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.)
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.
In front of journalists, the man talked in detail about a plan to destroy journalists giving negative coverage. As far as I know, you're the only person calling it "a conspiracy". But plenty of people are taking that as a way of threatening journalists.
The "blowing off steam" theory doesn't strike me as plausible. If it had happened at his local alley while talking with his bowling team, sure, maybe. But the CEO and and SVP of a $16 bn company don't sit down with a bunch of journalists by accident. Either the guy was intending to intimidate journalists (and Lacy in specific) or he is so dangerously clueless that a) he should not be a senior executive of anything bigger than a lemonade stand, and b) it would be hard to explain how he made it this far.
A journalist friend said that powerful people threatening journalists is routine, and that this sort of thing has a chilling effect on coverage. When smart people "accidentally" do something very self-serving, a reasonable working hypothesis is that they actually knew what they were doing.
OTOH, it could also be (certainly if it was serious and possibly if it was just venting) a sign of something bad. Sarah Lacey's criticism was that Uber have an "asshole culture." This does not exactly disprove her statement.
I'm not touchy. I think a lot of "PC outrage" (including possibly hers, I haven't really dug) is the nasty "fun to be outraged" variety. This has a terrible effect, turning corporate (also police and every type of official) vernacular into an unnatural lifeless sludge. I'm usually on the other side of these kinds of debates. But, there is such a thing as misogyny, asshole culture and such. They exist, and this might be a sign of it here.
Uber are an extremely aggressive company. They need that aggression to do the job they're trying to do which brings them into conflict all the time. Aggressiveness can spread. Uber is now a big company. They have many people's livelihoods, safety & privacy in their hands. There's a standard they need to meet. If a senior exec talks like this to reporters off the record, it may be the kind of talk that happens a lot.
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.
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.
It's not fair to make up a very specific statement, attribute it to someone, and then say it was in accordance with how you think their views run. You are right about uber being slime but don't pull a mark fuhrman.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Isn't it a clearly established principle of journalism that reporters should report only for the benefit of the people and organizations they're reporting on?
If she wasn't kowtowing to Kalanick's PR team, she was remiss and doubtlessly only hunting for page views. Definitely had it coming--turnabout is fair play.
Do my comments really bother you so much that instead of comprehending and responding to them logically, your brain just short-circuits to spitting dismissive, insulting remarks?
I'm not blaming Sarah for the veiled threat that was made against her--I think it's petty and disgusting for an Uber executive to sink to the level of a gossip blogger. I'm just saying that Sarah is a gossip blogger and will milk this thing for all it's worth, so we can't just assume that she's being totally honest the way a private citizen would be.
Your comment did question the victim's validity. This may not be blaming in the literal sense of the word, but well within the expression.
The point of all this is that even if the victim was an unreputable person (which I have no reason to believe here, but evenif) the data sifting and the threats are still wrong. Very wrong.
Some people still find it important that the victim's qualities enter the discussion, and this is what is meant by "victim blaming". We can talk about it, sure, and I'd be interested in what you have to say, but it's neither here nor there in this discussion. Otherwise we would spiral into "he did -- she did" which is not of value of anyone.
> The point of all this is that even if the victim was an unreputable person (which I have no reason to believe here, but even if) the data sifting and the threats are still wrong. Very wrong.
Agreed. If you follow the context of the comment thread, that's not the idea I was questioning.
Regardless, there's a line: press intimidation is unacceptable from any company. Even if the press is biased and has an axe to grind. If their reports are factually untrue and you have evidence to the contrary, write a press release and present it publicly. If this happens to a reporter enough times, they'll be branded unreliable. If their reports are factually correct and the facts therein piss off your customers, well, that was always a risk of doing those things in the first place.
But this type of stuff has happened to Uber enough times that they've developed quite a shady reputation. Uber has lost the benefit of the doubt in many people's eyes because at the very best, they hire shady people to do shady things for them. At the worst, they're stalking private citizens and intimidating them to keep quiet.
How long would it take to get a restraining order if he had done as you say? And what would be the effect on the valuation of the company if that happened?
You clearly have no children of your own, Mr. Throwaway. While Asparagirl might have been a bit too creative when filling in the details, every parent would be very concerned when some hostile entity hints to be "looking into... your family".
While confrontational by nature, I do not see any of the parts displaying stupidity, but perhaps yourself. Please try to live up to your chosen handle for this exchange.
> This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy.
