
Users get message about sexual harassment scandal when trying to delete Uber - rejschaap
http://mashable.com/2017/02/22/uber-message-when-delete-account-susan-fowler-blog-post/
======
brudgers
_Everyone at Uber is hurting_

Fowler is not at Uber. Nobody at Uber is taking responsibility.

No statement from Uber has been explicit that the behaviors are upsetting or
that losing an engineer because of company culture as manifested in the
workplace was upsetting. The statements have all been about how reading the
post made people unhappy (perhaps because the behavior was made public). The
loss of company value due to the fallout probably makes people unhappy too.
Heck, any bad press will make people unhappy.

Uber's response narrative reminds me of a "What's really important here is how
hitting you makes me feel bad about myself" bully.

------
JumpCrisscross
On Tuesday I contacted Uber about Fowler's account. (I've supported them in
New York City and Albany, albeit informally, and wanted to know if I needed to
make the rounds and recant my support.)

The response? "Thank you for writing in to Uber Support...for any information
related to the U.S. immigration ban, please see our Newsroom post..."

Thanks bot. I request again. "I can’t speak to your concerns or questions
regarding this issue."

Swallow my pride and recant it is...

~~~
manicdee
Isn't it illegal to comment on matters before the court or due to appear
before the court?

~~~
dmoy
It's not illegal, it's just really not beneficial (to the litigant). So
generally your lawyers will tell you to shut up, because you might say
something that'll torpedo you in court, but it's not illegal.

------
tradersam
They must be _really_ bleeding users.

------
jelliclesfarm
Ugh..

I no longer believe in the hope that sexism against women (or queer folks)
will disappear..at least not in my lifetime.

Imagine..all the bandwidth wasted on noise like this..

"I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it." \- The Doctor, The Unearthly
Child.

~~~
leereeves
Let's not restrict our concern to only "sexism against women (or queer
folks)". It happens to men too, and men get far less support.

~~~
sidlls
Harassment of men in sexual ways is less reported or taken less seriously, in
part, because the culture of sexism _against women_ reinforces that male
victims of the practice are somehow lesser.

Also, plenty of sex-stereotyping that rises to the level of an "ism" is
generally positive for men ("big strong man help me move this <heavy object>"
or "big virile man you have a beautiful wife"\--a doubly sexist trope--and so
on).

So while I agree we shouldn't reserve concern only for women, we must also not
present the issue as though it is somehow equivalent or equally applied.

The fact is that sexism against women is far and away the majority case. We
shouldn't choose to address one concern over the other if they were
equivalent, but in this case focusing efforts on combating sexism against
women will also work to reduce sexism against men naturally. So it's a win-win
to focus on and prioritize combating sexism against women.

~~~
leereeves
Honestly we have no idea how widespread the problem is for men.

Most men who are victims of sexual harassment, domestic violence, and other
forms of sexism don't speak out.

------
perryh2
I wish Lyft expanded into other countries. I'm visiting Mexico and Uber seems
to be the best way for foreigners to get around. Taxis there are known to
overcharge, just like the taxis anywhere else.

~~~
cr1895
Agreed. Taxis in the Netherlands are often overpriced, outright scams[1],
aggressive[2], have curiously non-functioning card payment despite policy,
etc. Uber is available, but nothing else. I'd gladly switch to an alternative
for a number of reasons.

[1] [http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/09/taxi-driver-
ch...](http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/09/taxi-driver-charges-
tourists-e485-for-schiphol-to-amsterdam-hotel-trip/)

[2] [http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/02/judges-
uphold-...](http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/02/judges-uphold-
schiphol-taxi-tout-ban-licenced-cabs-only-allowed/)

~~~
Freak_NL
To be fair, it is mostly just the taxis in Amsterdam that are notoriously bad
— precisely because there are so many tourists. These taxi drivers would
rather serve tourists with trips to and from the airport exclusively (it pays
rather well, and you can easily scam the type of tourist that limits their
visit to our country to just Amsterdam).

Taxis in most cities here are actually okay on the whole.

~~~
cr1895
I've still encountered the "oh we'll have to go to an ATM instead" in the
Hague despite explicitly asking the dispatcher if I could pay by card. That
was for an expensive trip to Schiphol, for which 4(!) Uber drivers I had
requested decided to cancel.

It can be that the same drivers will work for Uber (black level) and for taxi
companies. The taxi companies that I've encountered in the NL don't have
anything comparable to an app where you can hail and pay, so for that reason
alone Uber still may provide a better service even though the drivers may be
the same.

------
ghshephard
As someone who really relies on Uber for transportation in all the countries I
travel to (no need to speak the local language) - I'm finally starting to
appreciated the conflict associated with trying to be supportive of morally
upstanding leaders versus desiring to deserve your fundamental needs.

Ironically, the Uber fiasco has now made me substantially more empathic to the
single issue voters (Evangelicals, Right to Lifers, NRA Members, etc...) who
voted for Trump regardless of his perceived faults.

~~~
Xylakant
> I'm finally starting to appreciated the conflict associated with trying to
> be supportive of morally upstanding leaders versus desiring to deserve your
> fundamental needs.

Using an app that removes the friction of having to communicate with people
whose language you do not speak is certainly nice, but it's not a fundamental
need. It's a choice and like all choices you trade one thing for another:
convenience vs. supporting a stance that you can align morally with.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _it 's not a fundamental need_

Reducing an argument to "needs" or "rights" is circular. Even across well-
accepted cultures and moral systems, the lines between "needs" and non-"needs"
is diverse ( _e.g._ duty to god(s), duty to family honour, securing one's
life, securing one's happiness through artistic expression, _et cetera_ ).

