4 ms·

It seems like the "well, all startups do bad things, Uber is just in the spotlight" crowd has dried up a bit...

make3 9y ago
they've done so much gratuitously evil stuff, the good faith is gone
notheguyouthink 9y ago
It's always sort of nuts to me how often that excuse comes out for nearly everything. Politics especially. We find out one government official is doing something bad and the response for those on that side of the party line is "everyone does it, don't single this person out!" Perhaps I'm just being overly purist, but I always want to hang them (not literally) AND try to solve the problem. In this case, if it's true than we clearly need more oversight on startups/companies, and we also need to prosecute Uber.
- adjkant 9y ago
  This has become a buzzword after its use by John Oliver, but it really is another example of Whataboutism.
  - Larrikin 9y ago
    Whataboutism as a term has been in near constant use on here since Russia was first identified as the the source of meddling in the election last year.
- pm90 9y ago
  No its not being a purist at all. Legally, the law doesn't recognize any whataboutism whatsoever (unless its in the specific sense of legal precedents). So you can't argue your innocence in a bank robbery just because another gang also robbed a bank but did not get convicted. The law is pretty clear; its just that most people are not prosecuted for it.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    It shouldn't immunize the guilty party, but it is useful to point out inconsistencies in applications of the law. Whataboutism is terribly useful for identifying the injustice of consistently punishing one party/race/gender/etc group while others get away with slapped wrists. We can argue about whether or not this is true, but decrying whataboutism misses the point.
  - moomin 9y ago
    There's selective prosecution, but I take your point.
    - vkou 9y ago
      Unfortunately, when law is enforced sufficiently selectively, you do not have rule of law, nor do you live in a nation of laws. Saying that the law does not recognize whataboutism is a red herring (Unless we are talking about the outcome of a specific legal case). In short, whataboutism is a legitimate argument for why someone should not be prosecuted (Because the law has nothing to do with that decision.)
  - Someone 9y ago
    Sometimes you can. If the government knows banks are being robbed, has the opportunity to catch thousands of robbers, but only catches, say, female bank robbers, those robbers have a valid point in court, and may get free. Justice must be impartial. For a variation on this involving the selling of drugs, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/netherlands-coffee-shops-cannabis-terneuzen-checkpoint-cafe https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/netherlands-co....
- fixermark 9y ago
  The issue is economy of scale. Prosecuting a company for wrongdoing is an expensive undertaking, and startups ultimately may not have the capital to justify a prosecution---if the prosecutor wins, what then? The startup pays out its no-money, probably no-one goes to jail, and the founders just go found another company? There doesn't appear to be much of a back-stop on bad behavior. (It's an exercise for the reader to determine whether "startup agility" and "disruption" are just polite synonyms for "taking advantage of the framework's weaknesses to dodge the legal and ethical responsibilities that big companies cannot afford to dodge" ;) ).
- rxhernandez 9y ago
  It's not that nuts when you consider how high the stakes are for some people. In the U.S. one high stakes dichotomy can be summed as such: killing people by taking away affordable healthcare vs. killing people before they've had a chance at life. Killing people is such an important issue to many people that any other issues they have are minuscule in comparison, especially when it's likely that both sides have their dirt. Disclaimer: I in no one way support the U.S. political system and would definitely support a system with more transparency so that, the people with significant unremedied skeletons in their closet, have no chance of making it to consideration for office.
fixermark 9y ago
That having been said, it's good money to wager that all startups do bad things. Uber can be both in the spotlight and worse than most.
- dvdhnt 9y ago
  No, that’s not true at all. I consider myself to be an ethical and reasonable human being and have never observed a startup I’ve been a part of - in positions where I am aware of operations, finances, privacy, etc - do anything “bad” like what HN keeps apologizing for. Maybe that’s a SV or big city thing, but here some of us have ethics.
  - fixermark 9y ago
    I should probably walk that back to "wager most startups do bad things," i.e. "Not everyone is just continuously breaking the law, but if you have to place money that a randomly-chosen startup broke some law, bet on 'yes.'" In particular, I'd put the odds that 100% of software most startups use to generate product is correctly and completely licensed at "low." License compliance is expensive, and it's an easy responsibility to dodge if you can trust the aggrieved parties won't sue because your company's entire valuation isn't worth the price of their lawyers' time.
    - dvdhnt 9y ago
      Fair enough, that's a much better way to convey your point, and it's one I agree with. If we consider each domain, from hiring to operations, finance to development, I'll take your 100% odds - there are just too many areas of concern for a handful of people to get exactly right. We could also get into a social discussion, but I won't, and instead will just say I suppose technically that makes what the startup is doing criminal. However, I personally, which is irrelevant since I'm not running the whole system, find the types of things Uber has done to be magnitudes more criminal than incorrect usage of a software license. That said, I concede that it is indeed illegal, and therefore, your estimate probably isn't too far off from the truth. :)
hinkley 9y ago
“I knew it. I’m surrounded by Assholes.”

