Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-dirt-on-journalists

by uptown • 12 years ago

588 326 12 years ago

justinv2• 12 years ago

Personally, I've stopped using Uber because of the lack of the company/management's lack of ethics. Lyft comes off as a much friendly, consumer-focused company & frankly, my experiences have been better in a Lyft than an UberX.

Also - I'm not one to usually browse Buzzfeed, but this was their story to break, so props to them for getting it out there.

VieElm• 12 years ago

There's also Sidecar, it's pretty great. It is usually cheaper and let's you select from available drivers. You see their price upfront.

timjahn• 12 years ago

Sidecar is a joke in Chicago. They have only 2-3 drivers available at any time, wait times of 15-30 min, and 98% of the time they refuse your request anyway.

I fully expect Sidecar to just give up in Chicago any day now.

rhizome3• 12 years ago

I think we all know what a lack of ethics gets you in the business world: more money and power.

Eric_WVGG• 12 years ago

The thing that’s crazy is that Uber’s service is terrific. They can succeed quite handily in the market without resorting to this sort of bullshit (like that crazy caper where they asked drivers to make phony ride reservations on competing services).

I think Yglesias has the right take — the very qualities necessary to make an legally-grey service successful are going to become antithetical to them succeeding as a normal, law-abiding, “legally white” service. http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7240295/uber-privacy

aetherson2• 12 years ago

Success is a matter of expectations and degree. Uber is clearly capable of providing success in the form of "make a popular service that people use and which has value," and I'd say like 95% certain, "that is capable of turning a sustained profit."

But they've raised money at a $17 billion+ valuation, from people who invested on the theory that they at least have a shot at a x5 profit -- so they need to target a valuation of $100 billion or so.

Which means that "make a popular service that people use and which has value and that is capable of turning a sustained profit" is now abject failure for them.

Success for Uber looks like "become part of the fundamental infrastructure of large parts of the world." It is NOT clear that they are on track to do that, and failure to do that is a real possibility, in a way that "failure to have a popular service that can make money" is not really a possibility.

trevorhartman• 12 years ago

I don't want to sit in the front seat and I hate those stupid mustaches.

general_failure5• 12 years ago

Same here, it's idiotic.

onewaystreet3• 12 years ago

Lyft only exists because Uber cleared the way. They also 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 have to walk.

fabulist• 12 years ago

Stating this once is enough, please.

etjossem• 12 years ago

Duplicate, please just start one thread.

general_failure5• 12 years ago

Uber is quite ok and i have not felt any of the problems which any of the news articles are reporting.

Asparagirl6• 12 years ago

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 potentially endanger sources and compromise whistleblowers?

These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days.

I opt out at airports, I donate to the EFF, I don't use Uber or any other app that targets people's privacy and actively threatens the freedom of the press.

(Oh, and like Sarah Lacey, I'm a mom of young kids too. Reading that article induced such a shudder of horror, and will likely do the same for any parent who reads, or even hears about, that story. Uber has done major, major damage to their brand on a visceral level.)

rhizome3• 12 years ago

You don't say things like this to an audience containing media members and not expect it to get out. Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail. Are we supposed to assume Uber does not already buy 1MM PR spends?

Asparagirl6• 12 years ago

Yeah, if this is the shit they do and talk about in public, WTF do they do and talk about in private?

EDIT: Oh my God, they also have the location data of the comings and goings of lots of politicians and industry regulators, don't they? Late night trips from locations some of those people might not want made public? If they'll so casually threaten a mother's kids, threaten journalists with $1M smear campaigns, what else have they already done?

bhouston5• 12 years ago

Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail.

This is a direct attempt to shut her up -- this an attempt to silence their critics via blackmail -- and they hoped it wouldn't get mainstream press coverage. They hoped she would find out just via whispers from those who were there.

_pmf_• 12 years ago

You don't say things like this to an audience containing media members and not expect it to get out.

You do if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac who got shoved money up the ass by shriveling old millionaires for having a business model that is based on siphoning money off less-than-minimum wage workers.

AnimalMuppet2• 12 years ago

I wonder... what if that's the point? What if mentioning it to an audience containing media members means that it does get out, and therefore they don't have to spend the million bucks?

spacefight3• 12 years ago

I couldn't even install the app - it asks for way too much permissons.

tim3332• 12 years ago

They should probably fire Emil Michael or similar. The

"spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine"

proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be associated with that stuff.

schuman2• 12 years ago

App was a great step forward, but it's clear they have a poisoned culture. Emil isn't a bad apple, he's the same as the rest of the barrel.

potatolicious6• 12 years ago

Given the Benny Hill-esque series of blunders by Uber in recent memory, I'm not sure it's safe to think that Emil Michael and his behavior is the exception at Uber, rather than the rule, and that firing him would rid them of this type of behavior/culture.

And given the publicly documented exploits of Travis Kalanick I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.

eli6• 12 years ago

To be fair, there's a big gap between saying how you could spend a million dollars and spending a million dollars.

But if someone who worked for me started talking about exacting revenge on enemies -- in a public forum or not -- I would definitely have a problem with that.

dreamweapon5• 12 years ago

And you have the love the sequence of events:

(1) First their senior business executive (Michael) not only floats his plan at very public venue, but mentions both the budget ($1M) and the number of researches (4) they were thinking of hiring.

(2) And then later, in damage control mode, the spokesperson (Hourdajian) tries to clean up by saying they've "never considered" doing opposition research -- despite Michael having just named both a specific budget they were thinking of allocating, and a specific number of researchers they were thinking of hiring.

wpietri14• 12 years ago

I'm sure they should fire him, but from what I've seen and heard around town, this is an expression of their culture, not some outlier.

williamcotton• 12 years ago

They want to "give the media a taste of its own medicine"? They already are. It's called marketing and advertising. The press, political parties and private businesses constantly manipulate people's opinions. They both use elements of fantasy and attention grabbing headlines.

Here's the marketing copy on Uber's website right now: "WELCOME TO ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE", "TIME, VALUE, AND CONVENIENCE — YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL", "HAVE MORE FUN WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER MOST", "YOUR SHORTCUT TO EVERYWHERE IS ARRIVING NOW".

Oh really, so you're fine spewing total bullshit but you're gonna have a hissy-fit and act like a toddler when someone writes a sensational article?

