8 ms·
I'm taking the cynical view. > intentionally sabotaging competitors? This only underscores that Uber is a fairly large company. The only difference with every
by bostik 9y ago
I'm taking the cynical view.
> intentionally sabotaging competitors?
This only underscores that Uber is a fairly large company. The only difference with every other large company is that not only did Uber get caught, they also sported a festering PR problem which worked as an amplifier.
- burkaman 9y agoI think that's irrelevant to the point being made. If every large company has a pattern of harmful behavior comparable to Uber's, then every large company has a toxic culture. Or if you prefer, every large company is a product of and contributor to a larger toxic culture. I agree that unusually bad PR has amplified the consequences, but again that's irrelevant to examining the culture of the company.
- bostik 9y agoHa, I didn't think it could be read that way. What I tried to point out is that actively sabotaging competitors has nothing to do with company culture, toxic or not. It's simply an aspect of a company being reasonably large (iow. they have resources to effectively use underhanded tactics). I have no doubt that Uber's culture is toxic. (And I do admit to some glee observing them get raked over coals.) But engaging in sabotage is, for me, a null signal in that regard. The capacity for that is simply a result of being large enough.