
Uber C.E.O. To Leave Trump Advisory Council After Criticism - JumpCrisscross
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-trump-advisory-council.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_dk_20170202&nl=dealbook&nl_art=0&nlid=65508833&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0
======
sctb
We've tried to consolidate the discussions from the previously flagged threads
here, and have prevented flags from killing the thread. If you'd like to
participate in the discussion, please do so thoughtfully and carefully. Users
often flag these stories reflexively because they cringe at the thought of yet
another uncivil political flamewar. Let's please try not to have one here.

------
CodeWriter23
This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't
you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? And if you're pro-
Trump, this also is a good thing.

The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other. We
only hurl partsisan-charged invectives at each other. Kalanack's choice here
is a visible example demonstrating that "not talking" is the solution. I am
saddened by his choice and I am ashamed of my fellow Americans, from all walks
of the political spectrum for their choices to sling mud instead of speaking
to each other and finding ways to cooperate with each other.

I also highly doubt this move will have the intended effect of mitigating the
#deleteuber campaign. Even considering the facts about some of Lyft's key
investors being Trump supporters. Mostly because people as a whole can't hear
reason any more. Sure, #deleteuber is hurting Raisier LLC, but you know who
it's really hurting? The immigrant Uber drivers who are renting/leasing their
vehicle through one of Uber's partners, and are contractually obliged to drive
only for Uber. There's no reasoning there. No critical thought. Just "fuck you
#deleteuber".

~~~
kafkaesq
_If you 're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason
like Kalanack's to be in his ear?_

Based on his actions since Jan 20, he should be isolated, shunned, denounced
and blocked by all available means until he either resigns or is impeached. It
doesn't seem like "reason" is something that he will ever listen to, by this
point.

That said, in principle it can be useful to have people capable of exerting
the kinds of influence he seems to understand better (force, and threats of
force). But not a hidebound accommodationist of dubious ethical principles
like Kalanack.

(EDIT: apologies, didn't see the upvotes before revising the above
substantially).

~~~
anbende
If that were completely true then he wouldn't have a council of tech advisors
that all hold views counter to his own.

If the man is willing to talk to you about the things you care about, then why
on earth wouldn't you?

~~~
kevinstubbs
I've independently come to the same conclusion as you and OP, but some of my
liberal friends on Facebook don't agree. I don't really understand the
argument to "isolate and shun" by not joining his advisory boards. If there is
pressure to keep Trump's ideological enemies out of the process, then that
only leaves his supporters... Which leads to all of his sources of information
supporting his decisions.

~~~
sjg007
Because the Advisory Council serves in name only and is a prop to grant
legitimacy.

~~~
kafkaesq
Very succinctly put.

------
tptacek
Kalanick faced pressure not just from consumers #DeletingUber, but from his
own team. Uber is locked in bitter competition for talent with a bunch of
smart, well-funded Silicon Valley companies all of whom offer fun challenges
and comparable compensation packages. Talent in the valley is overwhelmingly
concerned by Trump and in opposition to racist immigration bans, war in Asia,
and pretty much the rest of the Trump issue portfolio.

I'm glad to see Kalanick distancing himself from Trump. But we should look at
things like this not as a hopeful sign that Silicon Valley leadership is
growing a conscience, but that it's ultimately responsive to the focused
desires of its rank-and-file employees, without which none of these companies
can accomplish anything.

If we're looking to create change, we should keep laser-focused on what we can
do as the real engines of growth that tech companies depend on. We should look
at things like Kalanick buckling as an indication that the pressure we can
bring to bear works. And we should look for more ways to focus that pressure
uncomfortably on our employers to ensure that none of us end up looking back
10 years from now and realizing we were culpable for something horrible that
we could have avoided.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Yes, we can demand our leaders signal their virtue to us. They'll all turn
their backs on Trump. Maybe we can even get Peter Thiel to do so.

I'm sure we disagree on a Thiel presidency. But I'm pretty sure we're 90% in
agreement on a Bannon presidency. I'm the epitome of what Bannon opposes - the
American who feels more connected to the geek in Bangalore than the trucker in
Nebraska. As Thiel and Bannon try to push Trump to prioritize their own
agendas, I really don't want Bannon to get his way.

Trump has one fewer person in the Thiel camp talking to him. If we push
harder, we can shrink the Thiel camp down to just Thiel. Trump will see the
tech people moving away from him and the nationalists rallying around him.
What positive result do you think will come from this?