Get over yourselves!

foobarqux2• 12 years ago

Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR?

Every major company does this, just not in the ham fisted way that Uber has done. Want NYT tech reporter to give positive reviews of Apple? Give him special access to newsworthy stories from inside, early access to devices, free gear, fly him out to special events and treat him like a prince. He gives an overly critical review? Take it all away. He'll have to hear from his friends at WSJ how great this year's event was, or how cool the devices are. They'll be special, he won't.

potatolicious6• 12 years ago

Surely you can see the difference between "loss of favorable treatment and perks" and "gross abuse of private data and anonymous slander"?

What you've described - while highly problematic - is a pretty big distance away from "blackmail".

schuman2• 12 years ago

That's very very different than ruining the journo"s life.

EC1• 12 years ago

How do you opt out of airports?

wukkuan• 12 years ago

I believe she is referring to opting out of the full body scanners[1] in American airports. One can do that by telling the TSA agent that they'd like to opt out of the scanner. They will instead do a manual pat down.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner

smrtinsert• 12 years ago

The threat against the children was vile and terrifying. The investors of Uber should be ashamed of themselves. Needless to say, a lot of Uber users are parents, and this news will definitely spread.

DontBeADick6• 12 years ago

Where does the article say anything about children?

zo1• 12 years ago

The language you use makes it seem like this guy threatened to physically hurt people's children. That's quite manipulative, especially your choice of emotional words such as "vile" and "terrifying".

DontBeADick6• 12 years ago

Are you reading a different article? None of those threats were mentioned in the one I'm reading...

metaphorm5• 12 years ago

Emil Michael suggested that Uber should hire opposition researchers to investigate the personal and family lives of journalists, including but not limited to, harassment of their spouses and children.

Asparagirl6• 12 years ago

Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families.

The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home.

The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.

Here's her response, in PandoDaily: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...

throwaway09F911• 12 years ago

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, "She wants to attack our sex lives, politics, and call us terrible people? We should dig in to what she's done."

That's still unacceptable, but seems like blowing off steam and being frustrated at someone who makes money off of being mean and generating outrage.

Again, the behavior is totally unacceptable. But making this out to be a conspiracy rather than a frustrated executive ranting at someone who is known to be rude and very personal about the rudeness and who gets paid on pageviews and outrage is a little much.

metaphorm5• 12 years ago

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.

DontBeADick6• 12 years ago

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.

netcan• 12 years ago

Perhaps.

OTOH, it could also be (certainly if it was serious and possibly if it was just venting) a sign of something bad. Sarah Lacey's criticism was that Uber have an "asshole culture." This does not exactly disprove her statement.

I'm not touchy. I think a lot of "PC outrage" (including possibly hers, I haven't really dug) is the nasty "fun to be outraged" variety. This has a terrible effect, turning corporate (also police and every type of official) vernacular into an unnatural lifeless sludge. I'm usually on the other side of these kinds of debates. But, there is such a thing as misogyny, asshole culture and such. They exist, and this might be a sign of it here.

Uber are an extremely aggressive company. They need that aggression to do the job they're trying to do which brings them into conflict all the time. Aggressiveness can spread. Uber is now a big company. They have many people's livelihoods, safety & privacy in their hands. There's a standard they need to meet. If a senior exec talks like this to reporters off the record, it may be the kind of talk that happens a lot.

It is a little disturbing, even as just talk.

eli6• 12 years ago

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?

freshflowers• 12 years ago

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.

AJ007• 12 years ago

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 contributions have included almost word for word the position of a lobbying group I'm familiar with. I'll leave him unnamed.

b) The page view journalism model rewards writers for being inflammatory and exaggerating. This means you really need to keep a close eye on writers for disinformation because when something spreads, it happens really fast, within hours. Rather than lengthy investigative pieces, the model is basically a fire hose of shit and watching which chunk sticks and goes viral. This also means writers tend to produce volumes of articles attacking the same or similar individuals and organizations. Some of the ludicrous stories I've seen recently track back to writers with minimal to no credentials and a long stream of irrelevant "stories." One piece of shit stuck and it blows up. What these guys are doing is more closely analogous to trolling and hate speech than informed research.

I'm not the kind of person who imagines the world is constantly devolving towards a lower state. I think the negatives from the current nature of "journalism" are outweighed by the positives we have gained from the same communications & publishing trends.

The best thing you can do as an individual is to not read stories from these sorts of groups. The headlines are misleading, the stories are often irrelevant and misinformed. Stick to places that publish accurate titles and require writers with some sort of credentials.

Angostura• 12 years ago

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

wpietri14• 12 years ago

In front of journalists, the man talked in detail about a plan to destroy journalists giving negative coverage. As far as I know, you're the only person calling it "a conspiracy". But plenty of people are taking that as a way of threatening journalists.

The "blowing off steam" theory doesn't strike me as plausible. If it had happened at his local alley while talking with his bowling team, sure, maybe. But the CEO and and SVP of a $16 bn company don't sit down with a bunch of journalists by accident. Either the guy was intending to intimidate journalists (and Lacy in specific) or he is so dangerously clueless that a) he should not be a senior executive of anything bigger than a lemonade stand, and b) it would be hard to explain how he made it this far.

A journalist friend said that powerful people threatening journalists is routine, and that this sort of thing has a chilling effect on coverage. When smart people "accidentally" do something very self-serving, a reasonable working hypothesis is that they actually knew what they were doing.

lexap• 12 years ago

Amen.

baxterross5• 12 years ago

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.

tripzilch3• 12 years ago

This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy.

A frustrated guy venting at a business dinner, attended by an influential crowd, specifically addressing a person they just hired that could (and probably would) make this "conspiracy" happen for real if he made the call.

See, personally, I think even in a perfectly informal off-the-record setting, what he suggested was simply wrong and should be called on it. Whether you're frustrated or not. Unless it was extremely clear from the context it was just a joking "haha we should .." with no intent to follow through, then, maybe then it becomes acceptable to say these sorts of things in an informal off-the-record setting, assuming you're sufficiently acquainted with the current company that you know they won't be put off by such a tasteless remark.

