I hope all the people commenting with pitchforks in hand have also never said (or have been alleged to have said) anything at a private dinner between friends that could be construed in any way to be similar to these remarks.
Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
131–140 of 373 posts
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, there's a big gap between saying how you could spend a million dollars and spending a million dollars. But if someone who worked for me started talking about exacting revenge on enemies -- in a public forum or not -- I would definitely have a problem with that.
I get the feeling that there's a side that Buzzfeed and Pando aren't mentioning. The executive mentioned 'they'd be justified' in digging up dirt on Sarah Lacy. I wonder on what basis that one would justify that - the article mentions Lacy's criticism for a dumb ad campaign in France, but that doesn't seem like something that would provoke a response saying 'we'd be justified on digging up dirt about you'. Does anyon…
That is extremely speculative. I know you're just asking questions, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Most people don't do things like that and it's not nice to imply otherwise absent any evidence.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#133When Godaddy came out in support of SOPA, after a string of other obviously bad actions, I thought for sure it would harm their business. It didn't. Unfortunately I don't think this Uber story will be different. Most people don't take a stand on anything (unless it involves consuming even more fast food, like a Chick-fil-a "reverse boycott").
I'm ethically opposed to Chick-fil-a's stance, but I like their sandwiches. Most of the time I don't eat them, but every once in a while, the beast takes over and I have to eat.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#134Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the location of their children? Openly rifling through the location metadata of another female journalist, a customer of theirs, without her consent? Implicitly saying they'll leak customer data of Uber customers who are journalists, the kind of thing that can potentia…
They should probably fire Emil Michael or similar. The "spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine" proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be…
They want to "give the media a taste of its own medicine"? They already are. It's called marketing and advertising. The press, political parties and private businesses constantly manipulate people's opinions. They both use elements of fantasy and attention grabbing headlines.
Here's the marketing copy on Uber's website right now: "WELCOME TO ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE", "TIME, VALUE, AND CONVENIENCE — YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL", "HAVE MORE FUN WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER MOST", "YOUR SHORTCUT TO EVERYWHERE IS ARRIVING NOW".
Oh really, so you're fine spewing total bullshit but you're gonna have a hissy-fit and act like a toddler when someone writes a sensational article?
Get over yourselves!
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#135When Godaddy came out in support of SOPA, after a string of other obviously bad actions, I thought for sure it would harm their business. It didn't. Unfortunately I don't think this Uber story will be different. Most people don't take a stand on anything (unless it involves consuming even more fast food, like a Chick-fil-a "reverse boycott").
I'm ethically opposed to Chick-fil-a's stance, but I like their sandwiches. Most of the time I don't eat them, but every once in a while, the beast takes over and I have to eat.
I just ask at the counter "Is this hateful message day? I don't want to endorse your hateful message." If they say no, then I order a sandwich.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#136Buzzfeed 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.
I'll respectfully disagree. There's nothing "hypothetical" about it, the guy laid out a budget and a game plan for targeted harassment and intimidation of journalists who dared to write negative press. There were multiple high-profile witnesses, and after it all came to light, he called and then emailed the journalist he threatened, to apologize profusely.
This is just one more event in a long history of Uber being an extremely bad actor. They use dirty tactics to try to run their competitors out of business instead of competing on their merits, they treat their drivers and riders like shit, they gleefully flaunt their ability to track anyone, anywhere, any time and use it against them. Now they've gone on record (his emailed apology puts the entire affair on the record, no matter what he thought during the dinner in question) admitting that they are willing to harass, intimidate, and even threaten the lives of journalists and their families.
In short, this company is ran by a bunch of sociopaths who think they can do no wrong. It's going to bite them in the ass, and I hope sooner than later.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the feeling that there's a side that Buzzfeed and Pando aren't mentioning. The executive mentioned 'they'd be justified' in digging up dirt on Sarah Lacy. I wonder on what basis that one would justify that - the article mentions Lacy's criticism for a dumb ad campaign in France, but that doesn't seem like something that would provoke a response saying 'we'd be justified on digging up dirt about you'. Does anyon…
That is extremely speculative. I know you're just asking questions, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Most people don't do things like that and it's not nice to imply otherwise absent any evidence.
It's speculative, but not extremely so. Most people don't randomly suggest they'd be justified going after other people's families after simple criticism, so let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
EDIT: according to other posters, who read the website in question, Sarah Lacy regularly reports on people's personal lives. Which sounds like exactly what the under person was talking about doing back.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#138Earlier 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.
It could just as easily be banned on a consumer level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws
Wow, thats horrible. The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them.
Still, there must be ways to protect such information as freedom of speech?
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#139Buzzfeed 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…
This is not corporate culture it's politics. Personal destruction has been near the front page of the playbook since about forever.
Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists
#140Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the location of their children? Openly rifling through the location metadata of another female journalist, a customer of theirs, without her consent? Implicitly saying they'll leak customer data of Uber customers who are journalists, the kind of thing that can potentia…
I'm writing this as a throwaway because this feels like mob and pitchforks. I'm a regular here and have no ties to Uber except using it.
This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy.
Meanwhile, Sarah Lacey comments publicly and insultingly on people's political positions, emotions, and dating life.
What the man said was very stupid. But it feels a lot like, "She wants to attack our sex lives, politics, and call us terrible people? We should dig in to what she's done."
That's still unacceptable, but seems like blowing off steam and being frustrated at someone who makes money off of being mean and generating outrage.
Again, the behavior is totally unacceptable. But making this out to be a conspiracy rather than a frustrated executive ranting at someone who is known to be rude and very personal about the rudeness and who gets paid on pageviews and outrage is a little much.