~~~
tptacek
I refuse for a moment to entertain the notion that you, of all possible
personalities on Hacker News, find it ethically indefensible for a group of
people to use their market power to influence policy. Pull all the rhetorical
tricks you have in your bag --- "virtue signaling" is so stale it's begun to
stink --- and I still won't dignify this argument from you.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I didn't say it's ethically indefensible. I said it's counterproductive.

~~~
tptacek
You seem to believe Thiel is an important mover in the Trump administration.
But there's very little evidence that's the case; it's the sort of thing it
seems to me one could only come to believe if their only source of political
news was places like Hacker News. Reality's Trump administration is governed
by Priebus and the GOP establishment on the one hand, and Bannon's clownshow
on the other.

I haven't read a story about Thiel's influence other than the fact that Trump
made a fool out of him by enacting exactly the policy on immigration
restriction that Thiel said wouldn't happen when he said people should Trump
"seriously but not literally".

It seems to turn out that Thiel wasn't anywhere nearly as influential as he
thought he was.

------
metaphorm
I think this is justified and expected. What proportion of Uber drivers are
themselves first generation immigrants? In New York City anyway, it seems like
> 90% of them are.

It seems untenable for the CEO of Uber to participate in a regime so with such
a revanchist anti-immigration policy. Maybe Kalanick thought he could
counterbalance that tendency, but he won't be able to do it. The anti-
immigration fanaticism is the driving force behind Trumpism.

~~~
devereaux
There is immigration, and illegal immigration.

Trump has given no sign of being against the former.

~~~
emmett
Trump's senior strategist, his appointee to the Security Council and political
advisor is Steve Bannon.

    
    
      “Isn’t the beating heart of this problem, the real beating  
      heart of it, of what we gotta get sorted here, not illegal 
      immigration?” Bannon asked Miller. “As horrific as that 
      is, and it’s horrific, don’t we have a problem? We’ve 
      looked the other way on this legal immigration that’s 
      kinda overwhelmed the country?”
    
      Bannon goes on to decry the “oligarchs” of Silicon Valley   
      and Washington and call the number of immigrants in the 
      United States “scary.”
    

It's very hard to say Trump's given "no sign" of being against legal
immigration. He has yet to actually put forward an anti-legal immigration Bill
in the first two weeks of his presidency, but it seems likely he will given
his choice of advisors.

------
jrnichols
Too bad. I think that the more tech insiders remain at arms length from Trump,
the better. But Kalanick reports that he was pressured to resign from this
position not from Trump or his cabinet, but by those that felt it was an
endorsement of Trump.

I think that we need more of the Valley close to Trump, not avoiding him. They
might be the ones he ends up listening to.

~~~
norea-armozel
Hard to change his mind when that mind is manipulated by Stephen Bannon. If
Bannon leaves then I suspect he would fall more in line with a typical
Republican President.

~~~
pfarnsworth
If you read anything besides the headlines, you'd realize he's more of a
Democrat than a Republican. Most of the policies he supports are more
traditional Democrat views, except for the anti-Muslim ones.

~~~
mjmsmith
Oh my god. Please list the traditional Democratic views he holds, starting
with abortion, health care, gun rights, separation of church and state, and
undocumented immigrants. Please list the cabinet nominations he's made that
would be typical for a Democrat. Please list the Supreme Court justices he's
considered that would be typical for a Democrat. Please list the interactions
with foreign leaders he's had that would be typical for a Democrat.

~~~
pfarnsworth
Very much pro-American workers, and anti-globalization. Rejection of TPP,
increasing taxes on hedge funds by getting rid of carried interest, decreasing
drug prices, full unequivocal support of LGBTQ,

If you were following the Republican nominations, the other Republicans were
accusing him of being a Democrat.

~~~
michaelchisari
_full unequivocal support of LGBTQ_

What has he done, or promised to do, other than lip service?

~~~
pfarnsworth
What has he done that goes against his lip service?

~~~
zimpenfish
[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-executive-order-
draft-c...](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-executive-order-draft-
curtail-lgbt-rights/story?id=45209220)

> A draft of an executive order on "religious freedom" is circulating in the
> Trump administration, outlining a possible weakening of protections designed
> to shield LGBT individuals from discrimination, according to a copy of the
> proposed order obtained by ABC News.

If that's true, then "A lot".

~~~
pfarnsworth
Educate yourself. Anyone can write a draft of an executive order. It's most
probably not related to anyone in the White House. So there's nothing to that
particular story. Stop scaring yourself over unnecessarily and wait for actual
things to occur.

~~~
zimpenfish
> Stop scaring yourself over unnecessarily and wait for actual things to
> occur.

