4 ms·

There's really no reason not to name Mike #2. If this is real, he already knows who you are.

by Grue3 10y ago

vinceguidry 10y ago
There's enough information given in the story that virtually anybody who worked at Uber can name the people involved. Public naming and shaming is understandably desired, but unnecessary. It invites legal action.
- sgustard 10y ago
  I wouldn't call it "unnecessary." Eventually Mike will quit or get fired, then repeat this behavior at another company.
  - kelukelugames 10y ago
    This plus 1000. Look what happened with Amit Singhal. http://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google-uber http://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google...
jonathanjaeger 10y ago
The author could be afraid of lawsuits (even if it is true what she writes, that doesn't mean someone can't sue for libel/defamation/retaliate in some fashion).
ubernostrum 10y ago
So, just coming forward about these stories is impressive in itself. But both of the recent Uber stories have gone well beyond that: they're coming from people who had horrific experiences at the company and have not only worked up the courage to talk publicly about it, but have put together solid strategies for deflecting a lot of the scummy ways companies, and our society, would normally come after them. To wit: Uber is a large company with fantastically deep pockets, a gaggle of high-powered lawyers, access to a strong media/PR machine, and a lot of glamour/adoration in the Silicon Valley/startup culture. But those strengths are being carefully neutered! There's Susan Fowler's approach, which is first and foremost to make sure everybody knows she has documentation to back up her claims. That's a very clear message to Uber that 1) they never ever want to be in a discovery situation where she could start issuing subpoenas, since she's let them know that she knows where to get the damaging documents they don't want coming out, and 2) leaves them guessing just how much documentation she has, and so unsure of how to publicly reply: if they try to downplay the incidents she describes, or attack her record, they don't know whether she might produce proof that they're lying about it. Then there's the approach here, which is detailed enough that the people it targets inside Uber certainly know who the author is and who she's writing about. But it does not divulge any identities with certainty to the public at large, which carries some similar "I left it at this level of detail, but maybe I could divulge a lot more if you provoked me" threat, but also makes it very difficult for Uber to attack her personally. To do so they'd have to out her and details of her employment record, and depending on the details that might put them obviously and publicly on the wrong side of a bunch of employment-related law as well as make them look like bullies. I would barely be able to function, and maybe just wouldn't be able to, after some of the things that have been described as happening at Uber. I cannot imagine being able to not only call them out publicly, but also put together such a good strategy for doing so, and I have immense respect for Susan and "Amy" for managing it.

There's really no reason not to name Mike #2. If this is real, he already knows who you are.

by Grue3 10y ago

There's really no reason not to name Mike #2. If this is real, he already knows who you are.

There's enough information given in the story that virtually anybody who worked at Uber can name the people involved. Public naming and shaming is understandably desired, but unnecessary. It invites legal action.

sgustard 10y ago
I wouldn't call it "unnecessary." Eventually Mike will quit or get fired, then repeat this behavior at another company.
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  This plus 1000. Look what happened with Amit Singhal. http://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google-uber http://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google...

jonathanjaeger 10y ago

The author could be afraid of lawsuits (even if it is true what she writes, that doesn't mean someone can't sue for libel/defamation/retaliate in some fashion).

ubernostrum 10y ago

So, just coming forward about these stories is impressive in itself. But both of the recent Uber stories have gone well beyond that: they're coming from people who had horrific experiences at the company and have not only worked up the courage to talk publicly about it, but have put together solid strategies for deflecting a lot of the scummy ways companies, and our society, would normally come after them. To wit: Uber is a large company with fantastically deep pockets, a gaggle of high-powered lawyers, access to a strong media/PR machine, and a lot of glamour/adoration in the Silicon Valley/startup culture. But those strengths are being carefully neutered! There's Susan Fowler's approach, which is first and foremost to make sure everybody knows she has documentation to back up her claims. That's a very clear message to Uber that 1) they never ever want to be in a discovery situation where she could start issuing subpoenas, since she's let them know that she knows where to get the damaging documents they don't want coming out, and 2) leaves them guessing just how much documentation she has, and so unsure of how to publicly reply: if they try to downplay the incidents she describes, or attack her record, they don't know whether she might produce proof that they're lying about it. Then there's the approach here, which is detailed enough that the people it targets inside Uber certainly know who the author is and who she's writing about. But it does not divulge any identities with certainty to the public at large, which carries some similar "I left it at this level of detail, but maybe I could divulge a lot more if you provoked me" threat, but also makes it very difficult for Uber to attack her personally. To do so they'd have to out her and details of her employment record, and depending on the details that might put them obviously and publicly on the wrong side of a bunch of employment-related law as well as make them look like bullies. I would barely be able to function, and maybe just wouldn't be able to, after some of the things that have been described as happening at Uber. I cannot imagine being able to not only call them out publicly, but also put together such a good strategy for doing so, and I have immense respect for Susan and "Amy" for managing it.