What he called for was a personal attack on someone's personal life. With a straight face, to his hired media mouthpiece. It's IMO not very different (though obviously less illegal) from telling your hired muscle "we should teach that person a lesson, beat them up a little", with no intent to follow through, obviously. The window to make that last bit over-abundantly clear evaporates within a minute or so. And even then, in what sort of company does he think it's okay to even begin to vent about that sort of thing, even without intent to follow through? Surely a lot more private than some fancy I-thought-it-was-off-the-record dinner.

Obviously his own moral compass didn't prevent him from saying these things, in the first place. That's exactly why he should be called on "venting" such ideas. Even when he honestly had no intent to follow through, he's a powerful man, speaking directly to someone whose task it would be to make this happen, someone might take it seriously and warm to the idea that such behaviour could be acceptable.

none_for_me_thx3• 12 years ago

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 exaggerating or making stuff up, otherwise you risk making legitimate critics look like sensational buffoons.

eli6• 12 years ago

According to the article an Uber executive did indeed access a journalist's data without her permission, something the spokesperson said was not possible:

"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?

rayiner• 12 years ago

There's a difference between accurately representing a statement and being being willfully blind to the statement taken as a whole. It's not fair to take an isolated statement out of context, but it's also not fair to assert that a series of statements taken in context don't mean anything more than they do in isolation.

All of those things are in his statements. He doesn't have to spell it out for you to know what he means.

dreamweapon5• 12 years ago

There was no mention of blackmail.

There was no need. It's kind of like when someone says "we know where you live", "watch your back", etc -- the implication is clear.

nhangen• 12 years ago

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...

api• 12 years ago

... then Travis is playing right into their hands and feeding the troll.

Personal flame wars on the net are one thing, but involving your company in that shit? The minute you take money and hire other people it's not your personal sandbox. This 4chan crap should at best come with a huge "my opinions are my own" disclaimer and should never involve your company.

eli6• 12 years ago

Acting like an ass is not necessarily a zero-sum game. But that doesn't change the fact that publicly musing about going after someone's family for revenge is totally unacceptable.

quadratical• 12 years ago

In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals.

I've desperately avoided commenting on anything related to his because I've known Travis for about a decade, but... you are sadly mistaken. Uber has a downright toxic culture. Sarah might have gone a little far here and there, but it is not because Travis is capitalistic, but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago.

I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery.

hackuser2• 12 years ago

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?

general_failure5• 12 years ago

What a sensationalist reaction to a sensationalist article.

These people are scum. Uber was a neat app, but I have PLENTY of alternatives these days.

You won't consider them only because alternatives exist? What are you trying to say there?

gutnor• 12 years ago

That's the lowest level of vote with your wallet statement.

Like "That's it facebook, you have abused my privacy one too many times, I will disconnect for a whole week-end."

joelrunyon• 12 years ago

I get the competitive nature that Uber's taken against Lyft / Sidecar, but this seems like the worst thing yet.

justinv2• 12 years ago

Also, it was Travis who said “We’re in a political campaign, and the candidate is Uber and the opponent is an asshole named Taxi,"

Well, it seems we have come full circle. Who's the asshole now?

PhantomGremlin• 12 years ago

There is another recent HN article. It links to a Pando post by Sarah Lacy, the journalist being threatened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622187

makomk• 12 years ago

There's also previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622403

dang5• 12 years ago

Buzzfeed stories are normally penalized, but we take the penalty off for major stories. We've done that here. HN tends to frown on media controversy, but since this story seems destined to be above the line in any case, it may as well be the original source. We've demoted the other posts on the same story as duplicates.

bcantrill• 12 years ago

To say that this is "media controversy" borders on the absurd: this is entirely inappropriate and indefensible behavior from a top executive at a top company -- and it raises all sorts of legitimate questions about corporate culture and how companies internalize public criticism. You use the passive voice when you say that "it seems destined to be above the line" when in fact it is above the line because many in the HN demographic feel that this story is important. In this case, HN's strange paternalism is going to cause this discussion to happen three separate times in three separate threads. Can the HN community really not be trusted to decide what we think is important?

Bahamut3• 12 years ago

It's disrespectful that the community cannot allowed to at least see the stories we want to see bubble to the top, good or bad. There are good lessons to be learned in all of these issues, moreso than a lot of articles that bubble up to the top here.

ams6110• 12 years ago

This is not corporate culture it's politics. Personal destruction has been near the front page of the playbook since about forever.

SamReidHughes• 12 years ago

In this case, HN's strange paternalism is going to cause this discussion to happen three separate times in three separate threads. Can the HN community really not be trusted to decide what we think is important?

If you're interpreting mods' behavior in maintaining this site as paternalism and think a set of randos voting on articles that attract their attention is an entity to which the verb "trusted" could even be applied, you are completely out of touch with reality.

dang5• 12 years ago

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), but IIRC that's because most of the discussion in the other threads at that point was about why they weren't the Buzzfeed story. Did I get that wrong? If so, it was for the mundane reason that at 1 A.M. I was tired and less meticulous than I try to be.

By "seems destined, etc." I meant that many people here obviously cared about the story. "Media controversy" doesn't strike me as absurd at all, but let's not quarrel over wording; let's seek each other's meaning instead.

FWIW, my personal opinion is that, assuming the story is accurately reported, it's outrageous. But it's our duty to try to factor personal opinions out of moderation decisions.

You seem to be complaining that HN's front page isn't decided by votes alone. It never has been; it has always been a blend of voting and curation. Voting alone would cause HN to be dominated by outrage, gossip, fashion and promotion. That would kill the site. [1]

I dislike that fact as much as any HN user, and probably have more reason to dislike it. But there's no question that it's true. It's so true that it's an interesting question why it's true, given that this is a community of smart people, and I even have a whole theory about it... but I'll spare you.

1. I'm just echoing what tptacek already said in this thread, as well as regurgitating what I've posted dozens of times, but it does seem necessary to regurgitate.

just2n8• 12 years ago

This isn't a major story. It's an out-of-context clickbait dressed recount of a hypothetical story painted by a frustrated man at a private dinner.

If there was a criminal suit filed along side the allegations made, perhaps you'd have a major story. This is just another in a long line of hit pieces that seem to have no basis in reality.

grayarea• 12 years ago

It's OK for frustrated people to threaten children now?

morganvachon3• 12 years ago

I'll respectfully disagree. There's nothing "hypothetical" about it, the guy laid out a budget and a game plan for targeted harassment and intimidation of journalists who dared to write negative press. There were multiple high-profile witnesses, and after it all came to light, he called and then emailed the journalist he threatened, to apologize profusely.

