
Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists - uptown
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-dirt-on-journalists
======
Asparagirl
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.)

~~~
throwaway09F911
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.

~~~
DontBeADick
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.

~~~
Asparagirl
In the same story that they talk about digging up dirt on reporters' families,
Uber revealed details of a different reporter's movements to her, without her
consent, and supposedly an impossible thing to do. Is it such a stretch to
think that revealing details about your family + revealing details about your
movements and location could also = revealing details about the movements and
location of your family?

Again, read Sarah Lacey's rebuttal piece in PandoDaily. Her first thought
after hearing about the threats (by phone) is for the safety of her kids, who
are not with her at that moment.

~~~
philwelch
Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is
because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to
fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land
right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it.

Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story,
and both sides are assholes.

~~~
acdha
> Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved
> is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces

1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable?

2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or
this one if they weren't true?

~~~
philwelch
1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an
axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this
incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's
PandoDaily's business model.

2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm
not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about
Sarah's interpretation of them as a threat against her children, which is
unwarranted by the original report and likely her own sensationalism.

~~~
acdha
1\. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just
because they wish she was channeling their PR department.

2\. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage
control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it
wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking
her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family
and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of
a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even
assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose
something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the
most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who
don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.

~~~
philwelch
I think Sarah's sensationalizing it because sensationalizing things is her
business. That's all.

~~~
tripzilch
Let's assume that the Uber Executive was also doing his business then.

Seems to me very clear that one's _quite_ a bit deeper in the wrong than the
other, "doing their business".

(also, I disagree with the term "sensationalizing" when the facts of what
actually happened are in fact already "sensational" enough to stand for
themselves. Stating that you're worried about your children when someone calls
to investigate and dig dirt on "your personal lives, your families" isn't
really adding any extra "sensation" to what is already out on the table, it
merely informs me that she has children to worry about)

~~~
philwelch
To "dig dirt" means to gather embarrassing private information about someone
that could ruin their reputation. Exactly what information could you gather to
embarass and discredit a small child? There's no logical way to interpret that
as a threat against Sarah's kids, and I'm giving Sarah the benefit of assuming
she's clever enough to realize that. Sarah brought her own damn kids into this
to tug at the audience's heartstrings and make herself look more sympathetic.

------
drivingmenuts
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.

------
thesystemis
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?

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

~~~
thesystemis
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.

~~~
nailer
That is not in any way 'like' blaming people for being raped.

~~~
thesystemis
sorry I respectfully disagree -- here a SVP of a company is essentially
saying, "by recommending people to not use my product, you are responsible if
they get assaulted" \-- it's essentially shifting the blame around a sex crime
in a way that to my eyes really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes,
the perpetrators. It's also such a flippant remark that it seems to me to show
a callous indifference to what it means to be a victim of such a crime.

ps, agree with scarmig's point -- he's not "blaming the victim" but it does
feel like shifting the blame, which minimizes what these crimes mean.

~~~
nailer
Lacy says Uber make her feel unsafe. Using the same deeply flawed logic,
doesn't that feel like shifting the blame around a sex crime in a way that
really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes, the perpetrators?

------
justinv
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.

~~~
onewaystreet
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
Stating this once is enough, please.

------
bhouston
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.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
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
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.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
I wouldn't count on that. In the financial market, its already happening. You
can buy information from a ratings agency that assesses a companies ethical
behavior. If they don't meet the investor's targets, they won't invest in that
stock.

I could see that happening on a consumer level as well, all you need is that
data and a smartphone.

~~~
ac2u
I agree with you in that any attribute which an investor is interested in can
be certified by an agency willing to do the legwork.

However what I do wonder is how actually effective something so ambiguous is?
and how much it would be gamed? This is after 2007-2008 when we find out that
financial institutions were able to game the risk classification of investment
vehicles despite being wrapped in supposedly ambiguity-busting red-tape.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Well there are standards that can be checked against, and they go to the
companies and talk to them. The good ones often already have CSR departments.

If theres something shady happening, it is often not hard to find - there are
lots of environmentalists and NGOs that regularly dig up dirt. Also, a company
can't just fake a reputation.

Not saying that nothing can be hidden, but its not just bits and bytes and
paperwork that can be faked, its the real world.

------
dreamweapon
_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?

~~~
baxterross
because his comments have been twisted out of control

------
Panino
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").

~~~
theorique
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
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.

------
justinv
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?

------
metaphorm
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.

------
PhantomGremlin
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622187)

~~~
makomk
There's also previous discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622403)

------
casca
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.

~~~
bhouston
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.

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

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

------
QuadDamaged
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.

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

------
xorcist
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?

~~~
Dylan16807
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.

~~~
xorcist
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.

------
bakhy
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.

~~~
cwkoss
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.

~~~
bakhy
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.

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

------
lettercarrier
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](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB7IsmOegE)

------
wpietri
Actually, Uber is about ethics in tech journalism.

~~~
meepmorp
Thank you for that.

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

------
ghshephard
I would _love_ to know if
[http://blog.uber.com/applepay](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.

~~~
teacup50
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.

~~~
ghshephard
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.

