4 ms·

Maybe the claims made by Susan Fowler are accurate and honest, maybe they aren't. This is why there are investigations. We want the truth, not a bunch of opinio

• finkin1 10y ago
  Anyone care to comment on why they downvoted? I'm genuinely open to the fact that I could be missing information here...
  • danpalmer 10y ago
    Is the blog post by Susan not evidence? It certainly seems reasonable enough evidence to suggest what the investor is suggesting, which is that a more thorough and unbiased investigation should be carried out.
    • finkin1 10y ago
      I would consider Susan's blog post a form of evidence, but just about the lowest form there is. I don't know Susan personally, so I can't speak to her character. Maybe she's a pathological liar or maybe she's the most honest and genuine person I'll ever meet. The point is that I don't know, and unless you know her personally neither do you. This is not a controversial fact I hope we all agree. Forms of evidence I'd be interested in seeing: slack chats, emails, internal HR files, etc. that should all in theory come to light if there was an independent investigation. If there is a systematic covering up of sexual harassment at Uber there will be hard evidence to support it, right? What actual evidence (other than Susan's blog post) do we have that leads to a rational and unbiased conclusion that Uber is intentionally covering up sexual harassment?
      • the_common_man 10y ago
        I will tell you what you are missing. Look up the term 'witch hunt' and Uber is the target. Like you, I disagree how HN is reacting to this. All we have seen is a blog post making a claim and now everyone is a knight in shining armor.
        • finkin1 10y ago
          I'm not so sure you will tell me what I'm missing. An investigation conducted by an independent third party is going to tell me what's missing. Maybe a 'witch hunt' as you call it is a completely necessary and appropriate reaction to the evidence. The fact that Eric Holder has an interest in the success of Uber is a legitimate problem and something we should all be outraged by and attempt to change. It seems like you may have failed to comprehend the point I was making, but from the other side of the spectrum, which is pretty interesting. My point is that no one knows the truth until we have the evidence. Until then, all we can rationally advocate for is a process that uncovers the evidence in an unbiased manner. The author of the letter seem to be making many conclusions without the support of public evidence. Maybe the author knows certain facts we don't.
      • danielweber 10y ago
        She made accusations that specific incidents happened. In general, someone who makes a specific accusation that can be disproven if not true probably isn't making it up. I know we can all recall specific times when this hasn't been true. But as a general rule it works, as long as we remember we are still in the "judgment" phase and not the "punishment" phase.
        • DannyBee 10y ago
          "In general, someone who makes a specific accusation that can be disproven if not true probably isn't making it up. " On what do you base this? Honestly, i'd say that in court, the percent time people (be they cops, witnesses, you name it) make specific accusations that can be disproven, and are making it up, is in the 20-30% range, at least. These are on a witness stand, too. I'm just going by those things objectively disproven later (IE literally could not have occurred as the person says. Not "can't tell what really happened, video too fuzzy"). Outside of court situations with repercussions, i'd expect the number to be much higher not much lower. "I know we can all recall specific times when this hasn't been true. But as a general rule it works, " This is handwaving. Really. This is "well, you might think it's wrong, but i'm telling you it's not with no data to back me up". There's a reason "eyewitness testimony" has it's credibility judged by a jury, is not taken as fact, and is pretty much the lowest form of evidence there is: it's because it's the most often wrong.
    • dmitrygr 10y ago
      <devil's adviocate> A blog entry is not evidence. It is a claim. </
      • danpalmer 10y ago
        It is victim/eyewitness testimony, that's definitely evidence (although not conclusive obviously), and given the ease with which the specificity of these claims could be disproven, its easily enough to warrant the sort of investigation that the investors are asking for.
        • dmitrygr 10y ago
          I am all for an investigation. Don't get me wrong. I am just being pedantic :)
    • lefstathiou 10y ago
      The point being made by the parent is that Susan's post is as much hearsay as Travis is defending the culture. Ie potential bias goes both ways
  • hrxn 10y ago
    Just the slow and steady decline of HN.. Facts don't count anymore.
• ryanbrunner 10y ago
  The response by Uber is not consistent with her claims being outright false. The investigation in question is not about putting Susan Fowler on trial, but about determining whether there's systematic or cultural issues that fostered this kind of environment. Susan made mention of many points of evidence that would be easily verifiable by Uber - if she were lying about those it the tone coming from Uber would be completely different.
  • finkin1 10y ago
    An employee made a claim that Uber is intentionally covering up sexual harassment. The CEO of Uber is now investigating the validity of those claims. I agree this is not about putting Susan Fowler on trial. It's about finding the truth, and we have Susan Fowler to likely thank for pointing us in the direction of that truth. The nuance I'm trying to point out is that knowing what is true still requires actual evidence. I see a lot of people coming to the worst possible conclusions about Uber without said evidence, and I find this concerning. Seems more like a mob mentality than a group of rational people trying to find the truth.
    • mdorazio 10y ago
      In this case I think the evidence is actually Uber's lack of rebuttal (admission by omission). For example, searching the slack logs on the first day of Susan's employment should literally take less than a minute. If there was no proposition there, Uber would have made a press release stating exactly that a day ago. They haven't. The logical conclusion here is thus that the evidence you want exists and Uber isn't (and probably won't) releasing it to the public. Put another way, what guarantee do you have that Uber will actually provide the evidence you're seeking one way or the other? On one side we have a claim made by a former employee, backed by "that doesn't surprise me" anecdotal stories from current and former employees, and on the other side we have... a promise to investigate internally using a highly biased team. It seems to me you're kind of looking for a courtroom-level burden of evidence that simply isn't realistic to expect in this situation.
      • deleted 10y ago
• oxryly1 10y ago
  She made specific allegations with reference to evidence (emails, screenshots) that is all entirely within Uber's purview. While this isn't a court, I have reasonable expectation that Uber would refute individual specific claims of hers if there were not true. That they haven't is fairly damning... it's not a conviction by any stretch, but their actualy response drops the threshold of support or forebearance that I'd extend to Uber to a low enough level that I consider her allegations to be true.
  • Pyxl101 10y ago
    They should investigate before refuting. Investigating takes time. If the investigation confirmed what she claimed, then it will require even more time to adequately tackle the problem before going public with an announcement.