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

I am an Uber survivor

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 841 posts

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#831

Post by matt_kantor »

dang wrote: post #826
taw24 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, you're one of those "libertarians" who claims that the market will correct all social ills and then suddenly gets offended when the market starts correcting those social ills.

We've banned this account. HN is not for political and ideological battle, regardless of which political flavor. Combining that with personal attack is particularly unwelcome. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

I hope taw24 can step back and appreciate the irony here (considering this thread's topic).

Thanks as always for the excellent moderation.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#832

Post by everybodyknows »

travmatt wrote: post #791
everybodyknows wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the investigator's _reputation_ is put at stake. But, reputation in the eyes of whom? 1. The public at large, who want to see standards of civic probity upheld? Or, 2. Future clients, who will want value for their money? Delivering #2 requires writing up a designed narrative, in magisterial rhetoric. A narrative that hides all the dirt that isn't likely to come out anyway, and redirects culpability toward low-ra…

Eric 'too big to fail' Holder defined his career on #2.

There's a curious parallel with a certain class of business managers who "extract brand value" by slowly debasing quality, then folding up shop. For example, Hollywood movie sequels, or for-profit colleges.

For a big name like Holder, "folding up shop" would mean something like a beachfront retirement, in Malibu.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#833

Post by gkya »

acomar wrote: post #829
gkya wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no discrimination issue here. Just like one can support a given law, they can oppose it too. OK Cupid's move has nothing to do with free speech at all, and I believe in neither the sincerity nor the aptness thereof. Eich's actions were legal, peasurable or not, and within the protection of basic human rights. (WRT same-sex marriage issue, I believe that civil unions should replace all kinds of marriage we've…

Why is it a free speech issue for Eich to make a donation but not for OKC to choose not to associate with his organization? I fail to see the distinction, especially since the right to free association is closely linked to free speech. This argument has never made any sense to me. Eich's actions were protected from retaliation by the government; if you argue that the same must hold true for private individuals and or…

- Firefox does not belong to Eich, and Eich's words are not representative--good or bad they be--of Firefox users or Firefox developers.

- OKCupid blocking a certain browser to access their website means that who uses Firefox to use their service has to either agree the company and boycott Firefox themselves too or not use the service. That is, they forced those users to participate in the boycott.

- OKCupid is a company, so all of its actions are not only in the name of their executives, but also in the name of the users.

- What they did boiled down to a public shaming campaign, hurting, unjustly, not only a person who used their freedom to support a given political quest, but also a huge community around Firefox and Mozilla that had nothing to do with Eich's political tendencies. Free speech is not useful at all if we let the loudest to win.

What OKCupid did is probably defendable in front of law, but is completely unethical and exploitative. They tried to start a lynch to silence someone. It's no different to shaming someone for being homosexual or calling someone with the N word and excluding them. And it was an attempt to suppress freespeech, not an act thereof.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#834

Post by acomar »

gkya wrote: post #833
acomar wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a free speech issue for Eich to make a donation but not for OKC to choose not to associate with his organization? I fail to see the distinction, especially since the right to free association is closely linked to free speech. This argument has never made any sense to me. Eich's actions were protected from retaliation by the government; if you argue that the same must hold true for private individuals and or…

- Firefox does not belong to Eich, and Eich's words are not representative--good or bad they be--of Firefox users or Firefox developers. - OKCupid blocking a certain browser to access their website means that who uses Firefox to use their service has to either agree the company and boycott Firefox themselves too or not use the service. That is, they forced those users to participate in the boycott. - OKCupid is a com…

I mean, I can tear down Eich's actions the same way to justify what OKC did. That's entirely besides the point however, and my previous point still stands. Even if I buy your premise that OKC's actions are unethical, their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's! I happen to think Eich's action was unethical for a number of reasons, but I'm not arguing against his right to make it.

