Slashdot Mirror
Uber Threatens To Do 'Opposition Research' On Journalists
Nerval's Lobster writes A senior executive at Uber reportedly told a Buzzfeed writer 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." As detailed by the executive, Uber would spend a million dollars on the effort, which would involve "four top opposition researchers and four journalists," and dig into personal lives and families. Uber has pushed back against the report, insisting that it's never done opposition research, but the idea of any company engaging in such practices seems more like something Nixon would have dreamed up at his worst than a strategy by a "disruptive" startup.
Twitchy.com reports that Emil Michael is a former Obama administration White House Fellow.
This is what happens when you give a bunch of nerd business amateurs a pile of cash.
They immediately become total arseholes and blow it on everything EXCEPT developing a sound, sustainable business.
"Reportedly" told a Buzzfeed "reporter'. Yeah, I buy it.
I mean, what do you say other than draw needless comparisons to make it appear worse or better depending on whatever prestanding beliefs about Uber being good or bad you have.
PR denial is obnoxious too.
What Uber Douchebags.
Have we reached the point where companies might consider smear campaigns against critics as normal business?
Have they been learning from the politicians and lobbyists?
Pathetic.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Female journalist accuses company of misogyny. Exec responds in misogynistic manner. Not much of a refutation, is it?
I don't use Uber, never have, never will so I have no skin in this game. But... it may not be such a far fetched idea.
Look at what happened recently with Gruber and the Obamacare fiasco. The MIT professor Gruber was being paid (and paid handsomely) by HHS... He wrote Op Eds in newspapers which were then picked up by the Obamacare supporters as independent confirmation that it was a good thing. Here was an independent MIT professor saying this was good. No where did anything cite that he was a major player in forming it nor did they say he was being paid by the administration. It was a full blown circle jerk to fool the people.
Bring it full circle back to this article --> An article comes out against Uber and slamming the company. Well a little money and research into that "independent journalist" might just find that they're getting paid by X lobby, or Y company. Maybe their best friend is in charge of the Cabbie Union (I would imagine there is such a thing).
So go after the journalists family and children? That sounds like F.U.D. to me. But maybe check in to be sure the journalist is legit and not some shill like Gruber? Yeah... Might be time we start doing that before we all get fooled again.
#gamergate anyone?
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Who's Nixon? Can somebody google that for me? Thanks!
Mr Michael reportedly said that team could look "into your personal lives, your families".
Reporter reports on Uber's unethical behaviour. Reporters threatened with unethical behaviour. Film at 11!
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I'm not going to use their services anymore.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
When people respond with "I have nothing to hide" or "I've done nothing wrong" when one mentions all the corporate surveillance this is reason # 1789453 that systematic collection of personal details - contacts, location, browsing history is wrong.
If one day you upset the wrong person they will dig through your extensive digital profile and find *something* that is undesirable. Maybe when it happened it was socially accepted but at the point later in time it may not be.
Perhaps they intended to say that this isn't so bad since it is only like Nixon and not like Obama's policies and activities?
they seem to be ok with you having a driver who may be on a few DUI's or more.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Ride-Service-May-Pose-Risk-to-Passengers-256639641.html
Somehow the idea that people are still invoking the ghost of Tricky Dick as the end-all, be-all of dirty politics just shows how much people really are in denial of how far we've gone down the drain here. Nixon was an amateur compared to the last few administrations and each one of those gets worse and worse. What it took Nixon years to do, in the name of backhandedness and abuse of the American trust, is a weekend jaunt by today's standards.
to make that sort of threat to journalists all the Uber executive's lives must be squeaky clean.
This is the same company who set up operations to have people call a competitor then cancel the call later, thus costing the other company money.
The story was posted on Slashdot a while back which included a discussion of how burner phones were used so the same person could call multiple people.
Now we have this. Instead of reviewing the complaints and saying they will look into the issues, Uber's response is to criticize the reviewer.
Why admit something is wrong with your company when you can deflect the subject to the person doing the complaining?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Don't make threats. Do it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Journalist hate it when you expose their biases.
This is a Lobster story that is not a dicevertisment!
Has /. been sold to someone else and I didn't know about it?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
it's about ethics in transportation journalism.
That was the first thought that popped into my mind, but more the character assassinations instead of addressing the charges made.