they've done so much gratuitously evil stuff, the good faith is gone

It's always sort of nuts to me how often that excuse comes out for nearly everything. Politics especially. We find out one government official is doing something bad and the response for those on that side of the party line is "everyone does it, don't single this person out!" Perhaps I'm just being overly purist, but I always want to hang them (not literally) AND try to solve the problem. In this case, if it's true than we clearly need more oversight on startups/companies, and we also need to prosecute Uber.

adjkant 9y ago
This has become a buzzword after its use by John Oliver, but it really is another example of Whataboutism.
- Larrikin 9y ago
  Whataboutism as a term has been in near constant use on here since Russia was first identified as the the source of meddling in the election last year.
pm90 9y ago
No its not being a purist at all. Legally, the law doesn't recognize any whataboutism whatsoever (unless its in the specific sense of legal precedents). So you can't argue your innocence in a bank robbery just because another gang also robbed a bank but did not get convicted. The law is pretty clear; its just that most people are not prosecuted for it.
- weberc2 9y ago
  It shouldn't immunize the guilty party, but it is useful to point out inconsistencies in applications of the law. Whataboutism is terribly useful for identifying the injustice of consistently punishing one party/race/gender/etc group while others get away with slapped wrists. We can argue about whether or not this is true, but decrying whataboutism misses the point.
- moomin 9y ago
  There's selective prosecution, but I take your point.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Unfortunately, when law is enforced sufficiently selectively, you do not have rule of law, nor do you live in a nation of laws. Saying that the law does not recognize whataboutism is a red herring (Unless we are talking about the outcome of a specific legal case). In short, whataboutism is a legitimate argument for why someone should not be prosecuted (Because the law has nothing to do with that decision.)
- Someone 9y ago
  Sometimes you can. If the government knows banks are being robbed, has the opportunity to catch thousands of robbers, but only catches, say, female bank robbers, those robbers have a valid point in court, and may get free. Justice must be impartial. For a variation on this involving the selling of drugs, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/netherlands-coffee-shops-cannabis-terneuzen-checkpoint-cafe https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/netherlands-co....
fixermark 9y ago
The issue is economy of scale. Prosecuting a company for wrongdoing is an expensive undertaking, and startups ultimately may not have the capital to justify a prosecution---if the prosecutor wins, what then? The startup pays out its no-money, probably no-one goes to jail, and the founders just go found another company? There doesn't appear to be much of a back-stop on bad behavior. (It's an exercise for the reader to determine whether "startup agility" and "disruption" are just polite synonyms for "taking advantage of the framework's weaknesses to dodge the legal and ethical responsibilities that big companies cannot afford to dodge" ;) ).
rxhernandez 9y ago
It's not that nuts when you consider how high the stakes are for some people. In the U.S. one high stakes dichotomy can be summed as such: killing people by taking away affordable healthcare vs. killing people before they've had a chance at life. Killing people is such an important issue to many people that any other issues they have are minuscule in comparison, especially when it's likely that both sides have their dirt. Disclaimer: I in no one way support the U.S. political system and would definitely support a system with more transparency so that, the people with significant unremedied skeletons in their closet, have no chance of making it to consideration for office.

fixermark 9y ago

That having been said, it's good money to wager that all startups do bad things. Uber can be both in the spotlight and worse than most.

dvdhnt 9y ago
No, that’s not true at all. I consider myself to be an ethical and reasonable human being and have never observed a startup I’ve been a part of - in positions where I am aware of operations, finances, privacy, etc - do anything “bad” like what HN keeps apologizing for. Maybe that’s a SV or big city thing, but here some of us have ethics.
- fixermark 9y ago
  I should probably walk that back to "wager most startups do bad things," i.e. "Not everyone is just continuously breaking the law, but if you have to place money that a randomly-chosen startup broke some law, bet on 'yes.'" In particular, I'd put the odds that 100% of software most startups use to generate product is correctly and completely licensed at "low." License compliance is expensive, and it's an easy responsibility to dodge if you can trust the aggrieved parties won't sue because your company's entire valuation isn't worth the price of their lawyers' time.
  - dvdhnt 9y ago
    Fair enough, that's a much better way to convey your point, and it's one I agree with. If we consider each domain, from hiring to operations, finance to development, I'll take your 100% odds - there are just too many areas of concern for a handful of people to get exactly right. We could also get into a social discussion, but I won't, and instead will just say I suppose technically that makes what the startup is doing criminal. However, I personally, which is irrelevant since I'm not running the whole system, find the types of things Uber has done to be magnitudes more criminal than incorrect usage of a software license. That said, I concede that it is indeed illegal, and therefore, your estimate probably isn't too far off from the truth. :)

hinkley 9y ago

“I knew it. I’m surrounded by Assholes.”