A frustrated guy venting at a business dinner, attended by an influential crowd, specifically addressing a person they just hired that could (and probably would) make this "conspiracy" happen for real if he made the call.
See, personally, I think even in a perfectly informal off-the-record setting, what he suggested was simply wrong and should be called on it. Whether you're frustrated or not. Unless it was extremely clear from the context it was just a joking "haha we should .." with no intent to follow through, then, maybe then it becomes acceptable to say these sorts of things in an informal off-the-record setting, assuming you're sufficiently acquainted with the current company that you know they won't be put off by such a tasteless remark.
What he called for was a personal attack on someone's personal life. With a straight face, to his hired media mouthpiece. It's IMO not very different (though obviously less illegal) from telling your hired muscle "we should teach that person a lesson, beat them up a little", with no intent to follow through, obviously. The window to make that last bit over-abundantly clear evaporates within a minute or so. And even then, in what sort of company does he think it's okay to even begin to vent about that sort of thing, even without intent to follow through? Surely a lot more private than some fancy I-thought-it-was-off-the-record dinner.
Obviously his own moral compass didn't prevent him from saying these things, in the first place. That's exactly why he should be called on "venting" such ideas. Even when he honestly had no intent to follow through, he's a powerful man, speaking directly to someone whose task it would be to make this happen, someone might take it seriously and warm to the idea that such behaviour could be acceptable.
a journalist's job often involves being "rude". some journalists specialize in "rude" reporting. scrutinizing powerful and wealthy people is one of the legitimate roles of a journalist, even when it comes across as "rude".
powerful and wealthy people NEED to be scrutinized. when we do, we often discover that they are sociopathic scum like several of the executives at Uber have turned out to be.
This is almost akin to a celebrity getting upset and punching a paparazzi. It happens due to stupidity, human emotion and rash behavior. Is it right? No, but it does shed light on some issues.
Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software developers. Not only are they talking about the companies, they are talking about the personal lives of the people that make up the companies.
Given the work/life balance of most startups and successful companies, it is tough to judge the differentiation between a tech company's executives. There are reasonable legal precedents being set for common tort law with celebrities, however when do the executives of a company become a 'Public Figure' and lose their right to privacy? Why is it okay to follow someone and publish everything they say and do?
The same thing, of course, can be said for journalists. The lines are being blurred all around.
these aren't blurry lines. if Emil Michael feels like a journalist stepped over a line in reporting then he should have filed a civil suit. that's not what he suggested. he suggested utilizing millions of dollars of the resources of a billion dollar company to engage a campaign of systematic intimidation and harassment against journalists he didn't like.
There's scrutiny, and then there's repeatedly provoking people until they react. Has it occurred to you that "journalists" can be powerful and wealthy too, and just as sociopathic?
So, journalists get a pass when they 'investigate' someone, but the people they're investigating can't do a 'counter-investigation'? Are journalists some kind of special beings?
You're equating the two kinds of investigating. The "counter-investigation" you're talking about is retaliatory — write something we don't like and we'll punish you with details about your personal life.
Journalists are not special beings, but it is typically presumed that they report in good faith, and without ulterior motives. I know that isn't always true, but it's true often enough that I think the burden of proof would be on the people being investigated to prove that the journalist's intent was malicious.
a) Organizations (for profit and not) should be monitoring journalists and columnists who write about them. Conflicts of interests are rampant and often undisclosed. Individuals, both writers and editors are courted and manipulated continuously. You should care if journalist X is getting invited to the White House or your competitor's private events. As a blatant example there is a certain NYT columnists whose contributions have included almost word for word the position of a lobbying group I'm familiar with. I'll leave him unnamed.
b) The page view journalism model rewards writers for being inflammatory and exaggerating. This means you really need to keep a close eye on writers for disinformation because when something spreads, it happens really fast, within hours. Rather than lengthy investigative pieces, the model is basically a fire hose of shit and watching which chunk sticks and goes viral. This also means writers tend to produce volumes of articles attacking the same or similar individuals and organizations. Some of the ludicrous stories I've seen recently track back to writers with minimal to no credentials and a long stream of irrelevant "stories." One piece of shit stuck and it blows up. What these guys are doing is more closely analogous to trolling and hate speech than informed research.
I'm not the kind of person who imagines the world is constantly devolving towards a lower state. I think the negatives from the current nature of "journalism" are outweighed by the positives we have gained from the same communications & publishing trends.
The best thing you can do as an individual is to not read stories from these sorts of groups. The headlines are misleading, the stories are often irrelevant and misinformed. Stick to places that publish accurate titles and require writers with some sort of credentials.