I could care less if a journalist was a henchman of Satan, was on Monsanto's payroll, and owned the newspaper he was reporting in. Is what he's saying correct? Can he document the charges made?
Too much of this I think revolves around lazy thinking, where people would rather put their trust into a respected source instead of evaluating the story.
It's a bit different with reviews, as they are essentially opinion pieces, but even those opinions should have some basis in factual reality.
Disclosure would be nice, but it's a tangled web where even if I am on the payroll doesn't mean what I'm saying is untrue.
Here it comes. Can't mention women, or threaten them. Uber have just lost their support. The SJW will be out in force, dweebing away from their keyboards hoping someone from the opposite gender notices them.
Yeah, those bloody SJWs, always threatening that you shouldn't threaten women. What is this world coming to? Whatever happened to mens' rights? Think of the manchildren!
"In a statement through Uber Monday evening, he said he regretted [his comments] and that they didn’t reflect his or the company’s views."
What he meant, of course, is that he regretted them leaking out and that they didn't reflect what he wants to public to think are his or the company's views.
But I think most of us already understood that.
TFA's summary appears to attempt to imply misogyny emphasizing that a female reporter was a target, which ignores 75% of the journalists allegedly mentioned by the exec. (see next)
The female journalist discussed made a public accusation: Sarah Lacy, the editor of the Silicon Valley website PandoDaily, a sometimes combative voice inside the industry. Lacy recently accused Uber of “sexism and misogyny.” She wrote that she was deleting her Uber app after BuzzFeed News reported that Uber appeared to be working with a French escort service. “I don’t know how many more signals we need that the company simply doesn’t respect us or prioritize our safety,” she wrote. I can't find any journalism to back the statements of the reporter so can't determine if this is an actual issue. The claim of misogyny and Uber working with a French escort service is valid or an attack? (The article Buzzfeed links is a pissing match, not journalism. Google shows no articles by the person or magazine given my search terms[I tried many].)
The Buzzfeed article is based on off the record comments made at a private dinner. In a statement through an Uber spokeswoman, Michael said: “The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner — borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for — do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach. They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them.”
Was the dialogue guided to this point by the reporter? Valid question considering we see the one statement buy the exec and no other portion of the conversation. Context for dialogue is pretty critical.
The person that said these things was also, obviously, a scummy person for saying things.
Let's face it, Uber and Lyft have both been taking a ton of heat from "journalists". Some is legitimate, but the over emphasis of certain events and location "bans" is more related to them not paying the toll to the right gatekeepers, and not systemic problems.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Try Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ for really nefarious and illegal snooping.
But GM was not able to dig up any dirt on Nader. While Nader apparently was able to dig up lots of dirt on GM.
cabs, which are licensed and don't double or triple their rates whenever the fuck they see fit. fuck uber.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Executive in a company tells a journalist that they are about to spend 1 million dollars to harass a woman who posted an article critical of them? Every single word in those quotes seems cherry picked to cause the most outrage possible. And it is not something told to them by some angry ex-employee, or anythingl No a executive goes up to a journalists and tells them this.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
of critics is only used to scare people away.
Counter the points of critics, that's discourse. Attacking their personal lives? that's threatening and intimidation.
Uber is no better then the mob.
Screw em. I don't care how good their business model might be, or how convent it is.
I wont use them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Uber is a Pump and Dump (on the Chumps) stock scheme.
Last week, Uber put out a press release that said they were valued at $30 billion. Several media outlets published articles with that $30 billion number; here's an example: According to various sources, Uber is about to go for another financing round with the intention to raise an additional $2 billion
In a new round of funding, Uber is likely to raise another $2 billion in addition to the $1.6 billion it has raised to date. The new round will value the San Francisco-based ride-sharing service at a whopping $30 billion, up from its $18.2 billion valuation from the last round of funding.
Think about that $30 billion "valuation" for a moment, and compare it to the valuations of other transportation companies. Norfolk Southern railroad has a market cap of just over $35 billion, while Delta Airlines has a market cap of just over $36 billion.
Uber is a mobile app. Does anyone here think that app is really worth 85% of a railroad that *owns* 21,500 route miles of fiber optic right-of-way (with railroad tracks on top) in 22 eastern states? Does anyone really think a ride sharing app is really worth 84% of an airline that operates 5,400 flights daily over an international network that includes 333 destinations in 64 countries on six continents... and has its own mobile apps?