This is just one more event in a long history of Uber being an extremely bad actor. They use dirty tactics to try to run their competitors out of business instead of competing on their merits, they treat their drivers and riders like shit, they gleefully flaunt their ability to track anyone, anywhere, any time and use it against them. Now they've gone on record (his emailed apology puts the entire affair on the record, no matter what he thought during the dinner in question) admitting that they are willing to harass, intimidate, and even threaten the lives of journalists and their families.

In short, this company is ran by a bunch of sociopaths who think they can do no wrong. It's going to bite them in the ass, and I hope sooner than later.

unohoo2• 12 years ago

Someone @Lyft PR needs to be on this stat. I've hardly seen Lyft take any advantage of fuckups like these by Uber.

philwelch14• 12 years ago

What makes you think these hit pieces against Uber aren't Lyft's PR in the first place?

unohoo2• 12 years ago

this one doesnt seem to be. an uber svp was talking directly to buzzfeed editor.

hessenwolf• 12 years ago

It's a complicated decision: whether or not to get into the smear war. I have more respect for Lyft if they don't.

forgotAgain2• 12 years ago

Some things are just too radioactive to touch.

ropman76• 12 years ago

If your competition is doing something really stupid, all you have to do is get out of the way...

protomyth• 12 years ago

That would be the worst idea. They should stay far, far away and not say word one. You do not ever get involved in controversy if you can help it. Say a word and get you and yours investigated by those looking for a follow-up story.

sbuk• 12 years ago

Not necessarily a bad idea...

Edit FWIW, I personally do not and refuse to use Uber. I think that they are vile. But...

I find that too many journalist hide behind 'freedom of the press' when they are axe-grinding. A lot of online tech reporting that I encounter is knee-jerk reaction and factless click-bait. Personal blogs, where you'd expect to find this behaviour, in my experience tend to be far more credible...

bhouston5• 12 years ago

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 intimation via oppo-research stop? Can we apply this to any dealings with politicians, angles, VC, policy makers? I bet it can be effective in these areas as well. Maybe a company's strategy to "force outcomes" should be a required slide in all pitch decks now?

I wonder if Uber stops at just using intimidation in less developed countries where things are rougher and governments are more pliable than in the US and Canada? If there are few limits to Uber aggressiveness and they have money, you can easily pay people in a lot of developing nations to improve outcomes in a large variety of "creative ways", and you can easily distance yourself from how those outcomes are achieved.

It does seem that Uber teaches us that this is the new normal and if we are not doing this, we are not maximizing shareholder value.

pjc502• 12 years ago

maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal

No we do not; this is the time to push back on it. Otherwise, as you say, you end up making the country more lawless and less developed by sending the thugs round to "achieve outcomes".

SyneRyder• 12 years ago

You can still compete by just being better. Stories like these definitely turn me off Uber, but for all the people saying "just use Lyft or Sidecar instead"... neither service is available in my country yet, let alone my city. But Uber is here.

Uber (for me, so far) has been far superior than local taxis, and it's all low hanging fruit: credit card billing, email receipts, comfortable cars, GPS tracking & ETA, friendly drivers who don't harass you, tips included in price, global business accounts, discounts & perks. Local taxis don't offer any of that, they're not even trying. Maybe Lyft & Sidecar offer that, but they're not in any of the cities I travel to globally. The world is not just San Francisco.

Make a damn good service first. I can't switch to your service if you won't even offer it to me.

MrBuddyCasino4• 12 years ago

Thats defeatist. We have labels for organic food, so why not have something certified asshole-free? You know, a certificate for ethical behavior or something.

I'm only glad that he really looks like the asshole he is (and so does weev btw.). At least you can still trust your gut instincts.

7952• 12 years ago

That kind of labelling is never going to happen. But really it has always been the wrong way round. For example, you shouldn't really need to have "dolphin friendly tuna" anymore than "kitten friendly chocolate". If a company spends millions on marketing but does horrible things it is incredibly disineguous. Having unethical practices and not telling customers is like selling vegetarian food which contains animal products.

sah88• 12 years ago

Does it though?

There is very little lockin with Uber at the consumer level, so goodwill is incredibly important for the company. At some point if they keep this shit up they are going to come up snake eyes and something will go viral.

Beyond that they are more or less loading the gun for anyone who wants to make the argument that the industry needs regulation.

If I was an investor I'd want heads rolling.

RealGeek• 12 years ago

This is why Uber's investors are blindly defending Uber's actions. Uber's scummy tacticts = more money in investors pockets

forgotAgain2• 12 years ago

After re-reading what you wrote you may wish to delete the post or change your profile.

bhouston5• 12 years ago

To be clear, I wrote the above in a sarcastic fashion to illustrate the downward spiral this would cause.

krapp• 12 years ago

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 is really a 'new normal,' except perhaps in application. It only seems that way because we've had decades of regulation against various underhanded practices which used to be standard operating procedure. 'Intimidating the press' used to mean simply buying all the newspapers, firing everyone and having company men print whatever you wanted. Or getting some Pinkertons to beat someone half to death.

lhc-• 12 years ago

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".

alain94040• 12 years ago

I'm trying to put together a panel on that topic, but it's hard to find people to represent the "asshole" side of the discussion.

Original call for speakers: "For the 2015 edition, we are looking for speakers and panelists. A touchy topic we’d like to address is "ethics in Silicon Valley – startups playing dirty can't be the new normal". If you are qualified and willing to discuss this topic on stage, get in touch"

So far, no takers...

mikeash2• 12 years ago

This is just a typical Prisoners' Dilemma scenario. An individual company can gain an advantage with dirty tricks, but everybody is worse off if all companies try it.

The optimal position (with no dirty tricks) is unstable. We stay there by punishing those who deviate. This is why the pitchforks come out in cases like this.

just2n8• 12 years ago

Why is this here? This is a non story. All I see in this article is that someone was ranting in a conversation that was entirely assumed to be off the record (they go to great lengths to justify talking about it, as if private dinners require contracts of nondisclosure). I find it beyond hilarious that here Buzzfeed stands appalled that someone would joke about hiring people to dig up dirt when they find their way into private dinners and report every unsavory thing said in confidence and without context, essentially writing off that context as "this is never appropriate." Does anyone else see the outrageous hypocrisy here? One man is joking about something because he's frustrated with poor media coverage (which is arguably of questionable ethical validity) while Buzzfeed is actually doing that thing and now everyone here on HN is joking about how terrible Uber is and how they've distanced themselves. This is HN.