It's funny - people were saying that for all of 2016 and look how well that's
turned out.

------
Terr_
It'd be neat if there were a website where you can put in any company you
might do business with, and it'd give you a "Crooked President" rating, for
how likely it is to be one which enriches the President in some way.
Particularly by being a subsidiary or partly-owned etc. (Obviously there are
limits to how accurate you can get when it comes to those Cayman island
accounts and things.)

While it's no excuse for his complete lack of ethics, Trumps' refusal to
divest and Congress' lack of action means it may be up to individuals to
ensure they don't inadvertently encourage in government corruption...

~~~
dtien
Sort of exists, here:
[https://grabyourwallet.org/](https://grabyourwallet.org/)

I believe the creator put this together during the campaign when his 'grab
them by the p*' news broke. To be honest, I haven't really looked through it
in much detail so unsure of it's accuracy, but it certainly seems like an
extensive list!

In fact, Uber was taken off this list after this statement. So they are in
fact keeping it up to date.

~~~
dtien
And Nordstrom's now too:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/nordstrom-
ivanka...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/nordstrom-ivanka-
trump.html)

------
smudgymcscmudge
How does it help to drive out a smart person from Trump's sphere of influence?
This man needs as much help as he can get.

~~~
gdulli
Trump is a despicable person trying to do despicable things. Helping him to
limp along marginally less disastrously would be a shallow, short-term
palliative benefit.

Our long-term prospects are better if we stumble for 4 years and prove that
flushing out competent but flawed public servants, who believe in and preserve
the principles of our system, and replacing them with reality TV hosts is not
an improvement.

This is an inflection point in history that will inform future generations
whether winning an election with lying, demagoguery, and appeal to fear is a
winning long-term strategy or a losing one.

~~~
grandalf
So how is it better for Travis to quit now rather than in two or three years
after he can credibly talk about specific things the council has been tasked
with?

It seems that Travis was essentially shamed into virtue signaling by quitting.

~~~
gdulli
The fact that you see the world in terms of people signalling virtue and not
sincerely believing in virtue says more about you than it does about them.

~~~
thomyorkie
This is a silly statement. It's almost impossible not to think he left his
position on the advisory council due to the fantastic level of backlash his
company has received over the last couple of weeks. To think he is doing
anything except trying to stop the bleeding seems willfully ignorant.

------
mjmsmith
From those well-known commies at Bloomberg Businessweek, note the image half-
way down:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-02/stability...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-02/stability-
is-good-for-business-trump-s-whims-threaten-it)

Business is figuring out that the Trump endgame isn't going to be good.

~~~
oh_sigh
And yet the market is near an all time high. What gives?

~~~
ubernostrum
What gives is that people are forgetting that the Dow 20K thing was already
super close toward the end of Obama's term, and that the DJIA stood at 8279.63
on the day of Obama's first inauguration.

If you're riding what are basically daily fluctuations of the massive high
achieved in your predecessor's term, it's hard to claim the market likes you.

~~~
sf_rob
The fact that markets haven't tanked suggests that investors aren't predicting
major negative events in the future. That doesn't mean investors are correct,
but I would think that if "[b]usiness is figuring out that the Trump endgame
isn't going to be good" then it would likely be reflected here.

~~~
mjmsmith
Maybe so. But there's also people's natural desire not to believe the worst
will happen. I admit to being one of those people in 2007. Based on the last
couple of weeks, I don't see good reason to believe that his (and Bannon's)
recklessness will be brought under control.

------
molmalo
Like many here, I'm also disappointed about his decision to quit.

I've read some articles comparing Trump's style to some Latin American
leaders, and I can see several things that look alike (populist style,
protectionism, appealing to nationalism, etc). But what I've learned living
under those kinds of governments, is that when they first get to power, they
usually have advisors that avoid them from going too far to either side of the
political spectrum.

But eventually, as some of the advisors with different points of view start to
leave (usually because of internal struggles), the leader tends to take far
more radical positions reflecting the view of the surviving group of advisors.

And this starts a spiral that ends up with the leader having an inner circle
so radicalized, with a few powerful advisers and several obsequious servers,
that won't accept any opposing view on almost any subject.

In Argentina, the last example of this was Cristina Kirchner, whose economic
policies were similar to what Trump is suggesting (mainly protectionism, and
that's why several of her former economic team praised Trump). When she first
got to the presidency after her husband, she 'inherited' most of the advisors
his husband had. But the leftist side won her ear, and as the most centered
advisors started to resign, her policies started to be more and more
reactionary and radicalized.