~~~
Xylakant
Oh, I'm not debating whether it's a need or a right - I take objection to the
qualifier "fundamental".

~~~
maxpupmax
"Fundamental" was not an important qualifier in either of your posts. OP did
not define what that meant in their context, and therefore it's not fair to
nitpick based on that alone. They might as well have said "ticklish" for all
the difference it made to their overall point.

If that's really what your whole post is about, why take the take to argue
definitions? What does fundamental mean to you exactly?

------
tnones
That's a _really_ oppressive patriarchy we live in, when a single blog post
with no evidence and only hearsay is enough to spike a massive protest and
boycott...

~~~
bonaldi
I think you've just kicked yourself with your jerking knee.

This is _exactly_ the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system:
given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it. Women and
those sympathetic to the cause of equality can easily delete their accounts
and take alternatives, so they do.

Consider the contra: if this _wasn 't_ an oppressive system, if there weren't
real causes for complaint, nobody would care-- and so nobody would delete
their accounts over the story.

~~~
bArray
Be aware of your underlying bias.

"This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system:
given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it." Welcome to
2017, where crying wolf has no negative impact on them if proved untrue.

"Women and those sympathetic to the cause" Because by default, _all_ women are
automatically part of the _cause_.

"Consider the contra: if this wasn't an oppressive system, if there weren't
real causes for complaint, nobody would care-- and so nobody would delete
their accounts over the story." Of course, there's never been a case where a
person has been really offended, got loads of people on side only to turn out
to be false?

Regardless of her respect in SV, we can only look at the facts. Why is she the
only person to leave Uber over this? Why have there not been previous cases of
this? What evidence is there that the events unfolded as she suggested? All
these things and more should be considered.

~~~
bonaldi
> Welcome to 2017, where crying wolf has no negative impact on them if proved
> untrue.

This smells like underlying bias to me, I'm afraid. Crying wolf in many of
these areas has frequent negative impact -- hell, speaking out with good cause
has negative impact. Who wants to volunteer to be at the centre of the next
ethics in game journalism storm?

But this specific action -- choosing to no longer use the services of a
company -- does have few repercussions, which does make it a good way to
protest.

> Because by default, all women are automatically part of the cause

This could have been worded more felicitously, sure. Substitute "those
negatively affect by the oppression and those sympathetic to them" and the
point stands.

> Regardless of her respect in SV, we can only look at the facts.

As others have said, it seems you didn't look at the facts here. But
regardless, the original point is not about the author, it's rejecting the
idea that people are only able to delete their Uber accounts to protest the
patriarchy because the very patriarchy they're protesting doesn't exist.

~~~
bArray
> This smells like underlying bias to me, I'm afraid. Crying wolf in many of
> these areas has frequent negative impact -- hell, speaking out with good
> cause has negative impact.

It said in a mocking sense, but given the benefit of a doubt - it's difficult
to read intention.

> Who wants to volunteer to be at the centre of the next ethics in game
> journalism storm?

Lot's of people. Not everybody of course. There's lot of
sociopaths/psychopaths that exist undiagnosed amongst us. I don't think that
has any value in the argument as we really don't know this person.

> But this specific action -- choosing to no longer use the services of a
> company -- does have few repercussions, which does make it a good way to
> protest.

Ha! PR is one of the most important aspects to a company. Why do you think
Google is so successful? Perception often outweighs truth.

> This could have been worded more felicitously, sure. Substitute "those
> negatively affect by the oppression and those sympathetic to them" and the
> point stands.

It was just a throwaway point about your default stance. We all have
unconscious bias, I'm not holding it against you. My point was that we should
all be aware of it.

> As others have said, it seems you didn't look at the facts here.

I've now read a lot of articles regarding this topic (it's interesting isn't
it?).

> the original point is not about the author, it's rejecting the idea that
> people are only able to delete their Uber accounts to protest the patriarchy
> because the very patriarchy they're protesting doesn't exist.

> This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system:
> given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it. Women and
> those sympathetic to the cause of equality can easily delete their accounts
> and take alternatives, so they do.

But this isn't by definition evidence of that structure existing. Simply
agreeing or disagreeing with a point of view can lead to the same outcome. And
with "a really oppressive system", I would expect to see a much more solid
foundation to the accusations.

Signs this may be false:

\- No evidence of communications

\- No witnesses to the events have come forward

\- No names of the people involved

\- No pursuit for legal rights

\- Disabled comments on blog

\- Uber directly addressing the blog (if they knew they were in the wrong,
they would want this to go away)

\- HR woman didn't sympathize with her accusations

Signs this may be true:

\- Uber had an internal meeting regarding the accusations

\- Uber are conducting an internal investigation

\- Uber's history of being a tough working environment

It's simply not conclusive yet.

------
chinathrow
Name droping at its finest...

"Eric Holder", "President Obama"...

What's next Uber? Deleting Uber kills kittens?

