4 ms·

HuffPo should be disqualified as a source regarding Uber. As stated in the NYT piece, Arianna Huffington is on Uber's board. She has a clear interest in shining

by ebbv 10y ago

HuffPo should be disqualified as a source regarding Uber. As stated in the NYT piece, Arianna Huffington is on Uber's board. She has a clear interest in shining as positive a light as possible on Uber at all times.

malandrew 10y ago
Ask yourself which journalists have A16Z or Andreessen himself as investors, who are also among the biggest investors in Lyft. This is an exercise left up to the reader. There is no journalism in Silicon Valley. Everything is PR. As Doerr said "No conflict, no interest."
- RodericDay 10y ago
  In this light, Susan Rigetti seems to have published a solid piece of personal journalism.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Ok. Lets imagine Emil actually did exactly as described in his hypothetical: hiring people to investigate true facts and report them to the public. How is that somehow worse than Gawker hiring people to do that to Uber?
- nkoren 10y ago
  When those "true facts" are the personal details of journalists and their families, researched and published specifically to make them fear for their safety. If you think that maliciously doxing people is perfectly fine as long as the dox are true facts, then you are a being a troll. If I have misunderstood your point, then I apologise and would appreciate clarification.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Doxing refers to identifying anonymous writers on the internet. So I'm not sure what you are referring to - Emil Michael was discussing reporting true but embarrassing personal facts about (public figure) Sarah Lacy. Specifically, the idea was to write articles like these, but with Sarah Lacy (founder of Pando) as the subject: https://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-most-awful-things-travis-kalanick-said-in-his-gq-profile/ https://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-m... https://pando.com/2014/10/06/venture-capital-and-the-great-big-silicon-valley-asshole-game/ https://pando.com/2014/10/06/venture-capital-and-the-great-b... So yes, my concrete question is why it's wrong to write the 4 most awful true things about Sarah Lacy, but it's perfectly fine to write the 4 most awful true facts about Travis Kalanick?
    - wfo 10y ago
      No, the idea was to dig up private information about people in retaliation for them doing their jobs because the things they write don't reflect well on Uber. The first article there is taking a public PR interview that someone chose to give and copy pasting it. He should be thanking Pando for it, they are simply repeating quotes he intentionally gave to the public with a little bit of editorializing. The second one is downright nasty I agree, except for the entire section on Uber which is totally fine. Just quotes that Kalanick gave to the news media and the public willingly speaking as CEO of his company (NOT dredged out of his personal life) and 'information' about their business practices and NOT about the personal, private life of anyone. It also outlines illegal business practices, a culture of disregard for customer safety, disrespect for drivers, etc. Something Uber customers (and shareholders) have a right to know about but that Uber certainly won't tell them. Quoting leaked personal emails is nasty. There's a line between private and public and exposing someone's private life because you don't like what they're doing in their public life is what's so disgusting and beyond the pale. Pando certainly does exactly that (they did it to Evan Spiegel in the article you linked), you could even say their entire business model is based on being scummy but that doesn't mean it's alright for Uber to. In fact it's much worse for Uber to. I don't trust Pando with personal information about my comings and goings (or trust them at all, with anything) or let them install an app on my phone with permissions. Pando doesn't forcibly alter the laws in every governmental jurisdiction it touches to favor their business. It's a huge difference of scale.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        No, the idea was to dig up private information about people in retaliation for them doing their jobs because the things they write don't reflect well on Uber. I don't understand - you wrote the word "no" in front a sentence in complete agreement with me. If I understand your argument, it's wrong for Uber to investigate and report true facts because you give them personal information (which presumably would not be used in this reporting) and because Uber speaks to the public and lobbies the government for redress of grievances? Could you explain why these activities somehow make investigating and reporting true facts somehow wrong? (Your use of the term "forcibly alter" is, I assume, hyperbole. As far as I'm aware Uber has never used force against anyone, although it is often the victim of others who use force.) What other activities causes one to lose one's (moral, if not legal) right to investigate and report true facts? If Sarah Lacy (for example) had an abortion, refused to allow soldiers to quarter in her house or refused to incriminate herself, would she then lose her (moral or ethical) right to investigate and report?

by ebbv 10y ago

malandrew 10y ago

Ask yourself which journalists have A16Z or Andreessen himself as investors, who are also among the biggest investors in Lyft. This is an exercise left up to the reader. There is no journalism in Silicon Valley. Everything is PR. As Doerr said "No conflict, no interest."