This is gossip about a man's frustrated rant at shitty media coverage. It's a non story and is totally off topic. If there was evidence he had hired people to dig up dirt with intent to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce people, we could be talking about criminal proceedings. But seeing as there's no mention of any criminal wrongdoing, this is complete and utter trash, and they know it. Another in a very long list of reasons never to read Buzzfeed.

I'm not here in a position in support of Uber because I literally have no idea what is and isn't fact. If every article negative of them is as misguided and useless as this one, I can't possibly hope to form a coherent and well informed opinion about a company. Definitely not based on clickbait headlines and opinion pieces without solid evidence of wrongdoing. You can hate Uber for all the valid reasons you can find, but getting angry at someone for expressing frustration is truly next level pathetic. This clickbait shit. What the fuck.

Some people are linking a Pando article, which says, as a direct quote:

Earlier this evening, a bombshell story by Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith proves the reality is way worse than anyone on our team could have expected.

In reference to this article. You can see why this shit can't be taken seriously. Referring to garbage like this article as a "bombshell" or "proof" of activity is completely divorced from reality.

venomsnake• 12 years ago

Off the record is privilege given by the journalist at its own discretion, not a right.

DanBC2• 12 years ago

"Off the record" is a specific construct used by journalists. This was not off the record.

Threatening journalists who write negative articles is indefensible. It's a stupid thing to say, especially to a room full of journalists.

It's firmly on topic here because it speaks to ethics of company founders.

just2n8• 12 years ago

Even the author of this article recognizes, and confirms, that it was a hypothetical.

It's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can never be frustrated.

Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it? If there was no confusion about it being "off the record", there's no need to mention any of it. And it still doesn't matter.

blackdogie2• 12 years ago

Despite being an impressive company, generating sales, growth fast, expanding internationally, it seems that these founders are a little immature. This isn't the first story about the lack of ethics of the company, and if I was them I would worry about this potential shift in widespread support. Today's shining light can easily be changed into the tomorrows demon. Maybe they could spend $1M on PR to improve the image.

onion2k• 12 years ago

Maybe they could spend $1M on PR to improve the image.

Or spend $0 and actually improve things in the company so they don't need PR to tell people they're not horrible.

general_failure5• 12 years ago

Why bother when people continue using it?

Trust me, people will continue to use it as long as there is a value add - cheaper, better etc. In general, nobody cares about what happens behind the scenes.

QuadDamaged• 12 years ago

Just looking at my uber rides, I am pretty certain Uber could already infer some interesting facts about my life.

Cross-referencing with geo-data, time, and weekly occurences, I am pretty sure Uber could infer who's in my social circle, and under which category (coworker, wife, arm-candy...)

The day Uber links its userbase with Facebook we are doomed.

blackdogie2• 12 years ago

Seeing as Uber now has distinct ties to Google, I doubt that they are an acquisition target for FB.

rhizome3• 12 years ago

I have to wonder if this guy is executing a David Plouffe strategy to take a severance payout and become a lobbyist. That's one way people wouldn't know any developments from this were driven by Uber.

kubiiii2• 12 years ago

Are there legal reasons why this SVP does not apologize to the journalist he specifically targeted while recognizing he threatened her and regreting it?

caractacus2• 12 years ago

He did. He called her (though she has no idea how he got her number) and asked to speak off the record.

No, really. He did. "Hey Sarah, I realise there's this massive story blowing where I threatened to wage war on you and your family and I know you're a high profile journalist in this area but can we just have a quick friendly chat off the record?"

Scroll to the bottom of her article: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...

kubiiii2• 12 years ago

Thanks, the parent link did not mention this. His email reads like something sincere. Still confused why he did apologize on the phone. Harder to CCI your CEO on the phone maybe.

ddalex• 12 years ago

Uber is just not a nice company, they skirt laws around the world, and do very shoddy business.

casca• 12 years ago

While in SF earlier this month, I noticed that people were using Lyft and Uber interchangeably and given the consistent stories about Uber's management, it seems likely that people will switch to Lyft as a primary option with Uber as a backup.

It's quite possible that Uber will create the market by and then be eclipsed by other players who are less unethical.

bhouston5• 12 years ago

There is not enough general awareness of Uber's assholeness in the general public to have a meaningful effect. That may change but it hasn't yet.

thesystemis4• 12 years ago

I am surprised not to see the word misogynist on this page. Here, a SVP is not only threatening a reporter and her family (which is truly repugnant) and reporters generally, he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way:

"He said that he thought Lacy should be held “personally responsible” for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted."

The top comment on this page talks about a "visceral" feeling, I had the same one. I had the same feeling I had when I heard things like Todd Akin (a politican in the US) talking about "legitimate rape." Do we really want people like this shaping our future?

andy_ppp2• 12 years ago

Uber has now been deleted from my phone. I hope others consider doing the same.

caractacus2• 12 years ago

Ditto.

imanaccount2476• 12 years ago

I just downloaded it to support them. The more absurd the PC bullshit gets, the more the rest of us will push back just to spite you. I can't wait for my new shirt to arrive.

nailer9• 12 years ago

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

thesystemis4• 12 years ago

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.

wpietri14• 12 years ago

Well, he's pissed at a woman journalist accusing his company of sexism and misogyny. He said so. This is already a gendered incident.

So sure, it's possible that he'd also talk about destroying a male journalist for the same thing. Heck, it's possible that he has the bodies of a dozen journalists, all male, buried in his back yard. But given that this was already about sexism and misogyny, given Uber's notoriously douchebro culture, and given that prominent women on the Internet are regularly attacked in ways that men aren't, interpreting this as a continuing pattern of misogynistic behavior seems reasonable.

personZ• 12 years ago

he's also discussing sexual assault in such a trivializing way

While I hardly want to be in a camp that defends him in any way, he was specifically addressed her claims. How is it misogynist for him to argue that the risk of sexual assault are lower in an Uber vehicle, or vice versa?

thesystemis4• 12 years ago

I don't think it's wrong to argue that point, ie, "I wish this reporter would understand how we work to create a safer environment, look at the stats, etc" but I think it's far out of line to go beyond that and assign "personal responsibility" to someone who is arguing against your product, especially around these sort of crimes. To me, that seems like taking the argument to a really personal place and also, trivializing what should be a serious discussion.

wpietri14• 12 years ago

I am surprised not to see the word misogynist on this page.

