Someone @Lyft PR needs to be on this stat. I've hardly seen Lyft take any advantage of fuckups like these by Uber.
What makes you think these hit pieces against Uber aren't Lyft's PR in the first place?
Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
21–30 of 373 posts
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#22I can see how being assholes, intimidating the press, undermining rivals via dirty tricks, and other such behavior, can maximize shareholder value.
So maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal and we should all focus on how we can play dirty tricks on our competitors, how we can intimidate the journalists who have written bad stories on us or haven't covered us. Where does the strategy to use intimation via oppo-research stop? Can we apply this to any dealings with politicians, angles, VC, policy makers? I bet it can be effective in these areas as well. Maybe a company's strategy to "force outcomes" should be a required slide in all pitch decks now?
I wonder if Uber stops at just using intimidation in less developed countries where things are rougher and governments are more pliable than in the US and Canada? If there are few limits to Uber aggressiveness and they have money, you can easily pay people in a lot of developing nations to improve outcomes in a large variety of "creative ways", and you can easily distance yourself from how those outcomes are achieved.
It does seem that Uber teaches us that this is the new normal and if we are not doing this, we are not maximizing shareholder value.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#23Buzzfeed stories are normally penalized, but we take the penalty off for major stories. We've done that here. HN tends to frown on media controversy, but since this story seems destined to be above the line in any case, it may as well be the original source. We've demoted the other posts on the same story as duplicates.
To say that this is "media controversy" borders on the absurd: this is entirely inappropriate and indefensible behavior from a top executive at a top company -- and it raises all sorts of legitimate questions about corporate culture and how companies internalize public criticism. You use the passive voice when you say that "it seems destined to be above the line" when in fact it is above the line because many in the HN demographic feel that this story is important. In this case, HN's strange paternalism is going to cause this discussion to happen three separate times in three separate threads. Can the HN community really not be trusted to decide what we think is important?
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#24Someone @Lyft PR needs to be on this stat. I've hardly seen Lyft take any advantage of fuckups like these by Uber.
What makes you think these hit pieces against Uber aren't Lyft's PR in the first place?
this one doesnt seem to be. an uber svp was talking directly to buzzfeed editor.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, I don't think anyone's kids were threatened. But what is wrong with threatening a woman's children? Other then it being illegal, of course. If a woman or man is doing something dishonorable, I don't see any problem with suggesting that their behaviour is not in the best interests of their children.
If you read the story, it mentions digging dirt on Sarah's family. Family includes children. >> But what is wrong with threatening a woman's children? Clearly you dont have children. If you dont see anything wrong with this notion, having a thoughtful discussion with you is a moot point. Do you work for uber ?
>If you read the story, it mentions digging dirt on Sarah's family. Family includes children.
Digging dirt is not threatening. Neither Sarah nor her children were threatened and it is dishonest and slimy to suggest otherwise.
>Clearly you dont have children.
I believe that truth and justice are the highest values. If threatening a woman's children is what brings her to conduct herself in a moral manner, then we can say it is good. Sometimes the ends justify the means.
And the same applies to men, of course. But it's a moot point -- only the government can legally threaten someone's children.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#26Why is this here? This is a non story. All I see in this article is that someone was ranting in a conversation that was entirely assumed to be off the record (they go to great lengths to justify talking about it, as if private dinners require contracts of nondisclosure). I find it beyond hilarious that here Buzzfeed stands appalled that someone would joke about hiring people to dig up dirt when they find their way into private dinners and report every unsavory thing said in confidence and without context, essentially writing off that context as "this is never appropriate." Does anyone else see the outrageous hypocrisy here? One man is joking about something because he's frustrated with poor media coverage (which is arguably of questionable ethical validity) while Buzzfeed is actually doing that thing and now everyone here on HN is joking about how terrible Uber is and how they've distanced themselves. This is HN.
This is gossip about a man's frustrated rant at shitty media coverage. It's a non story and is totally off topic. If there was evidence he had hired people to dig up dirt with intent to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce people, we could be talking about criminal proceedings. But seeing as there's no mention of any criminal wrongdoing, this is complete and utter trash, and they know it. Another in a very long list of reasons never to read Buzzfeed.
I'm not here in a position in support of Uber because I literally have no idea what is and isn't fact. If every article negative of them is as misguided and useless as this one, I can't possibly hope to form a coherent and well informed opinion about a company. Definitely not based on clickbait headlines and opinion pieces without solid evidence of wrongdoing. You can hate Uber for all the valid reasons you can find, but getting angry at someone for expressing frustration is truly next level pathetic. This clickbait shit. What the fuck.
Some people are linking a Pando article, which says, as a direct quote:
> Earlier this evening, a bombshell story by Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith proves the reality is way worse than anyone on our team could have expected.
In reference to this article. You can see why this shit can't be taken seriously. Referring to garbage like this article as a "bombshell" or "proof" of activity is completely divorced from reality.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#27Why is this here? This is a non story. All I see in this article is that someone was ranting in a conversation that was entirely assumed to be off the record (they go to great lengths to justify talking about it, as if private dinners require contracts of nondisclosure). I find it beyond hilarious that here Buzzfeed stands appalled that someone would joke about hiring people to dig up dirt when they find their way in…
Off the record is privilege given by the journalist at its own discretion, not a right.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#28Buzzfeed stories are normally penalized, but we take the penalty off for major stories. We've done that here. HN tends to frown on media controversy, but since this story seems destined to be above the line in any case, it may as well be the original source. We've demoted the other posts on the same story as duplicates.
This isn't a major story. It's an out-of-context clickbait dressed recount of a hypothetical story painted by a frustrated man at a private dinner.
If there was a criminal suit filed along side the allegations made, perhaps you'd have a major story. This is just another in a long line of hit pieces that seem to have no basis in reality.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#29Why is this here? This is a non story. All I see in this article is that someone was ranting in a conversation that was entirely assumed to be off the record (they go to great lengths to justify talking about it, as if private dinners require contracts of nondisclosure). I find it beyond hilarious that here Buzzfeed stands appalled that someone would joke about hiring people to dig up dirt when they find their way in…
"Off the record" is a specific construct used by journalists. This was not off the record.
Threatening journalists who write negative articles is indefensible. It's a stupid thing to say, especially to a room full of journalists.
It's firmly on topic here because it speaks to ethics of company founders.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#30There is another recent HN article. It links to a Pando post by Sarah Lacy, the journalist being threatened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622187
There's also previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622403