What I mean with this is that even when you don't agree with the one who is in
charge now, just the fact that you are in a position to make him hear you,
even if you frequently argue, probably sometimes not in the best of terms, at
least it shows that there is going to be lots of resistance and that tends to
moderate in some ways some policies that would otherwise be much much worse.

If you leave the inner circle, the only ones who are left are either the ones
trying to radicalize the leader, of the ones who won't move a finger as long
as they keep their share of power. And that inner circle becomes an eco-
chamber, where eventually the leader really believes that what he is doing is
great and can not comprehend why some people can't agree with what he
proposes, basically living in a fantasy fed by the remaining advisors.

Again, this is what I've seen happening several times, not some wild
speculation... and I hope this won't happen here. But every day I'm a little
more pessimistic.

~~~
hackuser
Trump isn't clay waiting to be molded; he has clear ideas on what he wants to
do, he's been talking about them since mid-2015 and has been acting on them,
extremely aggressively, since November. It's past time to believe that he
means what he says.

In the last week:

* He acted to ban immigration by many Muslims

* He issued a statement on the Holocaust, and then defended it, using the language of Holocaust deniers.

* He said immigration would favor Christians.

How far does he have to go before you say, 'enough'?

~~~
molmalo
He is not clay, of course, but his policies and ideas can be softened. But
that won't happen if the people who can talk to him behind closed doors, where
they can be truly honest about what they think, just leave!

If the ones who can tell him to his face that he is wrong with something quit,
you can't expect this to get any better, and believe me when I tell you that
it can get much much worse.

~~~
hackuser
> He is not clay, of course, but his policies and ideas can be softened.

What makes you say this? I don't agree and I've seen no sign of it, from
mid-2015 until now. Has anyone softened them?

There are two options:

A) Advise him: There's a tiny chance you'll affect his policies, but there's a
certainty that you will empower him by giving him your credibility. On a
selfish level, he will devour that credibility, because he can only discredit
you in return.

B) Oppose him: Your advice and resources will help the opposition slow or stop
Trump, and you will give them credibility (which will enhance your own
credibility).

I strongly believe B will accomplish far more good than A.

~~~
molmalo
I know it's counterfactual history... but what if his only advisers would have
been fanatics? Seeing his rhetoric in the campaign, with a full radicalized
Trump, I guess the ban would have been much larger, including many other
countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, etc).

And the same could be applied to other issues: e.g. exit NAFTA altogether
overnight instead of renegotiating.

~~~
hackuser
Is the argument really that 'it could be worse'? I guess that argument
theoretically can be used anywhere, but then what does it mean? Arguably, it's
never been worse.

My strong belief is that lack of opposition makes things much worse than lack
of advice.

As a side note, one radical advisor people are forgetting about in this
discussion is National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

~~~
molmalo
The argument is that giving up and leaving, is the best way to have a more
radicalized group leading the country, and that will result in even worse
policies.

You don't want to have a POTUS with majority control of the Congress and a
friendly SCOTUS, to be fully radicalized. But that is what you'll get if their
only advisers left are the ones wanting him to rule like that.

------
jachee
Translation: "Uber CEO closes barn door after criticism following horse
departure."

~~~
shanemhansen
Personally I'd consider using uber again. If everyone hates uber and refuses
to use them, then they aren't customers and uber has 0 incentive to listen to
them.

If a bunch of people delete the uber app, and the CEO takes positive action,
then I think we should reward good behavior and consider reinstalling it.

~~~
alextheparrot
Could you clarify why you would consider? I started using Lyft after the taxi
situation in NY (At the request of some immigrant friends) and have noticed
absolutely no reason to switch back to Uber. The price is on par, the service
is on par, the app in general is on par (In San Francisco, where I use ride-
sharing around ~5-10 times a week). I guess I don't see a reason to switch
back, which I'm hoping you can clarify?

~~~
yummyfajitas
I favor Uber because Uber is pushing the world forward. Uber regularly engages
in civil disobedience and political actions (at significant cost to
themselves) that are necessary to defeat the entrenched powers.

Lyft and the others are free-riding on Uber's work. They wait for Uber to fix
the world then they try to make money in that new, better world.

~~~
staticautomatic
I question whether it's genuinely possible for a corporation to engage in
civil disobedience, even insofar as the government considers corporations to
be the same as people in certain circumstances.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If you prefer, it's the humans behind Uber who are engaging in civil
disobedience. I prefer to support these humans.

The corporate person is just a simpler way to speak about the same topic.

