Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#81

Post by tn13 »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #17
cbanek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like they have probably already started: https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833

This seems to be Uber's modus operandi every single time they're in trouble and it almost always seems to backfire on them, PR wise. I'm curious though, what tipped her off? While I've worked at tech start-ups before and can believe all the behavior she outlined (because I've seen similar things myself, it's very believable) it still bothers me to continue to take someone's word at face value. I mean I do, I would tr…

True. In most such cases there is always an another side that we totally forget when looking at the victim's story.

I would give Uber a fair 50% chance unless there is strong evidence on the table.

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#82

Post by logicallee »

mavelikara wrote: post #71
logicallee wrote: post #30

>Many do on an anonymous chat app called Blind. ... >And over 2,000 Uber employees in total use Blind, says Blind's head of operations Alex Shin. Jebediah O. Springfield! As the "head of operations" at an "anonymous chat app" you have ONE JOB, Alex Shin! And you just blew it. (To be explicit, I am saying Alex is way out of line for disclosing this information. An anonymous app should not have such information reveale…

What if Alex was bluffing? An average Uber employee reading this would think that some massive congregation of his/her peers is happening on Blind and would rush to install it.

Very interesting, though as an officer I'm not sure if he's allowed to make specific numerical misstatements like that. :)

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#83

Post by [deleted] »

dllthomas wrote: post #76
alphonsegaston wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unlikely, given that they've done this exact thing in the past? You're entitled to think whatever you want, but you can't in good faith argue that this isn't their pattern of behavior. You're right that the circumstances are different, but the only constant is Uber underhandedly going after anyone who criticizes them. And an editorial in HuffPo from someone who pals around with the person engaging in the ab…

> Why is it unlikely, given that they've done this exact thing in the past? They've dug up dirt on ex employees making public accusations like this ? I haven't seen any claims to that effect. As I said, I think it's unlikely because I don't think the people involved are that evil, and I am confident that they are not that stupid. If I'm proven wrong, I'll be loud about it and I'll be working some place else. > And an…

[deleted]

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#84

Post by alphonsegaston »

dllthomas wrote: post #79
alphonsegaston wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So despite having spied on anyone who caught their fancy in the past- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/13/uber-empl... -your bar for skepticism/reproach is only cleared with proof that they've done the exact same thing before, telegraphing their intentions along the way? Ok.

That article alleges poor controls around customer data, not coordinated action. It seems unrelated to what we were discussing, which was likelihood of Uber to - reusing my earlier phrasing - try to discredit, disparage, or defame Susan Fowler.

Well, you should still probably quit because they already send thugs to intimidate women/former employees in the way you said was unacceptable:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-cl...

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#85

Post by [deleted] »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #56
uberthrowaway1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a throwaway for obvious reasons. >This seems to be Uber's modus operandi every single time they're in trouble and it almost always seems to backfire on them, PR wise. From attending all hands meetings I get the sense TK has a victim mentality and sees himself doing no wrong or Uber doing no wrong. Since we're clearly not wrong, it has to be the critic, right? /S To be fair, we do get some BS scandals related to…

Thanks for the insights. Question about the inside view - do people really buy Kalanick's fake apologies/victim act at this point? We've gone through this ruse so many times, from the outside it just seems like a laughable caricature of malignant narcissism. From your comments about the CTO, I'm guessing he surrounds himself with "empathizable cover" after the classic abusive pattern (if you come after me, think abou…

[deleted]

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#86

Post by strathmeyer »

mooted1 wrote: post #65

I work at Uber. I was on the wifi yesterday. I was successfully using blind. If business insider would like video evidence, I'm happy to work with their reporters 1:1. There's a lot of problems at the company and it's been a difficult week for many of us here. Not having access to blind is not one of them.

Gee how did you get HR permission to work with the press so quickly?

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#87

Post by dllthomas »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #84
dllthomas wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article alleges poor controls around customer data, not coordinated action. It seems unrelated to what we were discussing, which was likelihood of Uber to - reusing my earlier phrasing - try to discredit, disparage, or defame Susan Fowler.

Well, you should still probably quit because they already send thugs to intimidate women/former employees in the way you said was unacceptable: https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-cl...

There's some clear differences, and it's alleged not confirmed. That said, I'll look into it.

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#88

Post by Nitramp »

beaconstudios wrote: post #75
Nitramp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wasn't suggesting you were saying "let's hire idiots just because they're women", I was pointing out a hypothetical scenario in which meritocracy plays second fiddle. You suggested "if the majority of developers are mal, then a majority of high-performing developers will also be male". So far so good. Then you made the non sequitur jump to "Hiring lower-performing females to attempt to achieve balance does not fi…

> That's a straw man, nobody suggests that. Not directly, but one of the main attempts to address a lack of diversity in tech seems to be diversity quotas, or companies actively looking to hire more women or POC. Diversity quotas directly cause the exact issue I quoted, where the ratios of allowed hires by social group does not match the ratio of applicants. Statistically speaking, that's equivalent to agreeing to hi…

> Not directly, but one of the main attempts to address a lack of diversity in tech seems to be diversity quotas, or companies actively looking to hire more women or POC.

[citation required]. I haven't ever seen that.

> I think part of the issue is that you immediately devolved into hyperbole about hiring "idiots".

I did not, please check who you're quoting. Regardless, I think that's overphrasing it, but it's essentially the straw man you put out.

Re: Uber blocks employees at work from chatting on Blind App

#89

Post by omar3550 »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #31
chinathrow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTF how stupid is that? You use a company address to sign up, leaving trails within an internal mail service...

Yeah, I wondered the same thing. Verification by company email reduces spam/noise, so I understand why it's done. Probably useful to have non-employees filtered out. But there's no way I'd trust the service enough to use it. Not to mention my latent fear of a data breach/leak ruining my career.

Aren't there any company mailing list addresses someone can provide? Someone inside uber needs to have some connections with IT - could be done easily I think. No email will be sent I am assuming? Or is there a verification step where one has to click on a link? Someone who has the app should verify.
Post reply on HN