9 ms·

But the OP's point stands generally: If this were a smear campaign by a competing company, how different would it look? I sympathize greatly with Ms. Fowler no

But the OP's point stands generally: If this were a smear campaign by a competing company, how different would it look? I sympathize greatly with Ms. Fowler not least because she put her reputation out there and claimed to have documentation of the specific offenses, which a decently respectable journalism outfit like the NYTimes could fact-check. Fowler's story could be exaggerated, but I have reasonable doubt that it's true, or true enough to merit scorn toward Uber. As inexcusable as this "Amy"'s story is if true, we have to keep our heads and recognize when we have a falsifiability problem on our hands with the current facts.

UncleMeat 10y ago
It just seems surprising to many of us that this skepticism only seems to crop up in situations surrounding racial or gender discrimination.
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  Can you describe a general situation where this kind of skepticism is avoided? I'm keenly aware that selective application of standards of evidence in legal matters is a serious bias problem, but if you are suggesting it happens in some issue to people across the ideological spectrum on that issue I don't know what you're talking about.
- Trundle 10y ago
  Skepticism and comments about skepticism don't necessarily need a linear relationship. Making a pro skepticism comment is a reactionary move against people treating anonymous accusations as fact. If you see more people doing the latter when racial or gender discrimination issues are discussed then it makes sense that the former will follow. The more serious/terrible the accusation, the more likely it seems to me that people will just take it on face value.
- steveplace 10y ago
  Reactionary contrarian skepticism is kinda the MO of hacker news comments.
enraged_camel 10y ago
These women are victims of harassment and abuse. It seems very unfair to expect them to also put their personal reputation on the line before we finally take them seriously. That's a very high bar to clear and it's the reason why so few women speak out publicly. That's why we must encourage, not discourage, anonymous disclosures, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  I have a strong allegiance to the American justice principles of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, right to face one's accuser in open court, cross examination, and standards of evidence. So much so that I apply it to judging controversial current events like this. Much as I might dislike putting a powerful entity like Uber into the defendant's chair with those attendant protections, These principles and others have served me extremely well in suspending belief and not being led astray by sensationa news and consequently looking hotheaded and foolish when time bears out the details of the story. You may feel otherwise, and I cannot and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. But as I said before, I believe Ms. Fowler at this point, and take issue with Amy's claim on falsifiability grounds. "We" are under no obligation to take any particular person seriously. There are strong labor laws against the transgressions claimed, and if there are problems with enforcement or efficiency, I am all for examining our procedures, but I won't sacrifice the bedrock of fair and individualized consideration of the particular case within the storm of the prevailing dysfunction.
  - laughinghan 10y ago
    I understand where you're coming from; I don't think you've made enough of an effort to understand where your parent is coming from, your focus is entirely on how wrong you feel your parent is. Of course the criminal justice system must abide by the principles of due process. Simultaneously, if someone anonymously expresses great suffering, we are of course under an ethical obligation to take them seriously, offer them our compassion, and take action based on what we can substantiate.
    - 10y ago

UncleMeat 10y ago

It just seems surprising to many of us that this skepticism only seems to crop up in situations surrounding racial or gender discrimination.

lr4444lr 10y ago
Can you describe a general situation where this kind of skepticism is avoided? I'm keenly aware that selective application of standards of evidence in legal matters is a serious bias problem, but if you are suggesting it happens in some issue to people across the ideological spectrum on that issue I don't know what you're talking about.
Trundle 10y ago
Skepticism and comments about skepticism don't necessarily need a linear relationship. Making a pro skepticism comment is a reactionary move against people treating anonymous accusations as fact. If you see more people doing the latter when racial or gender discrimination issues are discussed then it makes sense that the former will follow. The more serious/terrible the accusation, the more likely it seems to me that people will just take it on face value.
steveplace 10y ago
Reactionary contrarian skepticism is kinda the MO of hacker news comments.

enraged_camel 10y ago

These women are victims of harassment and abuse. It seems very unfair to expect them to also put their personal reputation on the line before we finally take them seriously. That's a very high bar to clear and it's the reason why so few women speak out publicly. That's why we must encourage, not discourage, anonymous disclosures, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

lr4444lr 10y ago
I have a strong allegiance to the American justice principles of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, right to face one's accuser in open court, cross examination, and standards of evidence. So much so that I apply it to judging controversial current events like this. Much as I might dislike putting a powerful entity like Uber into the defendant's chair with those attendant protections, These principles and others have served me extremely well in suspending belief and not being led astray by sensationa news and consequently looking hotheaded and foolish when time bears out the details of the story. You may feel otherwise, and I cannot and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. But as I said before, I believe Ms. Fowler at this point, and take issue with Amy's claim on falsifiability grounds. "We" are under no obligation to take any particular person seriously. There are strong labor laws against the transgressions claimed, and if there are problems with enforcement or efficiency, I am all for examining our procedures, but I won't sacrifice the bedrock of fair and individualized consideration of the particular case within the storm of the prevailing dysfunction.
- laughinghan 10y ago
  I understand where you're coming from; I don't think you've made enough of an effort to understand where your parent is coming from, your focus is entirely on how wrong you feel your parent is. Of course the criminal justice system must abide by the principles of due process. Simultaneously, if someone anonymously expresses great suffering, we are of course under an ethical obligation to take them seriously, offer them our compassion, and take action based on what we can substantiate.
  - 10y ago