Yeah. When a prominent dude is so upset by a woman accusing his company of sexism and misogyny that he publicly talks about spending a million dollars to destroy her life, it's hard not to see this as systemic misogyny in action.

Especially telling to me is that his CEO was there at the dinner. If one of my employees was talking like this in public, let alone to other journalists, his goose would be cooked. "I'm sorry, Mr. Michael has clearly had a little too much to drink. The press has an important role to play in our society, and Uber would never do anything like this." Then, the next morning Michael would announce that he was leaving to spend more time with his family.

But instead we get some mealy-mouthed damage-control PR.

lazy_nerd• 12 years ago

+N. Its equally telling about the CEO as it is about Emil Michael.

qq66• 12 years ago

Well, Nixon used to be equally vindictive with reporters (conplete with typed up master plan), most of whom were men (only one woman made it onto his infamous "Enemies List.")

It's very dangerous when people in power cannot maturely handle conflict and disagreement.

rikacomet• 12 years ago

On a side note, Uber should also sue all those companies piggy-backing on its name, dragging its name down. What I mean is, that every other month, I'm seeing a case of "Uber-for-X", like Blowhorn, is a startup that claims to be uber for mini-trucks.

What is happening is that, UBER is still going through its real challenge and hasn't established itself as a household name, like Microsoft, Apple, Google. Lot of people are still critical of its intent (including me perhaps), and its ultimate success, but these small startups that are piggybacking on its name are making matter's worse.

Most of these Uber for X startups, are not going to succeed, generally speaking, and when a start-up fails, brand value gets hit as people associate "failure" "didn't work" "not so good" with that name. Uber in that sense, is taking a hit on its brand name due to failure of other businesses (which I think is a bit unfair).

GFK_of_xmaspast• 12 years ago

That's called "getting disrupted."

spindritf2• 12 years ago

I cannot treat complaints from journalists about digging up dirt seriously. This has essentially become their job.

Were was this criticism when some guy's personal phone calls were broadcasted and dissected? When Gawker was buying people's sex tapes? And not months ago, although then too, last week[1].

This is the world you created. Enjoy.

EDIT: And if you're downvoting, I'd love to hear why.

[1] http://defamer.gawker.com/somebody-is-selling-an-usher-sex-t...

king_jester• 12 years ago

Bad behavior by some journalists doesn't justify personal attacks by companies against journalists.

spindritf2• 12 years ago

One can hope that once it happens a few times, journalists will maybe rediscover the basic ethics of their profession. Right now, they simply seem to demand a monopoly on digging for dirt.

caboteria• 12 years ago

Just one more shining example that the easiest way to be successful in business is to be a sociopath.

Panino• 12 years ago

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").

selmnoo• 12 years ago

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 hurt them enough to reverse their stance on SOPA in mere hours. Have you been to godaddy.com lately? "Internet freedom!" is actually one of the things they advertise on their page.

Now, I too was hoping in those days that the company would just die... and that's unlikely to happen to Uber as well, considering that dollar is kind and a lot has been given to Uber by so many investors. The best you can hope for is a massive firing of executives at the top, since that's where a lot of toxicity seems to be coming from.

qeorge2• 12 years ago

Chik-fil-a lost at least one customer for life - me. I have not eaten their food since the story broke, and I never will again.

Uber just came to Raleigh, NC where I live, and I was pretty stoked to try them out. Not gonna happen now - I'll stick with Taxi Taxi.[1]

[1] http://www.taxitaxiofraleigh.com/

theorique2• 12 years ago

I'm ethically opposed to Chick-fil-a's stance, but I like their sandwiches. Most of the time I don't eat them, but every once in a while, the beast takes over and I have to eat.

JoeAltmaier• 12 years ago

I just ask at the counter "Is this hateful message day? I don't want to endorse your hateful message." If they say no, then I order a sandwich.

jnaglick• 12 years ago

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.

smackfu• 12 years ago

Lyft and Uber seem pretty interchangeable, so having a reason to choose one over the other is not good for them.

nailer9• 12 years ago

Misleading headline, from article it wasn't in any way a serious suggestion.

ghshephard3• 12 years ago

It now reads, "Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists " which is exactly what he did. (Actually, he even went further and said it would be acceptable do so)

nailer9• 12 years ago

He 'suggested considering' this at a dinner party, and 'Michael at no point suggested that Uber has actually hired opposition researchers, or that it plans to.' according to Buzzfeed - they're trying to imply it was a serious suggestion while actually sticking to the facts, which imply it very much wasn't. It's fascinating.

pja• 12 years ago

Looks like it's time to a) uninstall Uber and b) subscribe to PandoDaily.

bakhy2• 12 years ago

Uber's only purpose and meaning is exploitation. Yes, the app is handy, but it's no disruption. The disruption is in destabilizing the taxi cooperatives and weakening the drivers' position.

We should all cut the crap, there is nothing to be surprised by here.

cwkoss3• 12 years ago

Destabilizing taxi monopolies is a very positive societal disruption. I don't know where you're from but here Uber is half the cost of a cab, better service, and they actually have clean cars.

