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

231–240 of 373 posts

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#231

Post by Dylan16807 »

anu_gupta wrote: post #145
DontBeADick wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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).

When they're talking about "digging up dirt" I don't see how that's going to apply to children. Context is important, and reducing it to 'threat' is misleading. Even though yes it is a subtype of threat.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#232

Post by eli »

throwaway09F911 wrote: post #140
Asparagirl wrote: post #3

Attempting 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,…

> That's still unacceptable ...

Yes! Extremely unprofessional and completely unacceptable regardless of whatever it is she did to "deserve" it.

By the way, is there a link to this article she wrote that is allegedly so over the line?

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#233

Post by DanBC »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #229
potatolicious wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It's clear you're just another bored, delusional social justice warrior who wants to make a cause out of nothing." No. Just no. This type of behavior is unacceptable around here - it may be in vogue around /r/TumblrInAction or GamerGate but it has no place here. If you want to attack the substance of someone's argument fine but personal attacks, especially name calling are completely out of bounds in any sane venu…

"bored" and "delusional" are personal attacks, but isn't "SJW" about the argument? Has that term become totally muddled when I wasn't paying attention?

SJW is only ever used as an insult. On HN it's a useful signal of a useless post.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#234

Post by jnaglick »

Panino wrote: post #64

When 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 try to act in accordance with my political beliefs. In the past, I've boycotted Coca-Cola and Nestle, become a vegetarian for 5 years (vegan for 1 of those...), given up Facebook, and etc. You could argue all of these actions are pretty trivial and, really, do more to placate myself than they affect the real world. But I live this way nonetheless, and I believe there are millions of other people like me.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#235

Post by lhc- »

krapp wrote: post #114
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 assuming you're trying to ironically parody Uber apologists, and techno-utopians in general, who argue that the supremacy of x is simply inevitable and the only thing we can do is learn to accept it (where x currently seems to include smart locks, app-driven email, bitcoin, autonomous cars, autonomous corporations, google glass and 3d printing.) However, it may be worth mentioning that none of what you describe i…

Isn't this basically Rupert Murdoch's MO, in countries around the world including the US and Australia? I'd suggest "still is" rather than "used to be".

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#236

Post by freshflowers »

throwaway09F911 wrote: post #140
Asparagirl wrote: post #3

Attempting 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,…

Sure, that could be the case.

Of course you would have to completely ignore the constant pattern of scummy behavior from Uber that is perfectly consistent with this particular incident.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#237

Post by metaphorm »

tmarthal wrote: post #214
metaphorm wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a journalist's job often involves being "rude". some journalists specialize in "rude" reporting. scrutinizing powerful and wealthy people is one of the legitimate roles of a journalist, even when it comes across as "rude". powerful and wealthy people NEED to be scrutinized. when we do, we often discover that they are sociopathic scum like several of the executives at Uber have turned out to be.

This is almost akin to a celebrity getting upset and punching a paparazzi. It happens due to stupidity, human emotion and rash behavior. Is it right? No, but it does shed light on some issues. Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software de…

these aren't blurry lines. if Emil Michael feels like a journalist stepped over a line in reporting then he should have filed a civil suit. that's not what he suggested. he suggested utilizing millions of dollars of the resources of a billion dollar company to engage a campaign of systematic intimidation and harassment against journalists he didn't like.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#238

Post by Chronic29 »

eli wrote: post #232
throwaway09F911 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> That's still unacceptable ... Yes! Extremely unprofessional and completely unacceptable regardless of whatever it is she did to "deserve" it. By the way, is there a link to this article she wrote that is allegedly so over the line?

People are overreacting to this. It's not a big deal

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#239

Post by differentView »

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.

That's not really a statement that can be defended.

"No, no, we won't look ONLY into your children, we'll ALSO look into your spouses, siblings, and parents."

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#240

Post by just2n »

TheCowboy wrote: post #210
Edmontonian wrote: post #191

The most recent Pulitzer Prize winner for journalism (Glenn Greenwald) says journalism is an "adversarial" process. However, adversarial is by nature a two way street. Journalists who go digging into the lives of people and businesses need to be prepared for adversarial response. If I'm a business owner that's being investigated by a journalist, I want to find out the who, what, where, when and why. I am entitled to…

To what extent are you "entitled" to "investigate" into the personal lives of journalists and public critics? If your goal is not to intimidate, what purpose does it serve and accomplish? Freedom of the press is important and is part of the Constitution. Journalists can investigate a business even if you think they shouldn't. Looking into the financial ties of journalism is game. But the industry and business of jour…

To what extent are you "entitled" to "investigate" into the personal lives of entrepreneurs and people building real value.

If your goal is not to intimidate, attack, or slander, what purpose does it serve and accomplish? Freedom of speech and self publication is important and is part of the Constitution. Entrepreneurs can investigate shady journalists who seem to have a bias and who are crossing ethical lines even if you think they shouldn't.

Looking into the financial ties of companies is game. But the industry and business is not the same as someone's personal life, their sexual preferences, children, family, etc.

Post reply on HN