EDIT: Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech? You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#835

Post by Tycho »

laughinghan wrote: post #682
Tycho wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is one example https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-ri... I could tell it was fake because it hit on so many tropes of the left. Here's a more directly comparable example (incredibly long winded expose... skimming recommended) https://contraspin.co.nz/the-weaponising-of-social-pt1-the-c... It's not about the events, it's about how they are framed and told by the anonymous author.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Guardian article is a hoax? In what way is that a publicly known fact? I did not see any retraction or correction on the link provided. The Contraspin article is pretty fascinating and from skimming it, makes a decent case worth taking seriously, but one good case isn't a consensus; in fact, it appears to run directly contrary to the consensus. (It also has plenty of weak spots; for…

Someone called Godfrey Elfwick claimed to have written the Guardian article as a spoof, although on closer investigation it seems there's no solid proof. That said, it reads like perfect satire, I can't believe it's genuine.

I recall a few similar instances over the years but I can't find links to all of them. Not sure if I can find an exact fit for an anonymous story made up to smear someone. The accusations of child-rape against Trump just before the election spring to mind:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump...

More generally on fake accounts, there was the fake Syrian lesbian blogger:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13760208

There was the fake deaf cerebral palsy blogger:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dave-on-wheels

There was this "meeting a troll" story from years ago which I always suspected was fake - looked it up just now, and while there's no hard evidence that it is fake, the writer (who made no claims to using a pseudonym), has since vanished from the face of the web, and it seems no journalists ever fact checked the story:

http://paulclarke.com/honestlyreal/2012/10/for-whom-the-bell...

My google search turned up this article from Breitbart which is actually pretty good, a rundown of fake stories that became national news over the years:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-n...

Their comment on the infamous Stephen Glass I think gets to the heart of how fake articles get written:

Some speculated Glass fooled so many editors because he had “wonder boy” star power and great personal charisma. Others thought it was because he understood and flattered the biases and expectations of the publications he worked for – he sold them stories they wanted to publish, surfing the early wave of “narrative” obsession that has completely consumed mainstream journalism over the past two decades. Glass invented people, organizations, and events that lived down to his publishers’ darkest expectations of every social group and profession except their own.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#836

Post by Tycho »

lenkite wrote: post #695
Tycho wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was fake. It seemed to hit on too many talking points and buzzwords. It has a "too good to be true" feel to it.

I didn't see any buzzwords or liberal talking points in this article. Could you provide specifics ? This article feels exactly as it would be written by a scared and angry person. Not everyone is cool,(as in calm headed) brilliant and courageous as Fowler. Fowler had the smarts, strength and level headedness to keep proof and you get the strong feeling that she has kept more proof hidden and ready to use as ammunitio…

It's not what the author left out (eg. proof, evidence) that makes me suspicious, it's what they put in.

To wit:

- in the 3rd paragraph, it includes the gender wage gap topic. Usually companies keep employee salaries hidden from each other, so the way its included here feels more like box-ticking of a feminist talking point

- also in the 3rd paragraph, it establishes the character as somebody who is not overly "privileged", which is important for liberals (privilege undermines your platform of victimhood; if you're writing something like this, the less privilege the better)

- the 4th paragraph introduces the ideals of respecting human beings regardless of their gender, sexuality of religion. It's like the writer is going for a broad thematic sweep.

- also in the 4th paragraph, it refers to the concept of "triggering", another SJW trope that other people would probably cringe at using

- this sort of thing just sounds like it was written by Lena Dunham: "Uber finally broke me by destroying my dignity as a human being, and reduced my aspirations by attaching their worth them to a female reproductive organ. Like they did to Susan, Uber killed a part of me that was most precious."

- this bit sounds very far fetched, like the author is trying to work in examples of misogyny that they've witnessed on the web: "They had private chats where guys wrote sexual fantasy stories about female colleagues and supervisors where they performed all sorts of demeaning acts on the women."