If you don't think they're disruptive, I'm not sure how you define disruptive.

bakhy2• 12 years ago

Read my comment again, that's more or less exactly what I said. Except I do not see such a simple black and white picture. Taxi monopolies have formed to enable the drivers a better bargaining position. Uber is achieving lower prices by destroying this, and as we can see, once that is done, nothing stops them from turning the tables and driving the price too low for the drivers to survive. The drivers are not their employees, and so not their responsibility. That is the core of their model. I think they're a little more disruptive than needed, basically :)

Taxi monopolies easily grow into a problem. They overprice the rides and stifle the market. But this can usually be sorted out through political action, through opening competition, all without automatically destroying all semblance of security for the workers.

ghshephard3• 12 years ago

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.

teacup503• 12 years ago

That's not how Apple Pay works; other than using a proxy CC# and hiding your info from the actual sales clerk, Apple Pay isn't more private than magstripe cards — merchants can still identify you, and it actually adds another party to the transaction: Apple.

thinkling• 12 years ago

Apple claim that they get no data about individual transactions, at least not in a way that can be tied to specific customers.

ghshephard3• 12 years ago

How does the merchant identify you? My understanding is that, unlike a credit card, you don't share your name with them during an Apple Pay transaction. Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the hardware which hosts the secure element.

hack_edu• 12 years ago

Why would Uber, a company who's entire business is based on location data and the analysis, sign such a deal?

ingenieros• 12 years ago

You know what I find the most disturbing about this whole story?? "He also sits on a board that advises the Department of Defense"

anigbrowl3• 12 years ago

Yeah, that jumped out at me also, and is likely to give the story legs considering the pushback against sexual assault in the military.

dreamweapon5• 12 years ago

The executive, Emil Michael, made the comments in a conversation he later said he believed was off the record. In a statement through Uber Monday evening, he said he regretted them and that they didn’t reflect his or the company’s views.

They "don't reflect his or the company's views?" How can they not be 100% reflective of his views? And how can we possibly take anything said by anyone at the executive level at Uber seriously at this point?

baxterross5• 12 years ago

because his comments have been twisted out of control

ascendantlogic• 12 years ago

As long as the valuation keeps going up, the VC's will keep making excuses and looking the other direction. Remember, profits make everything all better.

giarc• 12 years ago

I live in a city where Uber was/is trying to break in. Council has been very vocal that these actions by the Uber executive is harming their chances. I would say that their chances of being given approval is dwindling and they will lose this 1.3 million citizen market.

wpietri14• 12 years ago

Actually, Uber is about ethics in tech journalism.

meepmorp• 12 years ago

Thank you for that.

metaphorm5• 12 years ago

I think its abundantly clear at this point that Uber is an immoral company with a greed driven management team that has no ability whatever to properly think about the social consequences of their actions. Or worse still, perhaps they deliberately pursue malfeasance, as was suggested by the executive who made the comments discussed in this article.

ssully• 12 years ago

Just deleted uber from my phone and installed lyft. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.

tedks• 12 years ago

I hope all the people commenting with pitchforks in hand have also never said (or have been alleged to have said) anything at a private dinner between friends that could be construed in any way to be similar to these remarks.

wpietri14• 12 years ago

This was not a private dinner between friends.

webXL• 12 years ago

Here we go again, more Uber drama. The only reason why this is a story is the (pardon the term) disruption of a protected industry, and the misplaced attention on the supply-side. Consumers are awash in convenience and choice right now, but the media and the politicos protecting the industry are ignoring that and going after the biggest member of the disruption so that it can be controlled.

I'm sure there are sleazy execs at Uber, but if the media pointed its glare at any other similar-sized company, I'm sure it would find them there, too. Uber may have more because it has grown so fast. It would behoove of them to start cleaning house so that this type of story doesn't kill the golden goose.

softdev12• 12 years ago

The most interesting thing to me about all this is that the tech media is probably about 50 percent responsible for pushing out tech start-ups to the wider world. If you go back and look at the beginnings of companies like Twitter (blogged about by prominent bloggers) and Facebook (published by the Harvard student newspaper), the initial snowball effect to get these companies going is largely based on journalists pushing these startups to their readership.

And now we have the case where a company that has successfully navigated the hardest part of the cycle (becoming a big enough snowball to be self-sustaining) that they can turn around and challenge the journalists.

It's like a child who has grown up and now comes back to challenge the parent. Fascinating in an abstract general way.

microcolonel• 12 years ago

A senior executive at Uber suggested that the company should consider hiring a team of opposition researchers to dig up dirt on its critics in the media — and specifically to spread details of the personal life of a female journalist who has criticized the company.

Is it at all relevant that the journalist is female?

ripb2• 12 years ago

It's totally irrelevant to what happened but totally relevant to the current mainstream narrative of women versus men.

It allows them to take something non-gendered and create an absolute shitstorm from it.

Edmontonian• 12 years ago

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 investigate the people who are investigating me.

journalism startups are businesses. they make money by investigating businesses like uber. Uber is entitled to investigate in return

mikeash2• 12 years ago

Uber is not entitled to investigate by delving into private details of people, though. And just because Uber happens to hold that data doesn't mean they're entitled to grovel through it for whatever purpose they feel like. If a journalist gets into a fight with a hospital, should that hospital be entitled to use the journalists's private health records to fight back? I say, of course not. Uber is in the same position qualitatively. Of course, in the case of the hospital it's actually illegal while for Uber it's probably not, but that's just because the law on privacy is way behind the times.

TheCowboy2• 12 years ago

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 journalism is not the same as someone's personal life, their sexual preferences, children, family, etc.

just2n8• 12 years ago

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.

wpietri14• 12 years ago

Nope.

Journalism is a constitutionally protected activity that is a cornerstone of democracy. Without an informed public, democracy cannot work. Attempting to subvert that by threatening journalists is flat out wrong.

If you are a business owner, sure, you can legally investigate journalists. But that is very different than threatening to leak material about them to influence press coverage.

Also, your "turnabout is fair play" logic is ridiculous. Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.

cwkoss3• 12 years ago

Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.

I'm sure the NSA disagrees!

dragonwriter2• 12 years ago

Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.

Isn't the underlying theme behind the secrets that Greenwald got that the NSA feels that it is entitled steal everyone's secrets, whether or not the targets have first gotten the NSA's secrets, because NSA?

omouse• 12 years ago

The US government, FBI and NSA don't mind doing that, why should Uber and other companies obey the law if federal agencies refuse to?

/devil's advocate.

drivingmenuts2• 12 years ago

If I say: "I wish that guy/girl would get exposed" - that's a pretty non-specific statement. You can laugh that one off and it can be spun all kinds of ways.

If I say: "I should dig up dirt on that person" - that's much more specific, but not always. It's harder to ignore and it's far more difficult to put a just-kidding spin on it.

If I say: "I should spend a million dollars and hire four researchers to dig up opposition research on this person to expose their private life" - that's pretty damn specific. You can't unsay that. There's no way to spin that that it doesn't sound like a threat, especially if it's known, or at least believed, that you have the resources and connections to pull that off.

