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

321–330 of 373 posts

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#321

Post by dang »

just2n wrote: post #294
dang wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit confused, because this comment mostly seems in vigorous agreement with what we actually did. We restored the story to the front page, where it still is. But let me try to address your concerns as I understand them. The posts were obvious duplicates, so we did the routine thing and demoted all but one of them. It's true that we didn't merge the threads (which we've recently begun doing in many such cases), b…

The entire point of clickbait sensationalist journalism is to get people fighting about non-issues. A guy who landed a probe on a fucking comet was forced to apologize in tears because he wore a shirt that these same people disliked. Now even the MSM is pointing out how ridiculous that was. He was called sexist, exemplifying why women don't work in STEM. They just found evidence of organic matter on the comet. This i…

You obviously care about the quality of HN, as do I, as does the GP. What makes this a hard problem is that the community doesn't agree on what constitutes quality.

Serious discussion about how to manage HN needs to begin with the insight that many people here disagree with one, and most are participating in as much good faith as oneself. If you don't take that in, you're not grappling with the real problem. (I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us.) In that case it inevitably feels like there are obvious solutions which for dark reasons we're refusing to implement. In reality, it's just a lot harder than that. That's incredibly frustrating, but we can't get anywhere by ignoring it.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#322

Post by philwelch »

wpietri wrote: post #293
philwelch wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly what you said! You said that when a woman journalist accuses you of sexism, it's already a "gendered incident" (even if you didn't do anything to deserve the original accusation!) and getting angry at her can be "reasonably" interpreted as a "continuing pattern of misogynistic behavior". The logical consequence of that is that any woman journalist can indict someone for misogyny and it's automatically…

Logical? By no-shades-of-gray, nuance-eliminating, crazy-person logic, sure. Uber did some sexist stuff. A woman called them out for it. A man got upset and talked about a detailed revenge fantasy against her. He did not name any other journalists, even though plenty of people have been critical of Uber. Gender is part of this story. I'm not saying that this guy is or is not a sexist or a misogynist, and I'm not sayi…

You've qualified your words very well then; whenever someone calls you out for what you said, you can credibly backtrack to the fact that you didn't say much of anything. You would have a promising career in politics.

What you imply has troublesome connotations, which you seem unwilling to honestly address, so you just insult me instead.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#323

Post by philwelch »

xorcist wrote: post #302
philwelch wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it. Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.

Oh, victim blaming. Classy.

Do my comments really bother you so much that instead of comprehending and responding to them logically, your brain just short-circuits to spitting dismissive, insulting remarks?

I'm not blaming Sarah for the veiled threat that was made against her--I think it's petty and disgusting for an Uber executive to sink to the level of a gossip blogger. I'm just saying that Sarah is a gossip blogger and will milk this thing for all it's worth, so we can't just assume that she's being totally honest the way a private citizen would be.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#324

Post by baxterross »

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,…

Ya, on the record here, I think you're absolutely correct. A lot of journalists, Lacy included, have written pieces targeting founders based on events in their personal lives and their pasts.

People are correct to freak out when someone targets another person by digging into their private lives, the problem is a lot of tech journalists have gotten away with this, especially when the founders or entrepreneurs in question have been libertarians or right-wingers.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#325

Post by crpatino »

DontBeADick wrote: post #160
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,…

Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threats. "Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became: > threatening to reveal details of the location of their children There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.

You clearly have no children of your own, Mr. Throwaway. While Asparagirl might have been a bit too creative when filling in the details, every parent would be very concerned when some hostile entity hints to be "looking into... your family".

While confrontational by nature, I do not see any of the parts displaying stupidity, but perhaps yourself. Please try to live up to your chosen handle for this exchange.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#326

Post by baxterross »

metaphorm wrote: post #156
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,…

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.

So, journalists get a pass when they 'investigate' someone, but the people they're investigating can't do a 'counter-investigation'? Are journalists some kind of special beings?

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#328

Post by crpatino »

DontBeADick wrote: post #226
ceph_ wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that wasn't a threat? Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?

The guy never threatened to target children or reveal any information about them. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

How long would it take to get a restraining order if he had done as you say? And what would be the effect on the valuation of the company if that happened?

Play fair. Don't be a Prolog interpreter.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#329

Post by baxterross »

thesystemis wrote: post #74
nailer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible he's pissed of at Sarah Lacy for reasons other than that she's a woman.

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.

stop putting words into other people's mouths

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#330

Post by drivingmenuts »

onewaystreet wrote: post #307
fown9 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lyft only exists because Uber cleared the way and they continue to benefit from Uber doing the hard work of fighting the taxi industry and regulators. If you don't want to be a hypocrite you will need to walk.

It just so happens that in almost every possible industry, there are some who clear the way and others who benefit from them clearing the way.

Some of them even manage to do it without threatening reporters.

Post reply on HN