Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#261

Post by rodgerd » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #142

Bahamut wrote: post #98

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…

It's a valid point, but there are plenty of fluffy stories about HN's favourite companies (which have included Uber in the past); how many stories about Tesla (the company), Uber, and the like are about their technology, and how many are breathless enthusiasm?

It does look a little rank when there's been heaps of "rah-rah Uber, disrupt, disrupt, disrupt" type articles in the past to have negative ones pruned.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#262

Post by scarmig » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 8:55 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #252

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.

> Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces 1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable? 2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?

Isn't it a clearly established principle of journalism that reporters should report only for the benefit of the people and organizations they're reporting on?

If she wasn't kowtowing to Kalanick's PR team, she was remiss and doubtlessly only hunting for page views. Definitely had it coming--turnabout is fair play.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#263

Post by Angostura » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 9:01 PM UTC

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,…

I think it's sad that you feel the need to use a throwaway, because your interpretation is pretty much how I read things.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#264

Post by Angostura » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 9:01 PM UTC

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,…

I think it's sad that you feel the need to use a throwaway, because your interpretation is pretty much how I read things.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#265

Post by downandout » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 9:01 PM UTC

cjensen wrote: post #257

[deleted] wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

The context was a CEO in front of multiple reporters. A CEO's words always matter; when spouted in front of reporters, there are no do-overs.

Wrong. The CEO didn't say this. If you're going to skewer a whole company over something stupid like this, at least get your facts straight.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#266

Post by hackuser » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 9:05 PM UTC

nhangen wrote: post #190

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…

In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals. I'm not going to defend the guy that made these comments, but I've heard enough from Sara and Paul to know that Pando has waged war on Uber, and should not be surprised that they've ruffled some feathers. Pando also shares a common investor with Lyft, so there's that...

> Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals

That sounds very speculative and about someone's state of mind. Could you give concrete examples of what you mean?

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#267

Post by hackuser » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

AJ007 wrote: post #258

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) Organizations (for profit and not) should be monitoring journalists and columnists who write about them. Conflicts of interests are rampant and often undisclosed. Individuals, both writers and editors are courted and manipulated continuously. You should care if journalist X is getting invited to the White House or your competitor's private events. As a blatant example there is a certain NYT columnists whose contri…

> The page view journalism model rewards writers for being inflammatory and exaggerating

Just look at this discussion

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#268

Post by scarmig » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 9:22 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #265

cjensen wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context was a CEO in front of multiple reporters. A CEO's words always matter; when spouted in front of reporters, there are no do-overs.

Wrong. The CEO didn't say this. If you're going to skewer a whole company over something stupid like this, at least get your facts straight.

On the plus side, even Kalanick has agreed that the spying and stalking suggestion is terrible and reprehensible, although there's no suggestion that a firing is imminent.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#269

Post by downandout » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #268

downandout wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. The CEO didn't say this. If you're going to skewer a whole company over something stupid like this, at least get your facts straight.

On the plus side, even Kalanick has agreed that the spying and stalking suggestion is terrible and reprehensible, although there's no suggestion that a firing is imminent.

Also on the plus side, it was an off-the-cuff remark that only people who like getting upset over nonsense got upset about. If firing were imminent, it would be an insult to all reasonable human beings who know that sometimes you vent at parties. If you want to dislike Uber, dislike them over their anti-competitive practices, not over this.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#270

Post by acdha » Tue, Nov 18, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #260

acdha wrote: post #252

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 1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable? 2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?

1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's PandoDaily's business model. 2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's inter…

1. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department.

2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.