~~~
teacup50
> _My understanding is that, unlike a credit card, you don 't share your name
> with them during an Apple Pay transaction._

If you check the EMVco specs (they're a doozy!
[http://www.emvco.com/specifications.aspx?id=21](http://www.emvco.com/specifications.aspx?id=21)),
merchants still receive your name.

The only thing that tokenization provides is a proxy card number.

> _Also, Apple is not involved in the transaction beyond selling you the
> hardware which hosts the secure element._

That's not actually true; if you read the fine print (or the emvco specs),
you'll note that they _can_ track a lot more than they might claim to.

[https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_20...](https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2014.pdf)

They disclose up-front: "Apple may receive anonymous transaction information
such as the approximate time and location of the transaction, which helps
improve Apple Pay and other Apple products and services."

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

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

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

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

------
peterjancelis
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.

------
johnsmith32
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?!?

------
cwkoss
I think this article is relevant context- Sarah Lacy is a professional troll:
[http://www.cnet.com/news/journalist-becomes-the-story-at-
mar...](http://www.cnet.com/news/journalist-becomes-the-story-at-mark-
zuckerberg-sxswi-keynote/)

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

------
general_failure
[http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-
fa...](http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-far-uber-
will-go-to-silence-journalists-and-attack-women/)
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/18/sarah-lacy-
ube...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/18/sarah-lacy-uber-emil-
michael-opposition-research-smear-campaign/19229117/)

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

------
jongraehl
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.

------
blackdogie
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
_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.

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

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

~~~
caractacus
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...](http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-
just-how-far-uber-will-go-to-silence-journalists-and-attack-women/)

~~~
kubiiii
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.

------
jarnix
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.

------
microcolonel
> 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?

~~~
ripb
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.

------
imgabe
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?

------
rhizome
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.

------
softdev12
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.

------
cseelus
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)

------
ascendantlogic
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
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.

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

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

~~~
crpatino
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.

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

------
hero454545
This story is plummeting suspiciously fast from the HN front page...

~~~
onewaystreet
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.

------
dang
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
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?

~~~
dang
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.

~~~
just2n
The entire point of clickbait sensationalist journalism is to get people
fighting about non-issues. A guy who landed a probe on a fucking comet was
forced to apologize in tears because he wore a shirt that these same people
disliked. Now _even the MSM_ is pointing out how ridiculous that was. He was
called sexist, exemplifying why women don't work in STEM. They just found
evidence of organic matter on the comet. This is groundbreaking. But the
fucking shirt. Scientific achievements don't generate the clicks and outrage
like sensationalist "fuck ethics" journalism.

Let's make HN about sensationalist articles about shirts and off-hand jokes at
private dinners.

Why not just unmod all of the websites that do this routinely. This is hardly
as big as half of their "stories", and then let the front page be covered with
stories that sit there for 2 days because they have 3000+ upvotes?

This place has become a more toxic version of Reddit. Oddly, this story isn't
on the front page there, or even on the front of /r/programming. Or even in
the first 4 pages. I guess they're doing something better.

How about we take it a step further and ban positive mention of Uber, since it
seems the majority here hates Uber for one reason or another, even if they're
mostly uninformed (and yes, quoting BuzzFeed or PandoDaily as fact makes one
uninformed) or do so because someone poked their feelings. Maybe next we can
ban gendered pronouns and require people disclose their full names, place of
employment, and home address, because anonymity is the cause of online
toxicity. We definitely need to lower the downvote bar to 0 so that new people
can immediately begin downvoting anyone they don't like or disagree with.
Let's see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

~~~
dang
You obviously care about the quality of HN, as do I, as does the GP. What
makes this a hard problem is that the community doesn't agree on what
constitutes quality.

Serious discussion about how to manage HN needs to begin with the insight that
many people here disagree with one, and most are participating in as much good
faith as oneself. If you don't take that in, you're not grappling with the
real problem. (I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us.) In that
case it inevitably feels like there are obvious solutions which for dark
reasons we're refusing to implement. In reality, it's just a lot harder than
that. That's incredibly frustrating, but we can't get anywhere by ignoring it.

------
Umn55
"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.

------
tedks
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.

~~~
wpietri
This was not a private dinner between friends.

------
omouse
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.

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

~~~
ghshephard
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)

~~~
nailer
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.

------
Edmontonian
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

~~~
wpietri
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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?

~~~
wpietri
Sure. And I'm saying that's wrong.

------
webXL
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.

------
spindritf
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...](http://defamer.gawker.com/somebody-is-selling-an-usher-sex-tape-are-
you-that-som-1657908238)

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

~~~
spindritf
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.

------
sbuk
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...

------
rikacomet
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
That's called "getting disrupted."

------
just2n
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.

~~~
DanBC
"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.

~~~
just2n
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.

~~~
grayclhn
> _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._

I haven't read anything suggesting that people should go to jail. I know I'm
unlikely to use a taxi service that contemplates blackmailing or retaliating
against me using private information if they decide that I'm too annoying,
though, even if they decide not to do it. I'm kind of surprised other people
feel differently, TBH.

> _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?_

So that the reporter's future sources will feel comfortable giving explicitly
"off the record" information with the expectation that it will stay
confidential. It has literally nothing to do with the accuracy of this story
one way or the other.

