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

Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 294 posts

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#171

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

rifung wrote: post #129
raiyu wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Was it operating in a gray area, yes. However, that gray area wasn't the equivalent of dumping toxic waste into a river to build some product. The gray area was around how taxis were regulated in markets. As a frequent Uber/Lyft/Taxi user in NYC I can say that the experience for the consumer has been fantastic. I never want to use a taxi again for many reasons. 1. There's very little recourse for lost ite…

> Yes and no. Was it operating in a gray area, yes. Why is it a grey area? I don't think those laws are good but they exist. I don't believe a company's willingness to ignore laws should give them a competitive advantage because that just creates an incentive to do so. Also, companies should not be in the business of deciding what laws are okay or not okay to disobey. > As a frequent Uber/Lyft/Taxi user in NYC I can…

> companies should not be in the business of deciding what laws are okay or not okay to disobey.

Why not? We do this everyday as individuals. A company a coherent group of people acting collectively.

Laws are a high-latency side chain of authority, not the Word Of God.

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#172

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

soneca wrote: post #170
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see that the GP implied his ousting wasn't a direct consequence of his actions. Anyway, it's not hard to imagine that Travis, despite being aware of how his actions resulted in consequences, may feel hurt, and maybe even remorseful. It would be a mistake to believe that people who act poorly all lack empathy.

Yeah, actually you are right. GP did not implied it and my disagreement on this point is wrongly stated. It would be more properly stated that I do not personally feel bad for Travis being ousted (because is, IMO, a deserved consequence of his acts). And in this case it is not actually a disagreement, just a difference of our reactions.

Ok, cool, thank you.

Yeah, I don't feel bad for the guy either. I hope he feels discomfort for the wrongs his enacted. That would, at least, make him human.

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#173

Post by madeofpalk »

forapurpose wrote: post #88
misun78 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for providing a balanced view that’s so often missing on anything Uber related on HN. There is no denying that Travis threw ethics out of the window and took his paranoia way too far and never matured into a peacetime CEO. But every time a HN user takes an Uber, Lyft, Via, Grab, Ola etc etc you can thank Travis for his ruthlessness in fighting some of the most powerfully entrenched politicians (DeBlasio of…

There's no evidence that the unethical behavior was necessary or even helped. > powerfully entrenched politicians (DeBlasio of NYC as an example) DeBlasio is entrenched because he was elected by a majority of his constituents. The people get to write the rules, called laws. Who voted for Kalanick? What gave him the right?

Try looking outside your bubble of the US.

In Australia, after the local regulator/government started fining UberX drivers for illegally operating a taxi service (rightfully so IMHO), Uber told the drivers not to worry, continue driving and they’ll pay their fines for them.

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#174

Post by 659087 »

Fricken wrote: post #141
forapurpose wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could say people voted with their wallets. You could say it, but that's not how democracy or legitimate government and lawmaking works. And in Uber's case, the wallets voting are a few investors who subsidized the customers.

What makes a government legit? People support it. What makes Uber legit? People support it. Although I guess a government doesn't need the support of the people to maintain legitimacy, it just needs to be able to maintain a monopoly on violence. And if Uber had a monopoly on the taxi industry maybe it wouldn't need the people's support either.

It's not hard to gain support when you're selling dollars bills for half price.

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#175

Post by JoeAltmaier »

madeofpalk wrote: post #173
forapurpose wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence that the unethical behavior was necessary or even helped. > powerfully entrenched politicians (DeBlasio of NYC as an example) DeBlasio is entrenched because he was elected by a majority of his constituents. The people get to write the rules, called laws. Who voted for Kalanick? What gave him the right?

Try looking outside your bubble of the US. In Australia, after the local regulator/government started fining UberX drivers for illegally operating a taxi service (rightfully so IMHO), Uber told the drivers not to worry, continue driving and they’ll pay their fines for them.