Ya, on the record here, I think you're absolutely correct.
A lot of journalists, Lacy included, have written pieces targeting founders based on events in their personal lives and their pasts.
People are correct to freak out when someone targets another person by digging into their private lives, the problem is a lot of tech journalists have gotten away with this, especially when the founders or entrepreneurs in question have been libertarians or right-wingers.
Of course you would have to completely ignore the constant pattern of scummy behavior from Uber that is perfectly consistent with this particular incident.
They should probably fire Emil Michael or similar. The
"spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine"
proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be associated with that stuff.
Given the Benny Hill-esque series of blunders by Uber in recent memory, I'm not sure it's safe to think that Emil Michael and his behavior is the exception at Uber, rather than the rule, and that firing him would rid them of this type of behavior/culture.
And given the publicly documented exploits of Travis Kalanick I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.
You may be right, but its still clear that Emil Michael is toxic and not suited for a leadership position of anything larger than a shoebox. He should be fired.
(1) First their senior business executive (Michael) not only floats his plan at very public venue, but mentions both the budget ($1M) and the number of researches (4) they were thinking of hiring.
(2) And then later, in damage control mode, the spokesperson (Hourdajian) tries to clean up by saying they've "never considered" doing opposition research -- despite Michael having just named both a specific budget they were thinking of allocating, and a specific number of researchers they were thinking of hiring.
They want to "give the media a taste of its own medicine"? They already are. It's called marketing and advertising. The press, political parties and private businesses constantly manipulate people's opinions. They both use elements of fantasy and attention grabbing headlines.
Here's the marketing copy on Uber's website right now: "WELCOME TO ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE", "TIME, VALUE, AND CONVENIENCE — YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL", "HAVE MORE FUN WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER MOST", "YOUR SHORTCUT TO EVERYWHERE IS ARRIVING NOW".
Oh really, so you're fine spewing total bullshit but you're gonna have a hissy-fit and act like a toddler when someone writes a sensational article?
To be fair, there's a big gap between saying how you could spend a million dollars and spending a million dollars.
But if someone who worked for me started talking about exacting revenge on enemies -- in a public forum or not -- I would definitely have a problem with that.
I get the feeling that there's a side that Buzzfeed and Pando aren't mentioning.
The executive mentioned 'they'd be justified' in digging up dirt on Sarah Lacy. I wonder on what basis that one would justify that - the article mentions Lacy's criticism for a dumb ad campaign in France, but that doesn't seem like something that would provoke a response saying 'we'd be justified on digging up dirt about you'.
Does anyone know if Sarah Lacy has dug up dirt on Uber staff and their families?
That is extremely speculative. I know you're just asking questions, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Most people don't do things like that and it's not nice to imply otherwise absent any evidence.
It's speculative, but not extremely so. Most people don't randomly suggest they'd be justified going after other people's families after simple criticism, so let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
EDIT: according to other posters, who read the website in question, Sarah Lacy regularly reports on people's personal lives. Which sounds like exactly what the under person was talking about doing back.
In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals. I'm not going to defend the guy that made these comments, but I've heard enough from Sara and Paul to know that Pando has waged war on Uber, and should not be surprised that they've ruffled some feathers.
Pando also shares a common investor with Lyft, so there's that...
In all fairness, Paul and Sara have been on an absolute witch hunt, seemingly angry because of Travis' capitalist ideals.
I've desperately avoided commenting on anything related to his because I've known Travis for about a decade, but... you are sadly mistaken. Uber has a downright toxic culture. Sarah might have gone a little far here and there, but it is not because Travis is capitalistic, but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago.
I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery.
I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone. That isn't just toxic to women. That is downright scumbaggery.
That sounds like a reasonable reminder of the rules and protocols. Unless you are suggesting that the power differential can be overcome and managers should have sex with their subordinates.
> but because he's turned into some kind of megalomaniac nearly unrecognizable from the person I knew a decade ago.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of VC money does that to people. Looking forward to the documentary about Uber after its function is turned into a commodity.
> I recently saw a lovely email sent by Travis for an offsite reminding everyone that they were not allowed to fuck their subordinates and he, by extension, was not allowed to fuck anyone.
... then Travis is playing right into their hands and feeding the troll.
Personal flame wars on the net are one thing, but involving your company in that shit? The minute you take money and hire other people it's not your personal sandbox. This 4chan crap should at best come with a huge "my opinions are my own" disclaimer and should never involve your company.
