3 ms·
Didn't they originally deny that there was any sort of wrongdoing? If so then why should we believe them now? What I mean is 1. "There was no problem, nobody s
by smcl 9y ago
Didn't they originally deny that there was any sort of wrongdoing? If so then why should we believe them now? What I mean is
1. "There was no problem, nobody stole anything"
2. "OK fine we knew he stole, but he said he deleted it and we believe him"
Doesn't the flat out lie in #1 completely destroy any sort of admission in statement #2 that conveniently suggests they're off the hook?
- ehsankia 9y agoWell there's a slight difference, it seems like now that Kalanick has left, they want to use him as a scapegoat, and the narrative here is that Uber as a whole didn't know until now. So theoretically, 1 & 2 could both be true, albeit 2 would be more like "Kalanick knew but didn't tell us".
- smcl 9y agoTrue, but if so that's still extremely convenient. Edit: Pardon my cynicism - I'm just a bit suspicious with things like this :-)