
Uber VP: we could spend $1M to take revenge on journalists - suprgeek
http://mashable.com/2014/11/17/uber-executive-revenge/
======
danso
I don't know if someone has submitted the original BuzzFeed report and it's
just been buried/flagged...but let's give credit where credit is due:

[http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-
dig...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-
dirt-on-journalists)

BuzzFeed's editor attended this dinner that was apparently "off-the-record",
but such terms were not made clear to BuzzFeed, which is why we're even
hearing this story. A few prominent journalists/publishers were in attendance,
including Arianna Huffington, and I'm interested in what they have to say now
that the horse is out of the barn.

But what really fascinates me is that even if Uber made clear that everything
was off-the-record...what kind of batshitty, drunken affair was it such that
an Uber executive could even think it'd be worthwhile to loudly muse about
such a plan, as if no one present would ever leak such an abhorrent
discussion. Either everyone was giving off a similar elitist vibe of hear-no-
evil-speak-no-evil, or the Uber exec was saying these things jokingly while
doing his impression of Richard Nixon. Or this exec is just incredibly stupid.

Edit: Also, Uber investors should take note of how wasteful this exec is. The
Church of Scientology did the exact same thing in 2010...but they were able to
hire a Pulitzer Prize winner, a former 60 Minutes producer, and the former
executive editor of the top investigative news organization...all for less
than $10,000 apiece (or at least the editor was, I'm assuming the other
reporters received roughly the same rate)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/02...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022103692.html)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Ok, I'll ask the obvious question. Why is this "abhorrent"? Is it also
"abhorrent" that Sarah Lacy and others at Pando report on the personal life of
Uber and other tech execs?

[http://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-
mo...](http://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-most-awful-
things-travis-kalanick-said-in-his-gq-profile/)

[http://pando.com/2014/10/06/venture-capital-and-the-great-
bi...](http://pando.com/2014/10/06/venture-capital-and-the-great-big-silicon-
valley-asshole-game/)

tl;dr; Why isn't turnabout fair play?

~~~
klochner
I'm not sure if you really don't understand or are just arguing to be
provocative, but I'll play along to make the point.

It's morally equivalent to saying that you would fund a smear campaign against
a judge or juror that ruled against you. It's one small step from making
threats of physical violence to silence negative reporting.

The press is considered an independent 3rd party bystander that is a crucial
underpinning of any functioning democracy. Making aggressive threats against
the press threatens the roots of civilized society, and is "abhorrent" because
it's a tactic used by nearly every oppressive/fascist regime.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Are journalists who dig up dirt without making threats a "small step" from
people who use violence against people without making threats first?

There is a core difference between threats of violence (such as what is done
by oppressive regimes) and threats of telling the truth. And it's a bit silly
to call Pando and Sarah Lacy an "independent 3rd party bystander". The entire
enterprise is an extremely opinionated anti-tech enterprise - kind of like
what the Uber execs proposed building, just with a slightly different target.

It sounds like you are saying the people who call themselves independent media
deserve special privileges that the rest of us don't get. Is that correct?

~~~
klochner
Sarah Lacy would be skewered by the public if she said her goal was digging up
dirt against a specific individual.

Similarly, she'd probably catch some negative press if she made questionable
statements in a GQ article.

So no, she doesn't get special privileges.

If Uber wants to open a newspaper to advance their political agenda, they at
least have to go through the pretense of reporting on everything, a la Rupert
Murdoch.

~~~
yummyfajitas
So the act of digging up dirt is acceptable. It's only doing it in a targeted
manner, rather than opportunistically, that's the problem.

I'm sure she might catch negative press - lots of harmless behavior creates
negative press. I'm not asking how to manage the media, I have no interest in
being a PR flack. I'm asking whether reporting on her questionable statements
(the sort of thing opposition researchers do) would be "abhorrent".

Similarly, would exposing and reporting on her personal emails and other parts
of her private life (as Pando has done to Evan Spiegel) be "abhorrent"?

------
suprgeek
Just to add to the charming profile of the paragons of virtue that is senior
management at Uber[1]:

"...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."

\- So the CEO has publicly admitted to Calling it Boob-er [2]

\- Laughable disregard for Customer Privacy [1]

\- Thuggish/Predatory tactics towards Competitors [3]

\- Hit pieces & Misogynistic Statements about Journalists who cover them
unfavorably

Why are investors falling all over themselves to give this grab-bag of
egomaniacal, frat-boy thugs more money?

This is the real question for VCs and investors...is turning a profit the ONLY
thing? then stop Bloviating about trying to change the world, about trying to
attract more women into CS, etc. etc.

Actions speak louder than words.

[1] [http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-
dig...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-
dirt-on-journalists)

[2][http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201403/uber-
cab-c...](http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201403/uber-cab-
confessions)

[3][http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-
play...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-
sabotaging-lyft)

~~~
alexqgb
It's not just the disregard for customer privacy that's at issue here. It's
that the situation with Johana flatly contradicts Uber's subsequent remarks
that they would _never_ do...exactly what they did to Johana.