- the author seems to have a hang-up about high-heels, another feminist issue, and even works it into dialogue: after casually asking me if I was married or in a relationship, he told me that he liked women in heels. “You know what heels do don’t you?”

- weaving in another grand feminist theme: "I would wonder why I went to grad school instead of wearing heels and marrying a rich guy so I would never have to work."

- as others have noted, the personal detail that is included doesn't seem like it's written by someone really concerned about preserving their anonymity. And at the same time, the rest of the article seems strangely impersonal, running through generic feminist tropes

I am not saying the basic details are entirely implausible, but the way it's written leads me to strongly suspect it's fake.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#837

Post by iopq »

typon wrote: post #827
iopq wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Muh wage gap. Muh partiarchy. It's cringy reading.

Do you work at Uber?

No, I just love the math that she says she makes 18% less than less qualified colleagues. That means she asked someone what they make and decided that she's a better worker than that person and got all offended that they made more.

That's a lot of arrogance. I know you can see mistakes in someone else's work, but you tend to not see the mistakes in yours until you run into problems.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#838

Post by gkya »

acomar wrote: post #834
gkya wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Firefox does not belong to Eich, and Eich's words are not representative--good or bad they be--of Firefox users or Firefox developers. - OKCupid blocking a certain browser to access their website means that who uses Firefox to use their service has to either agree the company and boycott Firefox themselves too or not use the service. That is, they forced those users to participate in the boycott. - OKCupid is a com…

I mean, I can tear down Eich's actions the same way to justify what OKC did. That's entirely besides the point however, and my previous point still stands. Even if I buy your premise that OKC's actions are unethical, their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's! I happen to think Eich's action was unethical for a number of reasons, but I'm not arguing against his right to make it. EDIT: Let me also say it li…

> their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's!

Agreed. When I said their actions have nothing to do with free speech, I meant that they weren't confronting a free speech issue. They have the right to do what they did (IANAL, competition laws may apply, though I don't know much about American law).

> Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech?

The only one who gets to moderate is the speaker themselves, and the listener. And my view is that OKCupid boggled here.

> You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.

Ditto. But I also think that the companies should stay neutral, especially those who serve registered users, for they represent them in that using their service continuously may (and do) cause people to get labeled with the company's tendencies.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#839

Post by erikpukinskis »

grandalf wrote: post #819
erikpukinskis wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's great to hear that Susan's experience is not the case on every team. What? No it's not. If it was like that on every team, you would basically be describing hell. "Better than absolute hell" is nothing to celebrate.

> "Better than absolute hell" is nothing to celebrate. Well I think that it's useful in the midst of stories like this to realize that yes, most people are nice, kind, etc. Perhaps most Uber employees are like that. It should give hope to anyone who is working somewhere that should be better who is inclined simply to quit vs trying to make it better.

It's useful for people who are not under assault, for whom the worst aspect of this situation is that their egos are being threatened.

For people dealing directly with harassment it's a pointless distraction. Of course there are good people. Anyone who is dealing with harassment knows their are good people, because shitty people are harassing them. The difference is not an academic one for them, it's a material one.

For you, the scariest thing about this thread is apparently that someone might think everyone on earth is bad? No that can't be. Your priority is ensuring we all remember not all Uber employees are bad? You're worried about the reputations of non-harassing Uber employees?

Sorry, I'm struggling here. What's useful about reminding people amidst a harassment crisis that not everyone ja bad?

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#840

Post by reledi »

sounds wrote: post #186
reledi wrote: post #134

Amy, many people believe your story. But based on the flags this story is getting, many don't, at least not yet. Is there any way you can verify the authenticity of your story without losing your anonymity to the public? For example, would Susan be able to verify you as an ex-employee?

Amy, I believe your story because it is a second independent set of events that closely parallels Susan's story. You do not need to suffer more indignity by "being outed." Best of luck!

I also believe Amy. But I recognize that many don't. The story will have difficulty making an impact if people are easily attacking its authenticity.
Post reply on HN