Acting like an ass is not necessarily a zero-sum game. But that doesn't change the fact that publicly musing about going after someone's family for revenge is totally unacceptable.
There was no mention of revealing the location of children.
There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist.
There was no "implication" about leaking customer data.
As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging.
If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exaggerating or making stuff up, otherwise you risk making legitimate critics look like sensational buffoons.
According to the article an Uber executive did indeed access a journalist's data without her permission, something the spokesperson said was not possible:
"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."
I suspect that the information pulled form the journalist's profile was pretty innocuous, or else they would have made more of a big deal about it.
But at the same time, the point isn't that "the Uber GM found some hideously private information about the journalist," the point is that regardless of what their "information policy" is, the GM could access the account of the journalist, and was apparently comfortable doing so based on his own discretion and sense of propriety rather than explicit permission. If his sense of propriety was fine, and the information was innocuous, then that particular event wasn't a big deal. But it kind of makes lie of the idea that another high-level individual at Uber who may have, shall we say, different ideas about propiety could not abuse the information that Uber is entrusted with.
Agree. In contrast, when I worked at Amazon, customer privacy was pretty religiously protected.
To access detailed customer information required getting a one-time-use key, which is generated from a request that references other documentation (bug reports, customer support requests, etc) as well as a justification.
This key would only work against a single customer, and expires after some time.
The requests themselves are regularly audited internally to prevent abuse.
This is the level of internal privacy guarantees a company like Uber needs. No employee should have unmonitored, carte blanche access to customer data.
There's a difference between accurately representing a statement and being being willfully blind to the statement taken as a whole. It's not fair to take an isolated statement out of context, but it's also not fair to assert that a series of statements taken in context don't mean anything more than they do in isolation.
All of those things are in his statements. He doesn't have to spell it out for you to know what he means.
You don't say things like this to an audience containing media members and not expect it to get out. Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail. Are we supposed to assume Uber does not already buy 1MM PR spends?
Yeah, if this is the shit they do and talk about in public, WTF do they do and talk about in private?
EDIT: Oh my God, they also have the location data of the comings and goings of lots of politicians and industry regulators, don't they? Late night trips from locations some of those people might not want made public? If they'll so casually threaten a mother's kids, threaten journalists with $1M smear campaigns, what else have they already done?
If you read the story, it mentions digging dirt on Sarah's family. Family includes children.
>> But what is wrong with threatening a woman's children?
Clearly you dont have children. If you dont see anything wrong with this notion, having a thoughtful discussion with you is a moot point. Do you work for uber ?
> You don't say things like this to an audience containing media members and not expect it to get out.
You do if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac who got shoved money up the ass by shriveling old millionaires for having a business model that is based on siphoning money off less-than-minimum wage workers.
> Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail.
This is a direct attempt to shut her up -- this an attempt to silence their critics via blackmail -- and they hoped it wouldn't get mainstream press coverage. They hoped she would find out just via whispers from those who were there.
It's not blackmail by either the legal or common-usage definition of blackmail. Even if Uber followed through with such a sleazy plan, it would not be blackmail. For blackmail, a demand must be made, accompanied by a menace. Floating an idea that you plan on digging up dirt? That might have been an incipient but ill-advised plan, it might be idle dreaming, or it might be it might be machiavellian FUD.
> For blackmail, a demand must be made, accompanied by a menace.
It may not meet the legal definition -- but there is a clear demand and menace:
The demand is that journalists do not write negative stories on Uber.
The menace is that Uber will retaliate against any journalists by digging up dirty on them personally and thus hurting either their reputation, careers, or relationships.
Except the "demand" is not a demand directed at anyone, but just the world in general -- since it's after the fact. They would dig up dirt on those who have already written negative articles. No demands are made of them. And no demands are made of any nameable individuals. If you ask "who are they blackmailing", the answer is "a hypothetical."
Not all blackmail is done by cartoon villains. This was clearly a threat, made by someone who has made more than a casual thought about it: “Stop reporting about us or we attack you personally”
I wonder... what if that's the point? What if mentioning it to an audience containing media members means that it does get out, and therefore they don't have to spend the million bucks?
Emil Michael suggested that Uber should hire opposition researchers to investigate the personal and family lives of journalists, including but not limited to, harassment of their spouses and children.
Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families.
The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home.
The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.
Please explain the NON "extreme and sensational" way to interpret comments talking about spending one million dollars to target, intimidate, and smear the press and to dig up dirt on their families.