------
diebir
As an Uber employee and an immigrant I am very happy to see this. It's a good
day.

------
lebanon_tn
"Earlier today I spoke briefly with the President about the immigration
executive order and its issues for our community. I also let him know that I
would not be able to participate on his economic council. Joining the group
was not meant to be an endorsement of the President or his agenda but
unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this and mapping it to our values. There
are a couple that are particularly relevant:

Inside Out - The implicit assumption that Uber (or I) was somehow endorsing
the Administration's agenda has created a perception-reality gap between who
people think we are, and who we actually are.

Just Change - We must believe that the actions we take ultimately move the
ball forward. There are many ways we will continue to advocate for just change
on immigration but staying on the council was going to get in the way of that.
The executive order is hurting many people in communities all across America.
Families are being separated, people are stranded overseas and there's a
growing fear the U.S. is no longer a place that welcomes immigrants.

Immigration and openness to refugees is an important part of our country's
success and quite honestly to Uber's. I am incredibly proud to work directly
with people like Thuan and Emil, both of whom were refugees who came here to
build a better life for themselves. I know it has been a tough week for many
of you and your families, as well as many thousands of drivers whose stories
are heartfelt and heart-wrenching.

Please know, your questions and stories on Tuesday, along with what I heard
from drivers, have kept me resilient and reminded me of one of our most
essential cultural values, Be Yourself. We will fight for the rights of
immigrants in our communities so that each of us can be who we are with
optimism and hope for the future."

------
joshuaheard
You can't bring about the change you want by disengaging from the system.

~~~
dreamcompiler
If I had my career to live over, this is the most commonly-repeated "advice"
I'd ignore. In my experience, it's damn near impossible to bring about change
while _remaining_ in a system, if that system is toxically dysfunctional to
begin with.

~~~
__jal
"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House." \-- Audre Lorde.

------
chx
Reminder: Uber is the utmost evil.

1\. It dismantles the very society by undermining the rule of law. What would
remain of society if every business decided there are some regulations it
could wilfully ignore and build a business based on this?

2\. It pushes subprime car mortgages on its drivers. Then the repayment comes
out of their wages. Often these cars have remote inhibitors so if you didn't
make enough, your car won't start next week. All this has a name: indebted
servitude.

3\. It launched automated cars with known bugs that put cyclists in deadly
danger. It even admitted doing this although not the "deadly" part.

These are all easy to verify to facts. I know I will be downvoted, I am always
downvoted when I post this (although 3. is somewhat new), I do not know why I
am downvoted -- but I will not stop. Edit: barely a minute after posting I am
already downvoted but there's never an answer disputing the facts.

Edit: really? I need to repost this pile of links every bloody time?

1\. I do not have or need a source on this, ignoring taxi legislation is what
Uber does, simply.

2\. 2014 article on subprime loans: [http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-and-its-
shady-partners-are-...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-and-its-shady-
partners-are-pushing-drivers-into-su-1649936785) 2016 article on subprime
loans: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/inside-
ub...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/inside-uber-s-auto-
lease-machine-where-almost-anyone-can-get-a-car) A personal experience report:
[https://twitter.com/shashashasha/status/688734478181732352](https://twitter.com/shashashasha/status/688734478181732352)

3\. Self driving shit:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-
self...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self-driving-
cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco) (and again it defies regulations!)

~~~
crpatino
Maybe if you published your sources, instead of voicing unsustained claims,
you'd be less downvoted.

~~~
chx
Sure.

------
prawn
If this garners much media interest (and I can't see how it won't), what are
the chances that Trump takes it as a public rebuke and looks for revenge?

Yesterday, it was with Australian PM Turnbull whose crew had been publicly
very supportive of Trump and especially on this immigration issue. Up came the
1,250 refugee deal that risked making Trump look like he lacked control, and
he reacted pretty badly and very publicly. And that was with a long-time ally
and ongoing supporter.

~~~
hackuser
An article I wish I could find pointed out that Trump regularly acts against
people who support him, often openly humiliating them. Turnbull isn't alone.

The theory was that Trump respects strength only and not political support.
Remember the President of Mexico met with Trump during the campaign, yet with
a Mexican delegation in DC Trump humiliated him over Twitter.

Note that Trump has very few political allies in DC.

------
bitL
I assume Travis saw his "Digg moment" coming from Lyft and this is purely
damage control. I envision he said something like "Sorry Donald, our share is
tanking, I can't stay visible with you, I have to leave the council, even if
it costs me some insider information and state-driven business in the future",
and then went off to write a memo with a spin to make Uber Look Great Again
;-)

------
hsod
Right call. Though I understand that being on the council is not an
endorsement, it does normalize Trump and set back the resistance movement.

