9 ms·

I may be missing something but why isn't the burden of proving those allegations on Susan Fowler? Why are we so quick to point fingers at Uber without even givi

by arkona 10y ago

I may be missing something but why isn't the burden of proving those allegations on Susan Fowler? Why are we so quick to point fingers at Uber without even giving them the chance to defend themselves? Many people hate Uber and what they do. There is a strong incentive to smear the company. Smearing Uber has been done in the past when the whole #deleteUber was started becaude Uber drivers were not force to participate in the airport boycotts.

lostlogin 10y ago
The reason I believe her is the track record. Uber is so sleazy it's hard to imagine a worse company imho.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Because Kalanick is awkward and unlikeable. Just look at how he behaves in that video in the back of an Uber - rather than empathizing with his driver and saying nothing substantial, he actually discusses the business reasons for creating UberX. He treated his driver a a rational human being like himself rather than an emotional being to be placated. See also this blog post by Jeff Atwood, where he advocates for pointless theatrics and emotional manipulation. It's quite insightful, and Kalanick's refusal to do such things is probably hurting him: https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-until-morale-improves/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-unti...
- hsod 10y ago
  Well put. I've noticed a phenomenon where people seem to substitute PR/optics for their own morality. That is, people will criticize a public person not for what they've done or said, but for how it looks or how it is likely to be perceived by others.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I have a Hansonian theory that we actually want powerful and visible people to engage in PR for us in spite of knowing it's BS. The reason is that this suggests to us that they care what we think, at least enough to signal tribal loyalty to us, to tell us that they need us. One of the greatest fears of the modern world is that the higher quality people might one day exit. We demonize companies for outsourcing, rich people for living in gated communities and sending children to private schools, tech bros for using Uber/google bus/etc rather than riding the broken SF public transit. A person like Kalanick (or Thiel, to name a similarly disliked figure) who refuses to engage in this kind of PR is scary; it's a reminder that they don't need us.
lhc- 10y ago
Uber has a history of sketchy behavior, such as investigating journalists who have written less than complimentary stories. Uber has basically done the Exact thing Fowler is explaining before. To me, that provides a pretty convincing argument that they are more than capable, and more than willing to do it again.
crispyambulance 10y ago
Uber has a history of atrocious behavior. If you want to talk about "smearing" ask Sarah Lacy about Uber circa 2014. As for "the burden of proving" what, exactly, do you expect? Screenshots of the harassment? The "hard proof" is for a court, if it comes to that, and not you, the general public.
- arkona 10y ago
  Uber's opponents also have a history of atrocious behavior. I could cite numerous assaults against Uber drivers by taxi drivers, unfair lobbying of politicians, slander and hit pieces by so-called journalists etc. Whether we are in a court of law or not, the burden of proof must remain on the accuser. So far, Susan Fowler has provided no proof. There is no tape, no email, no corroboration by other witnesses. Are we just supposed to take her word for it and sharpen our pitchforks?
  - crispyambulance 10y ago
    "Pitchforks" is a bit melodramatic. But basically, nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda. Her blog post was straightforward and referred to events, people and communications which, I expect, can be referenced by the UBER HR department and I hope that she has retained the evidence if she needs it to protect herself. That seems perfectly reasonable.
    - arkona 10y ago
      Yes, let's hope she has retained the evidence and she shows some of it. > nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda. It is suspicious that considering the number of people involved in this alleged systematic abuse, no one has stepped forward to corroborate her claims. The leather jackets story also strikes me as very far-fetched and a little incredible to believe (a company like Uber wouldn't care about the cost of 6 extra jackets and wouldn't take the PR risk of pulling shit like that). > "Pitchforks" is a bit melodramatic. Hashtag #DeleteUber is exactly what the proverbial pitchforks look like in 2017.
asldkfjasfd7 10y ago
In her blog post she claims she took and shared many screenshots, among other items, with Uber management of messaging she received. There is proof. Will it come out in public forums? Why would it? The odds of a lawsuit from one side or the other seems high, at least right now. Why air that all publicly? Doing so can and has undermined cases for both sides in the past. Besides that, does our justice system now use Twitter to try and convict? Are trials by public opinion what matter now? When did that change? What exactly is stopping Uber from defending themselves? They have a lot of money, top-notch PR folks, and I suspect top-notch legal representation. If they could easily disprove this, would they not have done so already?
stale2002 10y ago
This is not a court of law. We as individuals can take a look at all of the evidence available about the illegal things that Uber does, and decide for ourselves if the allegations are credible. This is not about 1 story by one woman who was harassed. This is a story about a dozen women who are already coming forward, and a toxic culture that anyone at Uber can confirm exists. If Uber wants people to give them the benefit of the doubt, then maybe they should stop doing so many terrible things. Similarly, if I had 10 separate female friends that I trust tell me about how this one guy had harassed them in different situations, I wouldn't bother going to each of them and demand that they give me video evidence. I would just stop talking to the guy, and warn my other friends about him. Doubly so if the guy just responded by saying, "I will not confirm or deny any allegations, but I would like to point out that nobody has any proof!". If you are reduced to saying "No proof has been shown yet!", as opposed to actually making an argument, putting your reputation on the line, then you have already lost. Or in otherwords, in order for me to give ANY weight to the "There are 2 sides to any story", then Uber needs to come out and claim that there are 2 side. Silence doesn't count. Silence in this case is admitting that they are in the wrong.
- lamontcg 10y ago
  Also there's an overall pattern of behavior, its not just women in the company being harassed, its also the treatment of the drivers, all the things Lyft is suing them over doing, and even their sketchy "rides of glory" post show that their corporate culture just doesn't understand how to not be a complete asshole.