What's really cute is that even Uber doesn't even deny that this happened. No, that's all on you, dear HN commenter.
Didn't the parent post already explain? The journalist writes details about people personal lives for a tech gossip site. The Uber person is non seriously (even accordion to the article) musing over what would happen if the company was to do the same thing back. No conspiracy theory needed.
> "It's clear you're just another bored, delusional social justice warrior who wants to make a cause out of nothing."
No. Just no. This type of behavior is unacceptable around here - it may be in vogue around /r/TumblrInAction or GamerGate but it has no place here.
If you want to attack the substance of someone's argument fine but personal attacks, especially name calling are completely out of bounds in any sane venue of discussion. And note that Asparagirl has not attacked you personally throughout this entire conversation, much less resort to juvenile name-calling.
Personal side note: the "SJW" insult removes any shred of credibility you may have had.
"bored" and "delusional" are personal attacks, but isn't "SJW" about the argument? Has that term become totally muddled when I wasn't paying attention?
The threat against the children was vile and terrifying. The investors of Uber should be ashamed of themselves. Needless to say, a lot of Uber users are parents, and this news will definitely spread.
The language you use makes it seem like this guy threatened to physically hurt people's children. That's quite manipulative, especially your choice of emotional words such as "vile" and "terrifying".
His language was indeed a bit hyperbolic. But this doesn't lessen the inherent creepiness -- and sure, let us also say vileness -- of what the Uber executive said in that meeting.
"Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine."
I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make. "Your family" could just as easily be referring to adult family members only (spouses, siblings, parents, etc.).
It seems like you're jumping to that conclusion solely because it makes his comments more inflammatory.
It's not the sort of thing you should have to aprse in the first place. There's a narrow set of circumstances in which some family issues might be legitimate to discuss, eg if a journalist's spouse or other immediate relative was a senior officer or investor in a direct competitor - but then you could just say 'we think X is an unethical journalist because s/he has a major conflict of interest which biases articles s/he writes about our firm' because there's plenty of precedent for dealing with such issues in the world of financial journalism.
Vague talk of investigating 'your families' comes off more as an attempt to intimidate; arguably the vagueness is intended to provoke anxiety and worry to a greater degree than a specific allegation (as above) that could be refuted or debunked.
Family refers to all members of a family - adult members AND children. So, by threatening someone's family, one implicitly threatens any members of a family who are children (as well as the other members of a family).
When they're talking about "digging up dirt" I don't see how that's going to apply to children. Context is important, and reducing it to 'threat' is misleading. Even though yes it is a subtype of threat.
Really? You don't know anyone who has a special-needs child? The public at large can be very unkind to any who aren't "normal". And that's leaving alone those disturbed individuals who just like to "break things" and are just looking for a target.
Even simply exposing that information is a threat, possibly causing a chilling effect - which is exactly what this Uber exec wants.
Knowing that a child exists with special needs doesn't hurt the child...
>disturbed individuals [...] looking for a target
What??? Where did you get here from "digging up dirt". (For one, you don't need dirt to post someone's name on /b/ or whatever you have in mind.) The level of hyperbole on this submission is awful and pains me to read.
plus it's much more fun to get all spun up about the most uncharitable interpretation possible. it works for Internet fights, relationship fights, street fights... an amazingly versatile technique for disrupting harmony.
I don't think the comment was made to threaten her children, but any parent who hears those words is going to think about their kids first, and become very defensive.
I believe she is referring to opting out of the full body scanners[1] in American airports. One can do that by telling the TSA agent that they'd like to opt out of the scanner. They will instead do a manual pat down.
When I think off-the-cuff "I'd like to do X" (and it's something unethical), I generally don't have a budget specified and number of staff to hire. And then I tend not to verbalise it to a large room of people.
If their product stands on its own, they don't need to keep doing this.
> Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR?
Every major company does this, just not in the ham fisted way that Uber has done. Want NYT tech reporter to give positive reviews of Apple? Give him special access to newsworthy stories from inside, early access to devices, free gear, fly him out to special events and treat him like a prince. He gives an overly critical review? Take it all away. He'll have to hear from his friends at WSJ how great this year's event was, or how cool the devices are. They'll be special, he won't.
I'm not saying I support it, I'm just pointing out that companies manipulate journalists all the time and incentivize them not to "challenge the company's PR" as the GP put it. Uber's threats were extreme and beyond what is tolerated outside of politics. They could have manipulated her much easier by giving her unlimited free Uber "to better evaluate the service".
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.)