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

141–150 of 373 posts

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#141

Post by DontBeADick »

carrier_lost wrote: post #122
DontBeADick wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the article say anything about children?

"Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine." "your families" = "your children"

> "your families" = "your children"

I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make. "Your family" could just as easily be referring to adult family members only (spouses, siblings, parents, etc.).

It seems like you're jumping to that conclusion solely because it makes his comments more inflammatory.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#142

Post by tptacek »

Bahamut wrote: post #98
potatolicious wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HN has always been moderated at the post level, from the beginnings of the site. If it wasn't, the site would be flooded with fluffy recaps of whatever current event story was making people angriest right now, and there would be no place for stories about Linux on solderless breadboards and Latex-like math programming languages; instead, we'd get HuffPo, Buzzfeed, Pando, and ValleyWag's take on whatever the controversy-du-jour was, day after day.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#143

Post by DontBeADick »

Asparagirl wrote: post #128
DontBeADick wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you reading a different article? None of those threats were mentioned in the one I'm reading...

Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families. The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home. The obvious implication is that they wer…

> Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families.

> The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.

Obvious implication? I think it's more of a convenient assumption you're making to suit your own personal grudge against Uber.

The comments he made were clearly idiotic, but your eagerness to interpret them in the most extreme and sensational way possible is no better.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#144

Post by alain94040 »

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…

I'm trying to put together a panel on that topic, but it's hard to find people to represent the "asshole" side of the discussion.

Original call for speakers: "For the 2015 edition, we are looking for speakers and panelists. A touchy topic we’d like to address is "ethics in Silicon Valley – startups playing dirty can't be the new normal". If you are qualified and willing to discuss this topic on stage, get in touch"

So far, no takers...

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#145

Post by anu_gupta »

DontBeADick wrote: post #141
carrier_lost wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine." "your families" = "your children"

> "your families" = "your children" I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make. "Your family" could just as easily be referring to adult family members only (spouses, siblings, parents, etc.). It seems like you're jumping to that conclusion solely because it makes his comments more inflammatory.

Family refers to all members of a family - adult members AND children. So, by threatening someone's family, one implicitly threatens any members of a family who are children (as well as the other members of a family).

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#146

Post by Asparagirl »

DontBeADick wrote: post #143
Asparagirl wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families. The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home. The obvious implication is that they wer…

> Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families. > The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids. Obvious implication? I think it's more of a convenient assumption you're making to suit your own personal grudge against Uber. The comments he made were clearly idiotic, but your eagerness to interpret them in the most extreme and sensational way possible is no better.

Please explain the NON "extreme and sensational" way to interpret comments talking about spending one million dollars to target, intimidate, and smear the press and to dig up dirt on their families.

What's really cute is that even Uber doesn't even deny that this happened. No, that's all on you, dear HN commenter.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#147

Post by foobarqux »

potatolicious wrote: post #72
foobarqux wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Every major company does this, just not in the ham fisted way that Uber has done. Want NYT tech reporter to give positive reviews of Apple? Give him special access to newsworthy stories from inside, early access to devices, free gear, fly him out to special events and treat him like a prince. He gives an overly critical review? Take it all away.…

Surely you can see the difference between "loss of favorable treatment and perks" and "gross abuse of private data and anonymous slander"? What you've described - while highly problematic - is a pretty big distance away from "blackmail".

I'm not saying I support it, I'm just pointing out that companies manipulate journalists all the time and incentivize them not to "challenge the company's PR" as the GP put it. Uber's threats were extreme and beyond what is tolerated outside of politics. They could have manipulated her much easier by giving her unlimited free Uber "to better evaluate the service".

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#148

Post by [deleted] »

nailer wrote: post #137
eli wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#149

Post by Asparagirl »

nailer wrote: post #137
eli wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most people aren't Uber.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#150

Post by fown9 »

caractacus wrote: post #57
andy_ppp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has now been deleted from my phone. I hope others consider doing the same.

Ditto.

I took 2 uber rides this morning; I just uninstalled Uber and installed Lyft. They have the same amount of cars down in here in San Jose.
Post reply on HN