by arkona 10y ago

lostlogin 10y ago

The reason I believe her is the track record. Uber is so sleazy it's hard to imagine a worse company imho.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Because Kalanick is awkward and unlikeable. Just look at how he behaves in that video in the back of an Uber - rather than empathizing with his driver and saying nothing substantial, he actually discusses the business reasons for creating UberX. He treated his driver a a rational human being like himself rather than an emotional being to be placated. See also this blog post by Jeff Atwood, where he advocates for pointless theatrics and emotional manipulation. It's quite insightful, and Kalanick's refusal to do such things is probably hurting him: https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-until-morale-improves/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-hugging-will-continue-unti...

hsod 10y ago
Well put. I've noticed a phenomenon where people seem to substitute PR/optics for their own morality. That is, people will criticize a public person not for what they've done or said, but for how it looks or how it is likely to be perceived by others.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I have a Hansonian theory that we actually want powerful and visible people to engage in PR for us in spite of knowing it's BS. The reason is that this suggests to us that they care what we think, at least enough to signal tribal loyalty to us, to tell us that they need us. One of the greatest fears of the modern world is that the higher quality people might one day exit. We demonize companies for outsourcing, rich people for living in gated communities and sending children to private schools, tech bros for using Uber/google bus/etc rather than riding the broken SF public transit. A person like Kalanick (or Thiel, to name a similarly disliked figure) who refuses to engage in this kind of PR is scary; it's a reminder that they don't need us.

lhc- 10y ago

Uber has a history of sketchy behavior, such as investigating journalists who have written less than complimentary stories. Uber has basically done the Exact thing Fowler is explaining before. To me, that provides a pretty convincing argument that they are more than capable, and more than willing to do it again.

crispyambulance 10y ago

Uber has a history of atrocious behavior. If you want to talk about "smearing" ask Sarah Lacy about Uber circa 2014. As for "the burden of proving" what, exactly, do you expect? Screenshots of the harassment? The "hard proof" is for a court, if it comes to that, and not you, the general public.

arkona 10y ago
Uber's opponents also have a history of atrocious behavior. I could cite numerous assaults against Uber drivers by taxi drivers, unfair lobbying of politicians, slander and hit pieces by so-called journalists etc. Whether we are in a court of law or not, the burden of proof must remain on the accuser. So far, Susan Fowler has provided no proof. There is no tape, no email, no corroboration by other witnesses. Are we just supposed to take her word for it and sharpen our pitchforks?
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  "Pitchforks" is a bit melodramatic. But basically, nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda. Her blog post was straightforward and referred to events, people and communications which, I expect, can be referenced by the UBER HR department and I hope that she has retained the evidence if she needs it to protect herself. That seems perfectly reasonable.
  - arkona 10y ago
    Yes, let's hope she has retained the evidence and she shows some of it. > nothing which Fowler has said seems suspicious or in any way promoting a malicious agenda. It is suspicious that considering the number of people involved in this alleged systematic abuse, no one has stepped forward to corroborate her claims. The leather jackets story also strikes me as very far-fetched and a little incredible to believe (a company like Uber wouldn't care about the cost of 6 extra jackets and wouldn't take the PR risk of pulling shit like that). > "Pitchforks" is a bit melodramatic. Hashtag #DeleteUber is exactly what the proverbial pitchforks look like in 2017.

asldkfjasfd7 10y ago

In her blog post she claims she took and shared many screenshots, among other items, with Uber management of messaging she received. There is proof. Will it come out in public forums? Why would it? The odds of a lawsuit from one side or the other seems high, at least right now. Why air that all publicly? Doing so can and has undermined cases for both sides in the past. Besides that, does our justice system now use Twitter to try and convict? Are trials by public opinion what matter now? When did that change? What exactly is stopping Uber from defending themselves? They have a lot of money, top-notch PR folks, and I suspect top-notch legal representation. If they could easily disprove this, would they not have done so already?

stale2002 10y ago

This is not a court of law. We as individuals can take a look at all of the evidence available about the illegal things that Uber does, and decide for ourselves if the allegations are credible. This is not about 1 story by one woman who was harassed. This is a story about a dozen women who are already coming forward, and a toxic culture that anyone at Uber can confirm exists. If Uber wants people to give them the benefit of the doubt, then maybe they should stop doing so many terrible things. Similarly, if I had 10 separate female friends that I trust tell me about how this one guy had harassed them in different situations, I wouldn't bother going to each of them and demand that they give me video evidence. I would just stop talking to the guy, and warn my other friends about him. Doubly so if the guy just responded by saying, "I will not confirm or deny any allegations, but I would like to point out that nobody has any proof!". If you are reduced to saying "No proof has been shown yet!", as opposed to actually making an argument, putting your reputation on the line, then you have already lost. Or in otherwords, in order for me to give ANY weight to the "There are 2 sides to any story", then Uber needs to come out and claim that there are 2 side. Silence doesn't count. Silence in this case is admitting that they are in the wrong.

lamontcg 10y ago
Also there's an overall pattern of behavior, its not just women in the company being harassed, its also the treatment of the drivers, all the things Lyft is suing them over doing, and even their sketchy "rides of glory" post show that their corporate culture just doesn't understand how to not be a complete asshole.