The sheer number of "scandals" coming out of Uber raise the probability that something isn't Kosher to nearly 0.99. That said, I find it deeply disturbing that
anyone expressing
any form of skepticism of any individual claim is downvoted.
For anyone doing the downvoting, can you elaborate please on what sort of system you have in place that decides whether we can or can't be skeptical of a claim without corroborating evidence (apart from personal testimony)? It's true that in this case the preponderance of testimony is pretty strong against Uber, but I wouldn't hold it against someone who, say, assigned something like a ~0.50 probability value to the anonymous harassment claim.
I'll also say that I've worked at a tech company before that went through some bad PR issues. As an insider, it was obvious that, while there definitely were issues that needed fixing, the media exaggerated them or invented entirely new issues out of nothing. When the media senses a PR catastrophe, they'll jump at any tidbit of information that even remotely seems "scandalous".
Now, in the case of Uber, I'm not an insider, and my own estimate as an outsider is that there is something like a 99% chance that serious misconduct is going on at the highest levels of the company. But regardless, it is really absurd, and in fact quite disturbing, to see any degree of skepticism expressed over any of this to be so harshly resisted. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that some of the reported scandals may have a < 0.50 probability value of being true, while others are more probably true, etc.