161–170 of 373 posts
I would love to know if http://blog.uber.com/applepay means that Uber won't be able to track who they are taking to various locations. That alone would be a big win for Apple Pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
We have them (or have had them -- they are hard to keep together because interest doesn't remain intense) -- formed of the people opposed to the laws.
We also have organizations -- much better-funded, and that stay together better, because the interest is more concentrated and wealthy -- that go after the careers of politicians that refuse to pass those kinds of laws.
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…
There was no mention of revealing the location of children.
There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist.
There was no "implication" about leaking customer data.
As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging.
If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exaggerating or making stuff up, otherwise you risk making legitimate critics look like sensational buffoons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 controver…
Instead we get a heavyhanded version that allows a few to destroy possible reasoned discussion by squelching it as a side-effect of this rationale, and instead we get lots of topics that don't really foster discussion, are often not interesting or important (even to those intellectually minded) - there are plenty of banal articles on startups that get upvoted and end up on the front page, but no similar policy gets instituted simply because they are "not controversial", and yet they take up the same space, and certainly are less fulfilling. The process is opaque, and I know I'm not the only one here who has questioned this.
There are sometimes situations where flags are deemed inappropriate, and yet the effects don't get raised when moderators even acknowledge when the flags were incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 controver…
So there's no place for reasoned discussion on topics that are clearly of interest to many here? That sounds like a poor excuse for improper moderation. Some level of post level moderation I can understand, but to the degree practiced here, you might as well have sanctioned curators instead of moderators for that - at the least, it'd be far more accurate, and far more transparent. Instead we get a heavyhanded version…
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).
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).
The comments were about "digging up dirt". Sleazy as that is, it doesn't even require personal contact.
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…
There was no mention of blackmail. There was no mention of revealing the location of children. There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist. There was no "implication" about leaking customer data. As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging. If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exagg…
"In fact, the general manager of Uber NYC accessed the profile of a BuzzFeed News reporter, Johana Bhuiyan, to make points in the course of a discussion of Uber policies. At no point in the email exchanges did she give him permission to do so."
Or does "rifling" mean something else to you?
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…
There was no mention of blackmail. There was no mention of revealing the location of children. There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist. There was no "implication" about leaking customer data. As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging. If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exagg…
All of those things are in his statements. He doesn't have to spell it out for you to know what he means.