
Uber C.E.O. To Leave Trump Advisory Council After Criticism - kapkapkap
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-trump-advisory-council.html?_r=0
======
orthecreedence
Wouldn't it be helpful to have someone who's friendly to tech and immigration
advising the president?

Seems to me Uber's CEO had a much better chance of changing things by advising
the president than by walking away. Buy hey, whatever makes people feel good
based on their knee-jerk reactions. That's the most important thing.

~~~
michaelchisari
I said this in another thread, but I wonder if Kalanick saw the writing on the
wall that Trump and his administration could not be reasoned with, and these
protests against the immigration EO (and Uber's snafu) gave him an "out" based
on external pressure.

I'm reminded of Eliot Cohen's response after trying to work with the
administration in good faith:

 _After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay
away. They 're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly._
[https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800](https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800)

------
yellowapple
"After the immigration order against refugees and seven Muslim-majority
countries, many staff members wondered why Mr. Kalanick was still willing to
advise the president."

That's _exactly_ why someone should want to advise the President: to have the
opportunity to advise the President _against_ such things, or at the very
least temper them.

This kind of "if you have any association with Trump, you must be evil"
mentality is going to end up resulting in Trump being surrounded by people who
already agree with him, rather than Trump being surrounded by people who
_disagree_ with him and can potentially sway him in more reasonable
directions.

~~~
gdulli
> > "After the immigration order against refugees and seven Muslim-majority
> countries, many staff members wondered why Mr. Kalanick was still willing to
> advise the president."

> That's exactly why someone should want to advise the President: to have the
> opportunity to advise the President against such things, or at the very
> least temper them.

Nothing about the last 18 months should make you think that he thoughtfully
weighed input from advisors on both sides of the refugee issue and came to a
reasoned decision. He used fear and demagoguery to appeal to xenophobes from
the start.

To help him tread water for 4 years and eke out a reelection would be some
really bad short-term thinking. We have a unique moment to teach voters that
electing a reality TV host has negative consequences.

------
fnbr
I'm typically a naysayer when it comes to protests, and particularly hashtag
activism- I (strongly) doubt their efficacy. However, #deleteuber seems to
have been remarkably effective.

I wonder if this will be enough to staunch the bleeding. How many installs
have they list? I wonder what the equivalent cost would be for marketing to
create that many new installs.

~~~
tlrobinson
> However, #deleteuber seems to have been remarkably effective.

That's great... but it's not even clear Uber did anything wrong.

They disabled surge pricing, and people interpreted it as trying to break the
strike.

If they hadn't disabled surge pricing it would seem like they were profiting
off the protests/strike, as has happened in the past.

Should Uber, the company, have forced it's drivers to strike by disallowing
pickups at JFK? If so, why aren't people equally upset with Lyft for also not
doing that?

~~~
fnbr
Sure, but doesn't that prove the point? It doesn't matter how legitimate your
protest is, just that you have leverage, which the #deleteuber crowd did.

------
wtf_is_up
I don't know which is more sad... that regressive leftists would shame someone
out of positively contributing to society or that the CEO of Uber would fold
to it so easily.

------
jupiter90000
dupe

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13555580](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13555580)

------
facthitter
.

~~~
jonathanjaeger
The #deleteuber hashtag was not just about the CEO being an advisor but also
the way Uber handled the taxi cab strike at the airport. I think different
points mixed together to create this viral hashtag.

~~~
dllthomas
Could you explain "the way Uber handled the taxi cab strike at the airport"
and how Lyft's handling differed?

~~~
jonathanjaeger
Uber continued to pick up people at JFK when taxi cab drivers were striking.
As a response, Lyft donated $1 million to the ACLU, so everyone jumped on the
delete Uber/use Lyft bandwagon. Disclaimer: I'm more of a subway kind of guy,
I don't use either and don't necessarily think we should be focusing on Uber
and Lyft to make our political views seen. There are probably better boycotts
out there.

~~~
dllthomas
> Uber continued to pick up people at JFK when taxi cab drivers were striking.

Did Lyft do otherwise? That's not my understanding.

> Lyft donated $1 million to the ACLU

Lyft has so far (presumably) donated $250k to the ACLU. They pledged $1
million over four years. And you know what? Good on 'em!

Uber had already pledged to fight the immigration ban directly on behalf of
affected drivers, to the tune of $3 million. I love the ACLU, but I'm not sure
I'd bet on their lawyers over Uber's, and getting both mobilized sounds like a
win.

> I'm more of a subway kind of guy

The subway to the airport was refusing to accept non-ticketed passengers
during the planned protest (some time after the taxi strike).