When people respond with "I have nothing to hide" or "I've done nothing wrong" when one mentions all the corporate surveillance this is reason # 1789453 that systematic collection of personal details - contacts, location, browsing history is wrong.
If one day you upset the wrong person they will dig through your extensive digital profile and find *something* that is undesirable. Maybe when it happened it was socially accepted but at the point later in time it may not be.
In a capitalist market, you're going to find it quite impossible to convince anyone that collecting all of that personal information is somehow wrong when it's so damn profitable.
You act like it's a bunch of spies in corporate America collecting all that information for revenge. Hardly. They're bleeding it for every penny they possibly can.
And as far as finding something "undesireable" on people? 95% of people would be appalled and embarrassed if something as simple as their internet history got leaked out. Everyone always has something to hide. It's the very reason privacy exists.
Same as the old. What a scumbag.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
I am sure there are many bigger companies that do it. Sometimes using contractors of contractors to create deniability and to create sacrificial scape goats. I would be greatly surprised if this Uber honcho is the first one to think of smearing and trashing journalists who are critical of them. The bigger companies are older, wiser and they realize the liability involved if got caught. So they must be doing it lot more discreetly, spending way more money than necessary to insulate themselves from the actual actions.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
but the idea of any company engaging in such practices seems more like something Nixon would have dreamed up at his worst than a strategy by a "disruptive" startup.
Sounds like they are due for a Nobel Peace Prize. I think that is the current going rate for "Nixon at his worst" practices.
They don't respect the law, they don't respect rights. It's just pure greed.
There's a reason companies like Uber will inevitably fail, and it's because the management is too young, too dumb, and too high.
At the Waverly Inn dinner, it was suggested that a plan like the one Michael floated could become a problem for Uber. Michael responded: “Nobody would know it was us.”
"Emil Michael is the new SVP of Business at Uber. Most recently, Emil was the Chief Operating Officer at Klout (where he continues to serve on the Board of Directors) and before that was SVP of Field Operations at Tellme Networks (sold to Microsoft in 2007). He has been an active investor and advisor in the Silicon Valley since 1999 before which he was an associate in Goldman Sach’s Communications, Media and Entertainment Group in New York City. He also served as a White House Fellow to the Secretary of Defense from 2009 through 2011. He is a graduate of Harvard with an AB degree in Government and Stanford Law School where he received a JD."
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I want to know who is watching the watchers.
But it seems some "feminist" think that any job where women are in sex service means women are object or something
Right, I mean, in what way could having people oggle your body like a piece of meat or choose which person to buy from a catalog be interpreted as objectification? Pish, stupid feminists!
to sell their body on their own, and *exploit* the men for all their money worth
Sure, because that's totally the general case, right? Sorry, but as someone who's known several people who've worked in the sex industry, and is currently watching a friend struggle with choosing between starving or have his daughter have a "whore" (his words) as a father (he's straight, in case it matters... not like it actually does), this "prostitution is an empowering industry of choice" meme rings really f*ing hollow to me.
(to head you off, yes, I have been trying to help him, and am probably the only reason that he hasn't had to resort to it so far)
Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
A misogynist is a woman-hater, he or she feels that women have no value.
That would be tantamount to not caring about the continuation of the human race. I'm sure such people exist, but they are few in number.
So what the word "misogyny" more commonly refers to men who tend to consider many women outside of their immediate family (not just celebrities, models and entertainers) as sex objects, or in stereotypical fashion that includes disparaging or belittling their potential to be breadwinners, company and organizational leaders, and innovators. For representative examples, check out the forums of gamer sites discussing #GamerGate.
Or you could use the dictionary definition of feminism:
If you're not a feminist, you are either apathetic toward, or against, equality for women. You seem to be confusing feminism with extremist feminism, which doesn't surprise me, as you've never seemed to be the sharpest tool in the box.
Also, it really doesn't help your argument to use massive generalisations, as that's obvious to anyone who knows how to think that you are being factually inaccurate. You're really not very good at defending your position without revealing your bias and irrationality in the process.
So what the word "misogyny" more commonly refers to ...
You can try to redefine any word you want. Let me check the dictionary ... nope, it still says that misogyny is hatred of women.