Fines are not for breaking laws, but for torts. Violating rules. People do it all the time, and its not unethical? Like paying a fee for filing taxes late. Folks in a bind do that all the time. Getting a parking ticket because you have to be by your spouse while the baby is being born. Renewing your driver's license late because you forgot/got busy.

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#176

Post by JoeAltmaier »

geofft wrote: post #161
isoskeles wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand people arguing for the rule of law. Yes, we have laws, and they should be followed. Breaking them carries the risk of punishment. What I can't understand is the moral grandstanding, e.g. "What gave him the right?" Are taxicab medallions worth it? I never take it seriously when someone starts talking like this about the marriage between taxis and local governments, like it was some holy industry that…

> Are taxicab medallions worth it? I'm in favor of the rule of law. If I was in favor of the rule of law when it did good things and not when it did bad things (and I ready admit that the medallion system is one of the bad things), and wanted outside companies with private capital to ignore the rule of law to fix the bad things... I wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law at all. The ultimate question is who we choos…

Except medallions are goverened by rules and regulations, not so much law. Violating the medallion rule isn't breaking a law. You pay a fine. If you're good with that, then go ahead; we all pay fines of convenience from time to time (late payments, overstaying in a parking space etc).

So I'm fine with rule of law, and fine with getting fined for violations of medallion regulations.

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#177

Post by mylons »

soneca wrote: post #156
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #34

Happy for him. I can only imagine how much being ousted from a company he created and raised to its current level must have hurt. I do not look fondly at what a pain local transport was in cities without public transport (and even those with), and it is Travis (yes, Travis first, Uber second) that led this paradigm shift. We can debate about Uber's business practices until the cows come home, but this is undeniable.…

You imply that being ousted from the company he created is not a direct consequence of his actions. You imply that unethical behavior was helpful to Uber defeat awful local transport lobbies in some cities and improve transportation for the people. I strongly disagree with both assumptions. I believe he was ousted for legitimate reasons that he is 100% individually responsible for and I believe that unethical behavio…

he's responsible for his actions, but the way you word that makes it sound like he's the only person responsible for the morally reprehensible things Uber has done, which is not true.

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#178

Post by whb07 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #154
kamaal wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or worse, thats how it should work. Failure of centrally planned economies all across the globe says something. Markets don't have elections and most politicians/bureaucrats don't exactly have the competency to decide what should be good for everyone. Letting people vote with their wallets has largely worked. Of course no system is perfect, but this is as fair as it gets.

The centrally planned NHS achieves similar public health outcomes to the US for less than half of the cost. The excellent Cuban health system achieves the same for roughly 1/10th the cost. Which part of "double the price same product" counts largely "worked" and why do you want me to give up my cheaper system for yours?

Well, this isn’t my point of view but the US largely subsidizes the medicine and research for the rest of the world when it comes to health. Just look at the number of medical innovations year coming the rest of the world COMBINED vs the US. Clearly there’s some free riding happening by the rest.

Furthermore, don’t ever say “excellent Cuban” anything. There’s a reason why people try to cross shark infested waters on dingy rafts from Cuba to Key West, Florida. People vote with their feet and wallets.

Re: Uber Co-Founder Travis Kalanick Said to Plan Sale of 29% of Stake

#180

Post by AlexandrB »

mylons wrote: post #177
soneca wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You imply that being ousted from the company he created is not a direct consequence of his actions. You imply that unethical behavior was helpful to Uber defeat awful local transport lobbies in some cities and improve transportation for the people. I strongly disagree with both assumptions. I believe he was ousted for legitimate reasons that he is 100% individually responsible for and I believe that unethical behavio…

he's responsible for his actions, but the way you word that makes it sound like he's the only person responsible for the morally reprehensible things Uber has done, which is not true.

He's was the CEO!!! He oversaw all the morally reprehensible things Uber did and did little to stop it.

If he is not responsible, then who is? I'm sorry but CEOs can't have it both ways. If you want to be paid at the (insane) current levels you have to take responsibility for the outcomes of your actions. The only other entity that might have some responsibility is the board for not getting rid of Kalanick sooner.

Post reply on HN