you can bet I'll call him on it.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#453

Post by enraged_camel »

jimmywanger wrote: post #419
enraged_camel wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me there is a very clear difference between asking a fellow coworker out to dinner, and propositioning a subordinate for sex on their first day on the team. You keep coming up with all kinds of examples, but in real life most people know (or should know) what constitutes harassment and what doesn't.

> but in real life most people know (or should know) what constitutes harassment and what doesn't. That's a very dangerous statement. First, in this case, we're obviously not dealing with most people. If you want clear cut rules, you're not going to find it. Second, these things are culturally dependent. You can go topless on a beach in France and nobody will bat an eye, do so in an asian country and you'll be gawked…

>>First, in this case, we're obviously not dealing with most people.

Of course we are. Most people don't go around sexually harassing others. That's why you hear about it when it happens.

>>Second, these things are culturally dependent.

Again not sure how that's relevant. We aren't talking about a foreign employee who was temporarily visiting the company's San Francisco headquarters. If we were, then you could make the argument that such behavior may be acceptable where the employee is from, but it isn't here in the US.

>>Simply saying "You should know" is not a legal justification for monentary sanctions and/or accusations.

Last time I checked, saying "I didn't know that was the law" was not an excuse.

You aren't sure if something may be perceived as sexual harassment? Then don't do it. It's really that simple.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#454

Post by forgottenpass »

random_upvoter wrote: post #185

As a meta, it seems to be an infallible rule of Hacker News that any discussion about the relationship between men and women turns into an angry painful mess in no time. Maybe we should look into this anger itself rather than draw all sorts of conclusions from cases of which we don't know half of what really happened.

> Maybe we should look into this anger itself...

Not a bad idea in and of itself. But that'll just lead to a bunch of armchair psychologists "discovering" what they already wanted to be true. Undoubtedly a complete net-negative unless there are also some heavy hitters here on HN. Which I doubt, because I rarely even see pop-psych analysis posted beyond the current NorCal memes about what constitute a "healthy" temperament.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#455

Post by spangry »

tunesmith wrote: post #119
deminature wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suing is a surefire pathway to being made a pariah, case in point Ellen Pao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pao_v._Kleiner_Perkins

That article doesn't support anything about her being a pariah.

Yeah I can't find it either. All I can find is this bit that says she sued her employer, alleging gender discrimination, but the jury found in favour of her employer (10-2 and 9-3). I suppose people might be a bit wary of her after that...

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#456

Post by DanBC »

spangry wrote: post #447
eropple wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not wrong. 'hueving's comment history around here pushes an extreme-right-wing viewpoint that is cloaked in just enough civility to make the decent folks I know around here reconsider whether or not it's worth engaging with him. (Many don't, because it's exhausting to be alternative-facted to death.) I wouldn't expect a woman--or anyone--to tell me jack and/or shit if I was comfortable expressing worldviews that…

I really don't see how personal attacks, or attaching pejorative labels to others (conservative, reactionary etc.) enhances your argument. It just makes it seem like you don't have a convincing counter-argument and need to resort to appeals to emotion / preaching to those who already agree with you. If you actually want to convince people who don't share your views, perhaps consider a different tactic. And there's ju…

> And there's just something unsettling about going through someone's comment history

You don't have to go through someone's comment history to remember what they post.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#457

Post by dclowd9901 »

acchow wrote: post #446
SeoxyS wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYTimes is a news organization with a mandate to report on verifiable fact, not rumor or opinion. You're complaining that it's reported as a he-said-she-said type of story… but for now, that's exactly what it is. The claims are quite plausible and convincing (and likely true), but at this point they still are merely unsubstantiated claims. If I were to imagine the right way to report such a story at this point, it wo…

I really wish papers could run non-stories along with the usual stories: "Uber Sexual Harassment Claims Story - In Progress This story is in progress, and the following are the verified facts: The following are claims that no media has reliable, verifiable source on yet. If they are reporting on them as fact, you might want to reconsider what media you trust: We will publish our full story when we the picture is clea…

Sometimes merely repeating an unsubstantiated fact can expose a news org to liability. Take, for instance, a slander or libel case.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#458

Post by ssalazar »

brudgers wrote: post #438
danaliv wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe the reporter didn't read the blog post, because it was beyond his attention span. I know Mike and I assure you that (1) he has the attention span to read a blog post, and (2) he was not just "assigned." He's on the tech beat. He lives in San Francisco, not New York. And he's paying very close attention to this story. Go look at his Twitter feed if you don't believe me. https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac

Curious if the reporter uses or has used Uber. If so, it is the sort of thing that traditional journalism standards would probably applaud disclosing as a potential conflict of interest. To me, this is particularly relevant for a reporter on the Silicon Valley tech beat who is likely to have past interactions with companies like Uber...given the reality that working the Silicon Valley tech beat for the New York Times…

LOL. "Having used the fungible services of a company that is being reported on" is a weak basis for claiming a conflict of interest, a mere grasping of straws. These disclaimers are reserved for financial or business interests between an author and their subject; saving $5 on cab fare over the weekend doesn't count.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#459

Post by spangry »

random_upvoter wrote: post #185

As a meta, it seems to be an infallible rule of Hacker News that any discussion about the relationship between men and women turns into an angry painful mess in no time. Maybe we should look into this anger itself rather than draw all sorts of conclusions from cases of which we don't know half of what really happened.

Yeah, it's a little painful to watch. Half of the comments on this article seem to be mostly appeals to emotion and devoid of any reason. I have no idea if this sort of thing goes on here, but it almost feels like brigading.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#460

Post by just2n »

hashkb wrote: post #350
yummyfajitas wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What actually happened: "Emil was pushing Ben to answer why it was OK for journalists to publish false stories or attack a businessperson’s personal life. Ben was quiet. It was a pretty normal conversation about hypotheticals. There was no malice or yelling or fighting. It was a chat between the two of them that I happened to overhear. The last comment that I heard was when Emil hypothesized about creating a coalitio…

If you are hired by a corporation to respond to journalists, you are in PR, not journalism. You're not motivated by the truth.

Since when is journalism motivated by the truth?
Post reply on HN