3 ms·

I didn't know about this, and while it's sad, it doesn't excuse his past actions and in the context of this post it doesn't matter. If the post was about his mo

by yladiz 9y ago

I didn't know about this, and while it's sad, it doesn't excuse his past actions and in the context of this post it doesn't matter. If the post was about his mother passing, and someone mentioned how much of a jerk he is, that's in much worse taste. Saying it in a comment thread on a post about Uber's loss is not in bad taste.

lhorie 9y ago
> Saying it in a comment thread on a post about Uber's loss is not in bad taste. I dunno. The comment doesn't seem very relevant, being basically one random guy's opinion of what he read on the 'tubes about another guy he probably never met, and extrapolating that to be some sort of argument about the profitability of a company. To me, it just kinda feels like thinly disguised bandwagoning to get internet points. I recall people making similarly tone deaf comments about Steve Jobs around the time he took time off due to cancer, or Bill Gates in his early philanthropic days. Perhaps this particular case bothers me more than the average person because I've been through the same loss, but I guess as long as one get internet points, poor taste is forgiven?
- yladiz 9y ago
  I wouldn't assume that everyone knows about the death of his mother. I didn't until you posted the article. In this case, the comment was relevant to its parent because the parent was adding an anecdote about the number of people they know who had ridden Uber versus Lyft, and the comment was adding its own anecdote about their workplace/coworkers switching to Lyft. Like I said, I think it depends on context. In this case, I wouldn't say it's tone deaf to mention the CEO of Uber being one of the main reasons you don't use Uber anymore, unless the article is directly talking about something bad happening to him. For example, if the article about his mom's death got to the front page, and people made comments about how bad of a CEO he is or he's the main reason they don't use Uber, that's not ok.
  - lhorie 9y ago
    Fair point. I agree
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  I'm completely ignorant of all of this but if the CEOs behaviour is part of his reason for changing loyalties as a customer then it seems highly relevant to me. Even if the CEO is a perfect saint, stating their reasoning is valid IMO. If people stop using a company because of the behaviour of a CEO, be the real or merely perceived, that must impact profit and is likely to increasingly do so, no?
  - lhorie 9y ago
    Well, the parent commenter is entitled to monetarily support or not support whatever company he wants for whatever reason he wants. At least from my own perception, the character of the CEO usually doesn't come up as relevant for the people using the platform. On the rider side, it's usually been a matter of how convenient/frustrating their experience with any given platform is, and on the driver side, there's generally no concept of loyalty whatsoever; they just try to be on as many platforms as possible to maximize income.

by yladiz 9y ago

lhorie 9y ago

> Saying it in a comment thread on a post about Uber's loss is not in bad taste. I dunno. The comment doesn't seem very relevant, being basically one random guy's opinion of what he read on the 'tubes about another guy he probably never met, and extrapolating that to be some sort of argument about the profitability of a company. To me, it just kinda feels like thinly disguised bandwagoning to get internet points. I recall people making similarly tone deaf comments about Steve Jobs around the time he took time off due to cancer, or Bill Gates in his early philanthropic days. Perhaps this particular case bothers me more than the average person because I've been through the same loss, but I guess as long as one get internet points, poor taste is forgiven?

yladiz 9y ago
I wouldn't assume that everyone knows about the death of his mother. I didn't until you posted the article. In this case, the comment was relevant to its parent because the parent was adding an anecdote about the number of people they know who had ridden Uber versus Lyft, and the comment was adding its own anecdote about their workplace/coworkers switching to Lyft. Like I said, I think it depends on context. In this case, I wouldn't say it's tone deaf to mention the CEO of Uber being one of the main reasons you don't use Uber anymore, unless the article is directly talking about something bad happening to him. For example, if the article about his mom's death got to the front page, and people made comments about how bad of a CEO he is or he's the main reason they don't use Uber, that's not ok.
- lhorie 9y ago
  Fair point. I agree
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
I'm completely ignorant of all of this but if the CEOs behaviour is part of his reason for changing loyalties as a customer then it seems highly relevant to me. Even if the CEO is a perfect saint, stating their reasoning is valid IMO. If people stop using a company because of the behaviour of a CEO, be the real or merely perceived, that must impact profit and is likely to increasingly do so, no?
- lhorie 9y ago
  Well, the parent commenter is entitled to monetarily support or not support whatever company he wants for whatever reason he wants. At least from my own perception, the character of the CEO usually doesn't come up as relevant for the people using the platform. On the rider side, it's usually been a matter of how convenient/frustrating their experience with any given platform is, and on the driver side, there's generally no concept of loyalty whatsoever; they just try to be on as many platforms as possible to maximize income.