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.

Comments

I don't know... Maybe...

[linuxrunner]

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?

Re:I don't know... Maybe...

[Iamthecheese]

I hardly know where to start. So I'll cover the whole of it.

One incident did define GG.

For a second time, that's simply not true. That one incident gave opponents of GamerGate a tenuous position from which to libel it. That's the start and finish of the way it "defines" GamerGate. There was a Reddit thread (since censored) before the incriminating tweet that was about ethics. The majority of tweets now using the tag are about ethics or explaining why it's about ethics.

A decent definition of the revolt will be about whose in it, what they are doing, and how they're doing it and by that much better definition GamerGate is a force for good. You're ignoring all of that to focus on one incident so distant from the concerns of the people in GamerGate that it may as well be entirely irrelevant.

And why focus on that one incident? I really want to know. Why is it important to you that a movement against corrupt journalists be stopped?

When they where shown to be the vile people they are

You're so very confident that GamerGate supporters are evil. Why don't you show evidence of that? Check in my own comment history for excellent proof of the good we're doing. I've shown you my evidence now show me yours. hint: "unsupported accusations" are not evidence no matter how many of them you have.

the narrative changed.

Again you're referring to one minor incident at the beginning and pretending it defines us. You are claiming ten thousand and more diverse people just got together to harass and threaten. And you're ignoring a large timeline of actions to do so. You're ignoring three months of letter writing, documentation, discovery of corruption, evidence of corruption, and on and on. The narrative changed because 1: GamerGate has had to spend so much energy debunking libel like your comment. 2: That libel has changed as it becomes more obviously dishonest. 3: more instances of corruption have been discovered. and 4: We've honed our tactics to select for the most effective ones.

Then people who didn't know the origin got fooled into thinking it was about journalism; which it is not about.

So all this fighting a dishonest media circus, the timeline of documented corruption, the letter writing campaign, the organization and efforts, it's not really about the things we are proven to be complaining about and working to fix? Your statement is preposterous on the face.

GG is a perfect example of why ignoring trolls does not work. It allows the to control the message.

The only controlling of our message that's going on is in posts like yours, distorting the open, transparent, and obvious truth of what we're accomplishing.

You can post your fallacious questions

the irony...

I was at ground zero, and I watched it unfold.

What a coincidence, so did I. So let's both show our evidence. Mine is in my Slashdot comment history with dozens more links in reserve. I'm still waiting for yours. Prove ANY of your libel against GamerGate.

I've seen those people attack to many women.

The fact is many people on both sides have been attacked. But the media has reported on only half of those attacks. The media has also pointed at many attacks that didn't even pretend to come from GamerGate, put them beside the name GamerGate, and let people draw the obvious and very wrong conclusion. I can name 20 GamerGate supporters who have been doxed. I can name four who have been attacked and two more threatened. But I won't. Because I'm not playing the victim Olympics. The reason I mention this is to point out just how distorted your half of the argument is.

Why would an honest person concerned about preventing threats and attacks only talk about one side being attacked, and do so with a distorted point of view?

No, this is absolutely normal SOP these days.

[Dr. Manhattan]

For example:

If the oil and gas industry wants to prevent its opponents from slowing its efforts to drill in more places, it must be prepared to employ tactics like digging up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, a veteran Washington political consultant told a room full of industry executives in a speech that was secretly recorded.

Shouldn't be a surprise

[smooth wombat]

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?

Re:There's not a lot to say, this is scummy

[NatasRevol]

You might want to go read this:
http://pando.com/2014/11/17/th...

Back in 2012, Paul Carr first raised serious concerns about the company’s view that both riders and drivers are disposable commodities in an all-out Randian battle to maximize profits. He uninstalled the app when he wrote that piece, and he started a drumbeat of press around these concerns.

Then, in 2014, Carmel DeAmicis exposed that an Uber driver accused of assault had a criminal record that should have been uncovered by the background checks Uber claimed to do. She further documented a “blame the passenger” culture at the company when such complaints came up.

It started to snowball: An investigation at The Verge exposed cut throat competitive tactics that the company has taken against its primary competitor Lyft.

Then, a few weeks ago, I wrote a story about the outrageous sexism woven deeply into the culture of the company. We’ve seen it in the company’s PR team discrediting female passengers who accuse drivers of attacking them by whispering that they were “drunk” or “dressed provocatively.”