This company really puts the oosh in douche.
The female journalist discussed made a public accusation
Please, please learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. It's the writer's opinion that working with an escort service is misogynistic. I personally don't agree with that, but guess what that's well within her rights to publish. There's no burden of proof on her to back that up. And the fact that Uber worked with an escort service is not under dispute - it was widely advertised by - get this - Uber. I'm noticing a very disturbing trend these days where anti-feminists start frothing at the mouth about "journalistic bias" wrt opinion pieces whenever a feminist viewpoint is put forward, using the language of libel or fraud in order to silence people who have every right to publish their (non-libelous) thoughts.
Was the dialogue guided to this point by the reporter? Valid question considering we see the one statement buy the exec and no other portion of the conversation. Context for dialogue is pretty critical.
I'm sure you think Anita Sarkeesian faked her death threats as well. Or rather, whether or not she did is a "valid question"
Wrong. The definition says 'advocacy'. Just because someone does not advocate it, does not necessarily mean they disagree with it.
Also, there is feminism the word and then there is feminism the movement. That Henry James quote pretty much sums up the feminist movement. Even people who have considered themselves feminists before are dropping the label because of how ugly the feminist movement behaves.
So we've got confirmation that a VP of Uber is a sociopath with no moral compass and we're surprised? Particularly with all the bad behavior we've heard about Uber before?
"We are sorry that some have taken offense. Mistakes were made; words were misspoken. We can all learn something from this situation, and we are sorry if you found the remarks to be offensive."
Please take your SJW rant to a place like Amsterdam or Germany that has legalized prostitution, watch how fast you get laughed out of the country.
Your rant is only valid in a place like the US that has a prohibition on prostitution. Interestingly "modeling" is legal (see one of the Jenner kids pouring champagne off of their ass), and "advertizing" (see just about every TV add that uses sexual references [sometimes innuendo sometimes direct])is legal, songs can contain direct sexual statements, a barely legal teenager gets on stage and masturbates with a teddy bear and that is national "news", but "prostitution" is.. oh noes, the actual act referenced in all of those other places.
Ever consider why places even the US that have legalized prostitution don't have the issues we normally associate with all of the places where prostitution is illegal, such as Pimps and Drug addict hookers? Maybe you should step off the moral soap box and evaluate your bias.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Journalists aren't vigilantes. They aren't imposing punishments on people on their own authority and judgment. They are reporting facts about what the business has done. That's it. Reporting unpleasant facts does not require a judge and jury.
1) All businesses should endure such scrutiny. Their actions have significant impact on their clients and their competitors, and they have huge incentives to cheat, so they should be kept on the up-and-up by means of total transparency.
2) This is NOT AT ALL true of the details of an individual's private life. This is entirely true of the details of an individual's professional life, but not the private life. The consequences of embarrassing details of someone's private life are nowhere near as great as the consequences of embarrassing business practices on the part of a business. The harmful consequences of such details to a person's private life can be severe, and without warrant.
Exposing reasons why a journalist might have a bias against a company is fair play. Exposing details about her embarrassing medical conditions or botched romantic relationships (or whatever) is completely unwarranted, unprofessional, and disinclines me to ever do business with a company that would do such a thing.
Read again. Try to slow down and actually understand each individual word. You can look them up in a dictionary if you don't understand them.
And so what if he does? You think I come to work because I enjoy it? No I whore out my brain to get money. Don't think for a second given the choice this is what I would be doing assuming money was not an object.
We are all whores to an extent. What differs is what part of ourselves we sell.
Being a prostitute is no different than any other crappy job. The only reason there is a stigma attached to it is most likely, imho, due to white conservative puritanical upper class women who view it as a threat to their power (as in their ability to secure a rich mate using sex as a commodity), and bible thumpers who jump at the chance to cram their definition of morality down everybody else's throats.
We live in a society where it is perfectly acceptable for a young male to sing up and become a trained killer, and expected to die doing his duty of murdering people his gov deemed evil. But a party of 2 consenting adults exchanging money for services...ZOMG society will crumble....
Company culture is fair game. People, you know, work for companies, and if half the population is going to be subject to less than professional treatment, it is news.
If journalists were going after "the guy" for purely private behavior (proclivity for diapers, whatever), that might be different.