RodericDay 10y ago
In this light, Susan Rigetti seems to have published a solid piece of personal journalism.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Ok. Lets imagine Emil actually did exactly as described in his hypothetical: hiring people to investigate true facts and report them to the public. How is that somehow worse than Gawker hiring people to do that to Uber?

nkoren 10y ago
When those "true facts" are the personal details of journalists and their families, researched and published specifically to make them fear for their safety. If you think that maliciously doxing people is perfectly fine as long as the dox are true facts, then you are a being a troll. If I have misunderstood your point, then I apologise and would appreciate clarification.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Doxing refers to identifying anonymous writers on the internet. So I'm not sure what you are referring to - Emil Michael was discussing reporting true but embarrassing personal facts about (public figure) Sarah Lacy. Specifically, the idea was to write articles like these, but with Sarah Lacy (founder of Pando) as the subject: https://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-most-awful-things-travis-kalanick-said-in-his-gq-profile/ https://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-m... https://pando.com/2014/10/06/venture-capital-and-the-great-big-silicon-valley-asshole-game/ https://pando.com/2014/10/06/venture-capital-and-the-great-b... So yes, my concrete question is why it's wrong to write the 4 most awful true things about Sarah Lacy, but it's perfectly fine to write the 4 most awful true facts about Travis Kalanick?
  - wfo 10y ago
    No, the idea was to dig up private information about people in retaliation for them doing their jobs because the things they write don't reflect well on Uber. The first article there is taking a public PR interview that someone chose to give and copy pasting it. He should be thanking Pando for it, they are simply repeating quotes he intentionally gave to the public with a little bit of editorializing. The second one is downright nasty I agree, except for the entire section on Uber which is totally fine. Just quotes that Kalanick gave to the news media and the public willingly speaking as CEO of his company (NOT dredged out of his personal life) and 'information' about their business practices and NOT about the personal, private life of anyone. It also outlines illegal business practices, a culture of disregard for customer safety, disrespect for drivers, etc. Something Uber customers (and shareholders) have a right to know about but that Uber certainly won't tell them. Quoting leaked personal emails is nasty. There's a line between private and public and exposing someone's private life because you don't like what they're doing in their public life is what's so disgusting and beyond the pale. Pando certainly does exactly that (they did it to Evan Spiegel in the article you linked), you could even say their entire business model is based on being scummy but that doesn't mean it's alright for Uber to. In fact it's much worse for Uber to. I don't trust Pando with personal information about my comings and goings (or trust them at all, with anything) or let them install an app on my phone with permissions. Pando doesn't forcibly alter the laws in every governmental jurisdiction it touches to favor their business. It's a huge difference of scale.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      No, the idea was to dig up private information about people in retaliation for them doing their jobs because the things they write don't reflect well on Uber. I don't understand - you wrote the word "no" in front a sentence in complete agreement with me. If I understand your argument, it's wrong for Uber to investigate and report true facts because you give them personal information (which presumably would not be used in this reporting) and because Uber speaks to the public and lobbies the government for redress of grievances? Could you explain why these activities somehow make investigating and reporting true facts somehow wrong? (Your use of the term "forcibly alter" is, I assume, hyperbole. As far as I'm aware Uber has never used force against anyone, although it is often the victim of others who use force.) What other activities causes one to lose one's (moral, if not legal) right to investigate and report true facts? If Sarah Lacy (for example) had an abortion, refused to allow soldiers to quarter in her house or refused to incriminate herself, would she then lose her (moral or ethical) right to investigate and report?