Screwing people is bad. Screwing journalists is just stupid. Personally
threatening other journalists is borderline insanity. Turning around and lying
about the safety of the threatened journalist in a way that involves the
abused journalist — who can demonstrate that the lie told to the threatened
journalist is a lie — is over-the-moon idiocy.

Buy hey, I'm sure these guys would _never_ lie to their investors, right?

~~~
aragot
Aside from the debate of whether he's a good exec, the argument about "lying"
is perceived differently from country to country. In US, lying sounds like the
worst thing eva. In France it's allowed to lie for your defense, even in front
of the police or of the jury.

Just yesterday I saw a movie where the kid was accused of shoplifting, said "I
didn't do it", then the commercant frowns, the camera focuses, eyebrows darken
and he says "!and you're a LIAR!?". From here it sounds quite ridiculous
because we know people are failible and they sometimes commit little frauds,
which wouldn't have been found otherwise and therefore should be dismissed.
Especially so-said "lying" can often be turned over if you look at the
context, the lack of precision, the tone and the informal situation.

It _doesn 't_ mean the executive is a good person, he seems to have used
misogynist comments, privacy tampering and threatened journalists in general.
Just lying is not a demonstration by itself.

~~~
alexqgb
This maybe true of France, but we're not talking about France. We're talking
about America. And in this country, lying to a judge (for instance) will
likely get you thrown in jail on perjury charges.

Also, the relative permissibility of lying has no bearing on whether or not
others choose to trust you. The real question has to do with how these guys
manage to maintain the trust of their investors when they're so reflexively
dishonest with everyone else in their orbit.

------
DigitalSea
Uber are not doing themselves any favours the last year or so, wow. Rather
than sling words against a company that is already doing a great job at
hurting their own image, there are tonnes of decent competitors in the ride
sharing space that offer the same kind of service, if not better than what
Uber are offering.

I recently tried out Lyft for the first time here in Seattle and I must say,
it was a much more pleasant experience than I had previously had in my
numerous Uber rides. Do not get me wrong, I have not had completely terrible
Uber rides, but I have run into instances where Uber drivers have claimed to
know shortcuts to get somewhere, only to find themselves lost all while the
meter is running on quite a few occasions, I vote with my driver rating, but
still.

Other reasons to use an alternative to Uber like Lyft is the fact the Lyft app
lets you give a driver a tip. Too many times I have been in a situation where
I had no cash to tip an Uber driver who helped me carry heavy luggage or items
because the app lacks a tip feature.

I am not one for jumping on bandwagons, but I really do not like the kind of
leadership and image Uber are portraying, not to mention the questionable
business practices that were revealed a little while ago.

The power of choice is the strongest message we can send Uber that they need
to grow up and be a real business. Vote by choosing an alternative if this
bothers you like it bothers me.

------
robgibbons
Can we all just agree that Uber, as a company, is a piece of shit? They
obviously have no respect for their drivers, their customers, or the public at
large. Their sense of competition is cutthroat and amoral.

------
fatjokes
Normally I don't like jumping on bandwagons without due diligence, but there
are just so many competitors that aren't being accused of being huge douches.
I think I'll give Lyft a shot.

~~~
rosser
As far as I'm concerned, the nigh-ceaseless stream of reprehensible behavior
coming from Uber and its management team more than serves as due diligence.

~~~
stormbrew
I really wish they weren't the ones doing the most aggressive expansion. Soon
I will finally have the choice between my city's awful cabs and uber, but I
really want lyft. :/

~~~
rhizome
Keep talking about them, then. The more people are using Lyft instead of Uber,
the more Lyft has the ability to expand.

------
kyro
Apologies will go around, investors won't be held accountable, employees will
be fired to feign action, company culture won't change, and they'll all end up
rich(er), more influential, and praised by this very community at the end of
it all. Such is life, sadly.

I've been a loyal Uber customer for some time, and have defended them in the
past, but there's an undeniable pattern that's emerged indicating a company
culture I'd rather not support any longer.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I think it's unlikely anyone even gets fired. They should, but I bet they
won't.

------
PhantomGremlin
Two other HN discussions active.

This one links to a Pando post by Sarah Lacy, the journalist being threatened.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622187](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622187)

This one links directly to the Buzzfeed report.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622003](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622003)

------
rpm33
I've been to a couple of Uber house parties here in SF. The culture seems
pretty pathetic - all the employees think they can do what they want because
their CEO is aggressive and can run through brickwalls. Its funny how it
percolates through to everyone.

------
chroma
People complain about Uber's unethical (and sometimes illegal) business
practices, but I think it's useful to entertain a different perspective:
Considering all of the laws restricting hired transport, do you really expect
a _nice_ company to enter the market? Many saw the opportunity but thought,
"That business would probably be illegal. We should do something else."
Meanwhile, UberCab (remember when it was called that?) disregarded the laws
and went for the opportunity.

Obviously, this doesn't excuse their behavior. But it does explain it. In
heavily-regulated markets, nice companies are selected against.

~~~
scarmig
Alternative theory: Uber is run by an asshole, and that percolates down
through the company to create the toxic culture we see today.

