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

Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 373 posts

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#91

Post by thesystemis »

nailer wrote: post #79
thesystemis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he's pissed off because she's a woman, he's pissed about because she's critical. Still, when he says someone will be "personally" responsible for someone's sexual assault, he's essentially trivializing sexual assault. It's like saying that a rape victim is "partially at fault", it's wrong, indefensible and misogynistic.

That is not in any way 'like' blaming people for being raped.

sorry I respectfully disagree -- here a SVP of a company is essentially saying, "by recommending people to not use my product, you are responsible if they get assaulted" -- it's essentially shifting the blame around a sex crime in a way that to my eyes really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes, the perpetrators. It's also such a flippant remark that it seems to me to show a callous indifference to what it means to be a victim of such a crime.

ps, agree with scarmig's point -- he's not "blaming the victim" but it does feel like shifting the blame, which minimizes what these crimes mean.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#92

Post by spindritf »

king_jester wrote: post #90
spindritf wrote: post #61

I cannot treat complaints from journalists about digging up dirt seriously. This has essentially become their job. Were was this criticism when some guy's personal phone calls were broadcasted and dissected? When Gawker was buying people's sex tapes? And not months ago, although then too, last week[1]. This is the world you created. Enjoy. EDIT: And if you're downvoting, I'd love to hear why. [1] http://defamer.gawke…

Bad behavior by some journalists doesn't justify personal attacks by companies against journalists.

One can hope that once it happens a few times, journalists will maybe rediscover the basic ethics of their profession. Right now, they simply seem to demand a monopoly on digging for dirt.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#93

Post by RealGeek »

bhouston wrote: post #22

I 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 intimatio…

This is why Uber's investors are blindly defending Uber's actions. Uber's scummy tacticts = more money in investors pockets

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#96

Post by personZ »

thesystemis wrote: post #53

I am surprised not to see the word misogynist on this page. Here, a SVP is not only threatening a reporter and her family (which is truly repugnant) and reporters generally, he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way: "He said that he thought Lacy should be held “personally responsible” for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted." The top comment on this p…

he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way

While I hardly want to be in a camp that defends him in any way, he was specifically addressed her claims. How is it misogynist for him to argue that the risk of sexual assault are lower in an Uber vehicle, or vice versa?

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#97

Post by thesystemis »

personZ wrote: post #96
thesystemis wrote: post #53

I am surprised not to see the word misogynist on this page. Here, a SVP is not only threatening a reporter and her family (which is truly repugnant) and reporters generally, he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way: "He said that he thought Lacy should be held “personally responsible” for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted." The top comment on this p…

he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way While I hardly want to be in a camp that defends him in any way, he was specifically addressed her claims. How is it misogynist for him to argue that the risk of sexual assault are lower in an Uber vehicle, or vice versa?

I don't think it's wrong to argue that point, ie, "I wish this reporter would understand how we work to create a safer environment, look at the stats, etc" but I think it's far out of line to go beyond that and assign "personal responsibility" to someone who is arguing against your product, especially around these sort of crimes. To me, that seems like taking the argument to a really personal place and also, trivializing what should be a serious discussion.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#98

Post by Bahamut »

potatolicious wrote: post #85
Bahamut wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disrespectful that the community cannot allowed to at least see the stories we want to see bubble to the top, good or bad. There are good lessons to be learned in all of these issues, moreso than a lot of articles that bubble up to the top here.

Ehh, I can see where dang is coming from - some moderation is needed in order for the community not to descend to Reddit levels of intelligibility. That said, I do agree that painting this as a "media controversy" is grossly off the mark. This isn't your usual (somewhat entertaining) mud slinging between trashy bloggers, this addresses real misbehavior by a real tech company. Imagine if Glenn Greewald and Snowden wer…

I agree that moderation is necessary, but it needs to happen at the comment level, not the post level.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#99

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

ac2u wrote: post #84
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't count on that. In the financial market, its already happening. You can buy information from a ratings agency that assesses a companies ethical behavior. If they don't meet the investor's targets, they won't invest in that stock. I could see that happening on a consumer level as well, all you need is that data and a smartphone.

I agree with you in that any attribute which an investor is interested in can be certified by an agency willing to do the legwork. However what I do wonder is how actually effective something so ambiguous is? and how much it would be gamed? This is after 2007-2008 when we find out that financial institutions were able to game the risk classification of investment vehicles despite being wrapped in supposedly ambiguity…

Well there are standards that can be checked against, and they go to the companies and talk to them. The good ones often already have CSR departments.

If theres something shady happening, it is often not hard to find - there are lots of environmentalists and NGOs that regularly dig up dirt. Also, a company can't just fake a reputation.

Not saying that nothing can be hidden, but its not just bits and bytes and paperwork that can be faked, its the real world.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#100

Post by forgotAgain »

bhouston wrote: post #22

I 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 intimatio…

After re-reading what you wrote you may wish to delete the post or change your profile.
Post reply on HN