The fact that nerds suddenly picked up the Republican "but the evil media isn't fair" red-herring tactic is not a positive development.
Women act helpless because they were taught to act that way. Self defense is not feminine. *They'll never get a man and have a family.* In truth, women can shut them all down, right now. And we all know how. That power is theirs to use or lose.
C'mon girls, step up! You can beat 'em off!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Nobody forces you to believe what you read, see, or hear. If you get upset by words, I will call you a fool. If you believe hearsay and act on it in bad faith, I will call you an asshole and try to put you out of business and in the gutter. If you try to erase them, I will cut your hands off. Fuck you!
Sounds like a Sleeze Ball Operation.
I would never use such a scumbag run ethically challenged company.
Were Uber executives working for the alphabet agencies before they retired to transpiration industry?
They're getting quite tiresome.
You need to learn some basic comprehension I am afraid.
An Advocate is someone actively pushing for something.
Not being an advocate in NO way means you are apathetic to something or against something.
You can be a supporter without being an advocate.
However what you have done is demonstrated your actual bias by trying to tar anyone who is not a feminist as being against women, a common dirty trick.
Or do you really believe that you are against everything in this world that you dont actively work to support?
When was the last time you actively worked to support starving africans? homeless people? abused children? abused animals? male rape victims? (yes, they exist) the land rights of Austalian Aborigines?
See how it works? not being an advocate for something does not mean you dont support it.
Nathan Grayson wrote a feature about 50 indie games. Its headline was a play on Depression Quest, and its illustration was a screeshot taken directly from Depression Quest. Depression Quest was also the first game he mentioned (and he called it "powerful").
Your "no review" strawman falls flat.
barrel and paper by the ton. Uber cannot win this fight.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"One incident did define GG"
You bet. The "gamers are dead" articles signaled the start of the long-running, ongoing smear campaign. Gamergate is the long-running response to it. You are 100% a part of that smear campaign whether you realize it or not (and I think you do).
Not sure if you're understanding me, but you're combatting your own mind and the offer I made was merely an offer to help get us all over this combative hurdle.
My advice is to quit snipe hunting.
To make sure you understand my first paragraph the link to the article does not exist, what you linked is a few Tweets. There is no article, there is no journalism, you managed to prove nothing proving the person's journalistic integrity or a fact based opinion. Second point. Since you did not, or can not, read and comprehend a dictionary here is the definition of Journalism. Relevant portions are in bold.
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press
c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine
b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest
I'm not the arbiter of journalism, the dictionary is. Nowhere does the definition claim that journalism is publishing your personal opinion to cause harm or benefit as you see fit.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Nice job with the assumptions, but I actually live in Iceland (probably one of the least prudish countries on the planet), not the US, so try again.
Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
See above. I live in Iceland. There is no relevant "conservative puritanical" element here. Our previous prime minister was a lesbian and it didn't even factor into the campaign. Gay pride is one of our country's largest annual festivals, attended by nearly a third of the population (big family event). There's pretty much no such thing as dating without sleeping with someone, it's an alien concept. The typical way people get together here is to meet (usually while drunk), sleep together, get to know each other while sleeping together more in subsequent days / weeks, and then they may actually start going out on "dates" and sleeping with others becomes frowned upon. When a couple has been together for a long time, people don't start asking "when are you going to get married", it's "when are you going to have kids". 80-90% of first children are born out of wedlock, 60-70% of children all together. Sex is a complete non-issue here - it's pretty much just expected that if you're an adult, you're sleeping with someone, and people really don't give a rat's arse.
And it's still a big f*ing issue for someone to decide to sell themselves. Yeah, come on over here and lecture my friend about how it's no big deal, no different from going to work. You think he hasn't been trying really f'ing hard to get regular work and doesn't really f'ing want a regular job instead? But oh no, going and whoring yourself to strangers is totally the same thing! Why, I'm sure you do it for spending money after work, right? Because it's totally no big deal, right? Who's the last guy who bought you? What'd you think of the f***?
Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
Wow, I'm just now being exposed to some unpleasantries regarding this service that I've touted until now. This the first time I've heard of such behavior since I stopped protesting Scientology.
Is referencing Nixon akin to a Godwin type reference, in a skewed way?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Iceland
I'm sure you do, it's obvious that English is not your forte.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.