We’ve seen it in CEO Travis Kalanick’s comments that he calls the company “boober” because of all the tail he gets since running it.

Re:Wow ...

[gstoddart]

Put yourself in Uber's shoes, you are running a company and getting somewhat hostile media treatment

See, my problem with this statement is that on the surface Uber is the source of their own bad PR.

I've seen some of the news coverage about them trying to move into a couple of cities. The cities are saying "OK, you need a license, the proper insurance, and you must do these things".

Uber says "Yarg, we're not a taxi company, we're teh interweb company, we won't play by the rules".

At which point you think, "wow, so these guys figure they're exempt from regulations". And then you don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

If you blatantly say that you don't believe the law applies to you, you deserve all the bad PR you get. Your magic interweb business model doesn't exempt you from that.

You try to rebut them but you are simple not given the same air time the critics are. What should you do just bend over an take it, let them damage your business. I for one would much rather erode peoples faith in the source, and opposition research is how you do that!

See, I think this "whole smear the source, screw the facts" mentality is complete and utter crap.

It's just public muck raking to obfuscate the issue. In some cases, they simply refuse to acknowledge the basis for the criticism and pretend like their magical unicorns exempt them from reality.

So, I'm of the opinion anyone who engages in "opposition research" is probably a lying, evil, twisted sack of shit of a PR guy, who engages in a "win at any cost" level of bullshit.

It has nothing to do with facts, just digging up dirt to discredit them and distract people from the fact that, yes, you do actually eat babies.

Which party is scummy?

[s.petry]

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.

Re:Which party is scummy?

[Rei]

I don't care if she wrote that she feels Uber is in league with Satan , Doxxing Journalists Is Never Acceptable. And the reason for the focus on her in particular is because, and I quote, "In particular, Michael wished to target Pando founder Sarah Lacy after her publication’s repeated attacks against Uber." It says that right there in TFA. And in the article linked by the TFA, wherein Emil apparently went on at length about his rage against Sarah.

Michael was particularly focused on one journalist, 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.

At the dinner, Michael expressed outrage at Lacy’s column and said that women are far more likely to get assaulted by taxi drivers than Uber drivers. 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.

Then he returned to the opposition research plan. Uber’s dirt-diggers, Michael said, could expose Lacy. They could, in particular, prove a particular and very specific claim about her personal life.

It's such a F'ing gamergate attitude. Female journalist finds something you do sexist? Reveal details of her personal life - that'll teach the f*ing c*** to shut up, right?

Re:There's not a lot to say, this is scummy

[NatasRevol]

And what I'm saying is that it IS a bad company. And the press pointing that out doesn't make them bad.

Uber is a Pump-n-Dump scheme

[McGruber]

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?

Re:There's not a lot to say, this is scummy

[luis_a_espinal]

So? I am not saying Uber is or is not a bad company. What I am saying is that the press is not beyond question.

That is all great and dandy, but that has nothing to do with trying to find dirt in journalists' personal life. Dig into journalists' public records, things that could show, say, they are not objective, but on payroll by, say, cab unions or Uber's competitors.

Something relevant and noteworthy to the public. Personal life, in particular fishing for personal life "dirt" as they call it? We already went through Mccarthyism and past ad-hominem practices such as the FBI trying to defame MLK.

Ad-hominems are supposed to be an invalid form of counter-argument, or that's ok when it comes to journalists?

Re:There's not a lot to say, this is scummy

[gstoddart]

I assume the driver had insurance which he carried separately

Did he have the proper kind of drivers license and insurance? Did anybody verify that or check before he started giving rides?

In many places, you need a commercial/chauffeur license to drive a car for hire. And you need special insurance for your commercial liability.

So, big deal, Uber suspended his account.

Uber is basically washing their hands of it, and saying "driver's fault". Unfortunately, the people who passed the laws are saying "yeah, but you see, you're the one dispatching rides by people without the proper license and insurance, which is why we said you can't be here in the first place".

So, basically Uber is encouraging people to be taking paid rides from people who don't have the proper license, and those people out in the wild get into accidents, then we discover they don't have proper insurance, and then Uber just says "wow, not us".

The problem is the Uber service isn't legally compliant to begin with.