~~~
hackuser
> I understand that being on the council is not an endorsement

I disagree. He can say it's not an endorsement, but that's its effect.
Kalanick is no fool or neophyte; he knows that if he is an advisor for Trump,
he is saying that he and Trump have mutual respect and Trump takes his advice;
if he says he'll talk to Trump, it implies that Trump is open to reasonable
discussion on these issues.

------
hackuser
A fantastic argument about whether to serve and try to mitigate, or to oppose
Trump:

The Case Against Serving

[https://www.justsecurity.org/34404/case-serving-
trump/](https://www.justsecurity.org/34404/case-serving-trump/)

It's a prominent government attorney and Georgetown professor advising others.

It's

------
xigency
This is pretty astonishing considering the Uber exec's personality is not
exactly held in highest esteem, that even he thought it was unpopular to be
affiliated with Trump. I guess the power and potential wealth isn't enough to
balance out the abuse. With Donald Trump's confrontational demeanor, he might
push a lot of big egos away, and some that he would have to contend with.

------
kafkaesq
Based on Kalanack's very high-profile role in the tech community, the news
item was certainly "of interest to hackers", per the HN guidelines. Seems
inappropriate for it to have been flagged.

~~~
jacquesm
The 'no politics, please, we're techies' likely reflexively flag anything that
contains the word 'Trump'. I wouldn't be surprised if there are bots active to
do this, the speed with which some articles are flagged is eerie.

------
hackuser
Does anyone know here the Business Advisory Council's homepage is? I looked
around with no luck.

I'd like to know who else is on it. Elon Musk is one, but who else?

~~~
dllthomas
It's the awkwardly named "Strategic and Policy Forum". Names are included
here: [https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-
addit...](https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-additional-
members-of-presidents-strategic-and-policy-forum-8aa8822eced9#.7da3gnd23)

As I understand it, the first meeting is today, and all but Kalanick (who
dropped out) and Iger (who had a scheduling conflict or "had a scheduling
conflict") will be attending (or "are attending" or "did attend" \- not sure
exactly when it was scheduled).

------
alphabettsy
Did he leave because of pressure from employees and customers or because he
didn't want to or couldn't work with the Donald?

------
pvnick
Silicon Valley culture needs to recognize its tendency towards bullying people
that are perceived to not fit the ideological mold, and fix it. Like now.
Brendan Eich and Peter Thiel are two examples in recent memory. In addition to
being ethically wrong, it's also bad for business in the long run. Trump isn't
going away anytime soon, and part of his nationalist populist economic
strategy to pick winners and losers. Silicon Valley may find itself as one of
the losers.

~~~
panic
This isn't about their ideology; it's about their actions. We should be
putting pressure on anyone working with Trump regardless of ideology.

~~~
prodigal_erik
If everyone who cares what you think stops advising Trump, all his advice will
come from people who don't care what you think. Why would you ever want that!?

~~~
panic
All his advice already comes from people like that. If Trump were planning to
swap out Bannon for Kalanick, what you're saying would make sense, but this is
a relatively unimportant advisory council. It's not exactly Trump's inner
circle.

------
employee8000
.

~~~
tptacek
I understand why people feel this way. But the premise of this concern is that
the Trump administration could be meaningfully influenced by these clubs. In
really no administration is this the case. Kalanick's real role on the
"Business Advisory Council" is as an endorser of Trump and his policies.
That's not just supposition: it's Kalanick's stated reason for leaving the
"Council".

Further, there being no rational basis for the construction of an immigration
ban that detains pre-schoolers at the border and denies visa- and green-card-
holders access to their homes, we've already reached a point where the idea of
rational inputs to Trump's policy process miss the point. Trump isn't looking
to accomplish serious domestic policy objectives.

Finally, I don't think we need to spend too much time on the concern that
leaving a "business advisory council" is going to deprive the leadership of
multi-billion-dollar corporations of access to the policy-making process
anyways. I'm pretty sure any CEO in the Fortune 500 can get any meeting they
want regarding policymaking in the Trump (or Obama) administration.

Unless there's some demographic anomaly about Uber I haven't picked up on,
Kalanick's employees _overwhelmingly_ oppose the Trump administration. I
prefer to see this as a hopeful sign that no matter how outsized their
compensation, tech's leadership remains beholden in at least some ways to its
rank-and-file employees. Now it's time to find better ways to put that
influence to use.