We can differentiate by looking at another highly regulated market: short term
housing. AirBnB certainly isn't angelic, but I think it is fair to say it
doesn't come close to Uber in pure reprehensibility.

------
tdicola
It almost feels like this was setup to be leaked. Instead of paying $1M to dig
up dirt, now they can just pay for a few faux-pologetic PR messages and have
even more journalists worried about covering them badly in the future.

~~~
DanBC
Except journalists can just write under a pseudonym?

------
calbear81
I'm not so surprised and I'm getting sick of all the fake apologies. Uber
should be proud to be ruthless and change their motto to "fuck being nice"
because it's worked well so far for them. Digging up dirt on your enemies is
just part of the standard MO if you've come from a background in Washington.

~~~
rtpg
The problem is they play up their "underdog being beat down by the bureaucrats
and cab companies" (like a lot of other companies)

We should be shaming companies that try this, even if we like the disruption.
People slinging shit at each other just lowers the standards for everyone, and
makes everything slightly worse.

~~~
calbear81
Oh I absolutely agree that it's terrible behavior but my point was not that I
condoned it, just that they should stop pretending like it's not their true
culture/nature. I'm more sick of people apologizing for something they did
mean when they get caught.

~~~
a3n
Yes, whatever it is you do, you should embrace it, brag about it and wallow in
it. And if you can't do those things, then stop.

------
k-mcgrady
It's just one PR disaster after another with Uber. They have a good business -
why do they have to continually act like scumbags?

------
rdtsc
They should. It would make Lyft a lot more popular all of the sudden.

------
paulhauggis
I would do the same thing. Journalists, especially ones on sites like the
verge.com, need to have a taste of their own medicine.

In this day in age, there is almost no consequence for starting social media
mobs against people for the sole purpose of silencing opposing viewpoints.

#vergegate

~~~
zorpner
If Gamergate has done anything positive, it's to finally drive home the point
that anyone nonironically using "gate" as a scandal suffix should be taken
about as seriously as someone who starts a disagreeing sentence with "Sir,".

Regarding Uber, I've switched over to Flywheel in SF & Seattle and am quite
happy with it so far. Price is a little higher (except when Uber's surging),
but it's a worthwhile tradeoff for me at least (and the drivers, at least so
far, always know where they're going when I give an address or crossstreet and
don't drive with a GPS in front of their face).

------
ianhawes
I initially got a weird vibe that this Uber crusade, started by PandoDaily,
reeked of similar SV faux-dramas originally pioneered by Michael Arrington and
TechCrunch.

Which is why I'm not surprised to see former TechCrunch tech-drama bloggers
Sarah Lacy and Paul Carr stirring the pot in a CrunchFund/Arrington backed
venture.

~~~
rtpg
I'm sorry but I'll bite

What? In what world is what is said here OK? In what universe are we fine with
a company going on smear campaigns against a reporter's personal life in
response to criticism of the company and its tactics? In what dimension is
Edgar J Hoover approved tactics suddenly OK, and a multi-billion dollar
company joking about attacking specific people not absolutely repugnant?

------
gavanwoolery
While I can't condone or condemn Uber's actions without more info, I also
don't condone the actions of many journalists. To make it perfectly clear, I
am in no way defending Uber's VP here. But what is said "off the record" could
perhaps be taken out of context - maybe the VP was half joking? Thinking out
loud? Far from an official statement or policy. Tasteless, yes, but not
necessarily representative of other people at the company.

There are many journalists who simply do not do adequate research. In the age
of one billion blogs, there simply is not the time or money to bring all
slander, defamation, and libel cases to the courtroom. Many "journalists" or
bloggers simply do not know who they are hurting or what damage they are doing
(doing legitimate damage is fine, propagating false info is not).

Edit: if you disagree with me - totally fine, just let me know what you think
- I like to hear alternative viewpoints! :)

~~~
zorpner
The decent response to "powerful tech executive considers doxxing female
journalist who reports bad things about his company" is not to spend one
paragraph thinking of every possible way he could be exonerated, then randomly
slag online journalists with no-true-Scotsman arguments.

~~~
gavanwoolery
I don't really care how "innocent" or "guilty" the VP is, just thinking out
loud - playing devil's advocate if you will. :) That said, I still do think
there is legitimate concern over the lack of consequence in general among
journalists, although admittedly this was definitely the wrong article to
bring this up on - I think I've started a witch hunt now :)

~~~
bcantrill
Please, just stop. You say you aren't defending this behavior, but you
effectively are -- and it's behavior that is among the filthiest, nastiest
behavior I've seen in two decades in this industry. This has absolutely
nothing to do with your -- or anyone's -- "concern" about journalism; this is
about a top executive at a top company threatening the most vile, most
disgusting kind of retribution against a public critic. The behavior is
entirely indefensible and inexcusable, and Emil Michael should (and no doubt
will) lose his job over it. Kindly pick a different occasion to have a
discussion about journalistic integrity; the only discussion to be had here is
whether this incident is a single broken executive -- or an entirely rotten
corporate culture.

~~~
gavanwoolery
Request granted. I think I'm only digging my pit deeper anyway :)