Michael may be a guy who was just spouting off in frustration without thinking first, which is fine - it happens from time to time. But he's also in the top tier of a very valuable company and he's paid to pay attention and be on his toes.

And he wasn't.

He then tried to laugh it off by saying "he doesn't think that way". Well, it came from somewhere in his brain. There weren't any flying monkeys dropping notions from the sky; no random inspiron from a long-dead galaxy just collided with a neuron and LOL I SEZ STUPID STUFF.

He screwed up badly. He needs to be held to account for that and harshly, because that idea is out there now. It might not be acceptable now, but sooner or later, given enough repetition, it will become acceptable.

chrischen• 12 years ago

A better idea is to reveal potential special interests or personal biases of the journalists, especially if it compromises their professional integrity.

cseelus• 12 years ago

Publicly considering such STASI tactics for me is the last nail in the coffin, I'll never use a product of this strange company. (I'm from Germany, maybe we are more sensitive to such threats)

iblaine• 12 years ago

Poke a bear with a hot stick and you might get bit. I don't see what the big deal is.

crpatino3• 12 years ago

This was closer to being growled at. "Getting bit" is more like the robber baron sending half-a-dozen of pinkertons to your home, and neither you nor your family is ever seen again.

And the big deal is that is very much on the public interest to not see the days of the pinkertons come back again, so the bears have to be trained and get used to being poked at.

cwkoss3• 12 years ago

I think this article is relevant context- Sarah Lacy is a professional troll: http://www.cnet.com/news/journalist-becomes-the-story-at-mar...

peterjancelis• 12 years ago

I think making comments this stupid as a SVP is a fireable offense and I can somewhat see how the "family" mention makes Sarah Lacy worried about her children, but I totally don't get where this gender angle is coming from in this story. I don't read any of that in the original comments by Emil Michael.

xorcist3• 12 years ago

There's been a number of negative articles about Google during the past years. Some for good reasons, some for bad. Some honest, some paid shills.

Imagine Larry Page saying: We'll sift through whatever data we've got on you and see what dirt we can find.

No need to imagine the threats against family. No need for any of the more nasty details. Just the basic premise, but in the setting of an established Silicon Valley company.

Done yet? No. Because you couldn't. Because any serious CEO worth their salt simply wouldn't.

And all those of you whose natural reponse is to defend these people, please imagine yourself doing it for Page as well. Would you, really?

Dylan168074• 12 years ago

If someone high up at google or facebook threatened to sift through the data they have on me, I would be worried. If they said they would hire external investigators, I would not be more worried than if any random person was going to do so.

Did I miss something, because I'm pretty sure this story is the latter scenario.

They're both bad actions, but only one is an abuse of trust and/or resources.

xorcist3• 12 years ago

Both. The article talks about how he accessed the data they had on a journalist, without explicit persmission from the person in question.

Not only is it not nice, it shouldn't even have been possible without logging this against a ticket number at the very least.

hero454545• 12 years ago

This story is plummeting suspiciously fast from the HN front page...

onewaystreet3• 12 years ago

It was only on the front page because the mods put it there. Buzzfeed is a penalized site and this story is getting flagged. Normally it would be on page 10 by now. The mods can't hold it up forever, though, so now it's falling.

dang5• 12 years ago

This story has been on the front page for 24 hours.

lettercarrier• 12 years ago

We used to laugh when our CEO/Head went to extremes to put customers first with things like creating a "Customer Bill or Rights." We thought it was overreaction after some glitch or dumb one-off call center rep violating PC correctness. But now I think Uber should get a transfusion.

All rides free New Years Eve and Halloween. No ride will ever cost more than $X (should not be hard to figure out - with an * too) To show good faith, ride once, the next is on us (for x weekend). Publicly terminate knuckelheads ("Jimmy the Greek") [1] Establish & Invite consumer, safety and the driver community to form an oversight group to ensure Uber holds itself to community standards.

My Luddite world has no idea what a Uber is, but they sure know how to ask and find out. New things to my Luds come from hearing human voices - asking neighbors/friends is still #1. Nothing out there now says "Uber has cleaned up its act" First impressions have to be disproven and last the longest.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB7IsmOegE

general_failure5• 12 years ago

http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa... http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/18/sarah-lacy-ube...

All this overreacting and exaggeration is getting to me. Such terrible writing and she really is going overboard with all this.

baxterross5• 12 years ago

Let's call it like it is. Yellow journalists are going to stop at nothing to smear any company with a libertarian founder.

jarnix• 12 years ago

I won't use Uber (I live in Paris), because of what they did with Lyft, because some executive harassing a woman (story of yesterday on hn), because of this story as well. There are a lot of competitors who do not have their hands that dirty. I'm using Chauffeur Price here, never had to complain.

imgabe2• 12 years ago

So they would investigate the journalists's private lives and publish all their embarrassing details in order to cause drama and controversy to further their own goals.

You mean like the media does with every public figure, ever? Like the media is doing with this exact story right now?

johnsmith32• 12 years ago

It seems that most are commenting on why Uber executive shouldn't be doing this. But none has viewed this from Uber's perspective. If your startup was being threatened by a brown-nosing bonus-loving trigger-happy reporter, what are you going to do? Publish a press statement? Hire more reporter to spread positive propaganda? A cost-benefit analysis would show it is simply cheaper to hire a hitman to take her out. Before you argue with me over ethics and human rights, this isn't the first time a company has did this. Do a google on volkswagon and Glaxo-smith klein cost-benefit analysises and they are equally expedient. So why our society allows large corporations to trade capital for human lives while we condamn a startup for doing the exact same thing?!?

jongraehl• 12 years ago

As wrong-footed as Uber appears lately, don't take buzzfeed's word for anything. Dishonest trash-talking + a financial conflict of interest. Headline-baiting 'journalists' trying to steal attention+emotion for profit w/ gossipy attacks do need to consider their own glass house, especially when their sole productive output is stirring up drama.

Being agnostic on the Uber CEO's character (don't know him) I'd caution him to stop giving material to a nascent angry mob and those stoking it.

Umn55• 12 years ago

"I opt out at airports, I donate to the EFF, I don't use Uber or any other app that targets people's privacy and actively threatens the freedom of the press"

Freedom of the press cannot exist under capitalism, who controls the hiring and firing and owns the organization controls the information.

Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

Related Stories