We can't spend 8 years complaining on this message board about how unfair
options packages at big tech companies are and then shrink away when given the
opportunity to use our market power to help people in real need.

~~~
carbocation
I agree with this analysis.

Let's presume that Mr. Kalanick feels the way that I think most of us do,
which is different from how Mr. Trump feels.

Staying on the council will give the appearance of endorsement. That's a
negative for him (and Uber, probably). That could be counterbalanced by his
ability to affect change. And if Mr. Trump had given him the impression that
he could influence his behavior in any way, perhaps he would have accepted the
negative in exchange for a chance at the positive. I simply doubt that Mr.
Trump gave him any reason to think he would have any real influence.
Therefore, quitting expeditiously is a rational move.

------
beezischillin
there is not a shard of morality involved in this, he's quitting because it's
hurting his business...

------
arprocter
Convenient timing - wasn't there supposed to be a meeting of CEOs and Trump
tomorrow?

------
riverside
Honestly this is a bit of a bummer.

Not because it's good or useful for Travis to be on the advisory board, but
because I want to live in a world where Uber continues to correctly be branded
across social media as a fascist-collaborating parasite that nobody wants to
use

------
differentView
Why does Elon Musk get a pass but not Uber's CEO?

~~~
zzzeek
Because Musk didn't draw attention to himself the way Kalanick did during the
NYC cab driver strike. Also Kalanick tends toward the image of someone trying
to do away with labor unions whereas Musk is seen as someone trying to save
the planet.

------
tinkerdol
I wonder why the techcrunch article just got flagged? (how do you even flag
something here, do you need to have an account with a certain number of
points?)

discussion was here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13555124](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13555124)

~~~
mjmsmith
This post has more top-level comments criticizing the decision, so I guess it
stays.

~~~
mjmsmith
Comments from the previous thread moved here. Since I can't delete the above,
consider it retracted, and thanks sctb.

------
Steko
> have prevented flags from killing the thread

Which is why -- 20 minutes later -- it shows up on page 3 when pts vs time
indicates it should be the #1 result?

I realize the number and voting on comments can affect this rating somewhat
but should it drop the #1 result to #63+ so that it shows up around +8
submissions that are 3 times as old?

~~~
sctb
We've also dampened penalties that would have otherwise tanked the story, like
flags and the overheated discussion detector.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13556391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13556391)
and marked it off-topic.

------
hackuser
Does the _[flagged]_ tag mean some individual flagged it, or that the
moderators approved the flag?

Unless HN is changing its standards, and I wouldn't like to see that, then
this shouldn't be flagged.

------
Animats
They're both evil, but incompatible. Uber needs cheap illegals to keep driver
costs down. That's not a good match to Trump's position.

~~~
untog
> Uber needs cheap illegals to keep driver costs down.

Inflammatory phrasing aside, are you sure an 'illegal' could actually become
an Uber driver? I suspect not - they are forced to work for cash-in-hand
payment and don't have social security numbers. I don't see how Uber could
enable that.

~~~
djrogers
> they are forced to work for cash-in-hand payment and don't have social
> security numbers

Seriously? Do you really think needing an SSN is a barrier to employment these
days? Aside from the fact that I'm sure uber would take a ITIN, it is not at
all unheard of for 'undocumented immigrants' to 'borrow' SSNs from unwitting
citizens. In fact, many times this isn't even a problem for the legitimate
holder of the SSN.

Plus, these days you don't need to have immigrated to the US legally at all to
get a driver's license*

Now, that said I doubt very much that Uber relies on such employees - I just
think saying it can't happen is ridiculous.

[1][http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/ab-60-drivers-
license.php](http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/ab-60-drivers-license.php)

------
yummyfajitas
I think this is a very bad development. Trump was previously exposed to a lot
of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc. In our quest for
ideological purity, we are driving all the people who can provide Trump with
good advice to stay away from him.

Trump is hardly an ideologue on this matter:

Trump: “When someone is going to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Stanford, all
the greats and then they graduate, we throw them out of the country, and they
can’t get back in, I think that’s terrible, We have to be careful of that,
Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country.”

Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are
from South Asia or from Asia, I think...A country is more than an economy.
We’re a civic society.”

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-
disgusted-a...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-disgusted-
asian-ceos-silicon-valley_us_582c5d19e4b0e39c1fa71e48)

Guess what - now Trump has one fewer voice telling him to be inclusive. Bannon
is still advising Trump to double down on nationalism.

Realistically, we can have two presidencies: the Bannon presidency or the
Thiel presidency. The odds of a Bannon presidency just went up.

~~~
hackuser
Trump has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, since 2015, that he will not listen
to anyone who disagrees with him and is not interested in knowledge,
expertise, or reason.

There always is a slim possibility of some tiny influence. This is the
reasoning of people who have advised all sorts of monsters, including the many
ministers who helped the Nazis and Soviets. It's also a convenient, seductive
rationalization to avoid risking yourself and your career in a political war.
Far beyond the tiny influence they lend him, they lend him their enormous
credibility. People see him talking to people like Musk, Kalanick, etc, and
think he has their respect, their advice, and their approval (at least enough
to keep working with him). And they deny the opposition that same credibility.

Think of it this way: Would they work with a CEO who consistently and publicly
(not in private) pushed the same hateful ideas as Trump? Not for long.

At some point, one must decide there is a war and pick a side. To stay home,
to keep one's head down and play it safe while victims are suffering and
dying, and while other people are standing up, taking those same risks and
suffering themselves, is cowardice. (A harsh term, but I think it's
applicable.)

If Trump's behavior over all this time doesn't convince someone there is a war
and an enemy, I don't know what will. I can't imagine what could make it more
clear. Evil people usually are far more subtle; look at Putin, for example.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Bannon disagreed with him (see the quotes above) yet he's listening to Bannon.

Consider the possibility that your caricatures of Trump being stupid and
irrational might not be true - if they were, he probably wouldn't have won the
election.

If you look at his cabinet picks, and the actions he's taken so far, there is
pretty clear Thiel influence. The 2 for 1 rule on regulations is pretty
clearly Thiel. So is Balaji Srinavasan and O'Neill for the FDA. In fact, much
of the transition team is Thiel, as is much of the advisory council.

~~~
tptacek
This is a facile argument. The "cut N regulations for every K new regulations"
has been a Republican trope for decades; Romney used it in 2012. Virtually
none of Trump's appointees are within 6 degrees of Thiel.

------
melling
It appears that bullying does work. I mean "criticism". Trump is President for
at least the next four years. This childish "us vs them" attitude is not
healthy. Silicon Valley needs to have people advising Trump, regardless of
their differences.

[Update]

I'll update here so I have one downvoted answer, not several.

1\. Bullying doesn't necessarily involve violence. The future of his company
was threatened. Here's an example of Trump being called a bully for
threatening to remove funding from Berkeley:

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/uc-berkeley-
milo-p...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/uc-berkeley-milo-
protests-aftermath?utm_term=.awr2KdrrNa)

~~~
gibrown
> It appears that bullying does work

How is a boycott bullying? There is no violence here.

> childish "us vs them" attitude is not healthy

It's called nonviolent resistance and resisting normalization. It's very
healthy: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/11/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/11/21/people-are-in-the-streets-protesting-donald-trump-but-when-
does-protest-actually-work/)

> Trump is President for at least the next four years

Nope... impeachment... Lotsa work to do... No non-violent resistance that has
mobilized more than 3.5% of the population has failed in the last 100-ish
years. On Jan 21st 1-1.5% of the US population participated.
[https://rationalinsurgent.com/2013/11/04/my-talk-at-
tedxboul...](https://rationalinsurgent.com/2013/11/04/my-talk-at-tedxboulder-
civil-resistance-and-the-3-5-rule/)

~~~
thomyorkie
> Nope... impeachment... Lotsa work to do... No non-violent resistance that
> has mobilized more than 3.5% of the population has failed in the last
> 100-ish years. On Jan 21st 1-1.5% of the US population participated.

While there certainly was a large anti-Trump sentiment at the Woman's March,
there were a plethora of issues that brought all those people together. To
imply that all who participated want a Trump impeachment is not accurate.

~~~
gibrown
> To imply that all who participated want a Trump impeachment is not accurate

Really? Were you at one? I can't speak for everywhere, but the 100k folks I
marched with in Denver seemed pretty gung-ho on the idea. Most common theme on
signs I saw was something to the effect of: "This cat has claws" (tried to
clean it up a bit ;) )

Also, currently 40% of registered voters support impeaching Trump:
[http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317627-poll-4-in-...](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317627-poll-4-in-10-back-
impeaching-trump)

Ultimately though that data is about what percentage you can mobilize and
activate. Just answering a survey isn't enough.

~~~
thomyorkie
> Really? Were you at one?

Yes, I was at the one in Oakland.

~~~
gibrown
I'm surprised that was your impression then, but I certainly could be
projecting my own biases.

