4 ms·

You have zero basis for that statement. In fact, the main writer says that it wasn’t a cover up or extortion as well. https://mobile.twitter.com/nicoleperlroth

You have zero basis for that statement. In fact, the main writer says that it wasn’t a cover up or extortion as well. https://mobile.twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/951961480601063424 https://mobile.twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/95196148060...

mannykannot 9y ago
I should not have presented my skepticism as a certainty, but it is based on a couple of things. Firstly, there is the length of time it took for this version of the story to come out: this you would expect from an organisation that is threading a story to be consistent with all the information about the event that has leaked (including an explanation for the delay in promulgating that story itself), without making statements that might be contradicted by further disclosures. Conversely, an entity that is just trying to get the facts straight would be best served by being forthright. Secondly, the journalists seem to be too ready to accept what they have been told, such as "Mr. Fletcher drew further details about the hacker out through emails, including ... proof that he deleted his copy of Uber’s downloaded data by looking at a virtual copy of his system provided by his host" - that cannot prove anything of consequence. Therefore, I am skeptical that the reporters have seen all the relevant communications. I accept that this may be too conspiracy-theoretical.
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  The two writers, especially Mike Isaac, are pretty openly anti-Uber. To say they are the core of some conspiracy to make Uber look better is an ignorant statement about who the writers are. They said they interviewed dozens of people in getting this story, reporters (especially NY Times writers) don't rely on single sources when they report things. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    Nowhere did I suggest the reporters were the core of any conspiracy. That you should so claim raises the distinct possibility that your analysis of the issue is just as flawed. If you had read my previous post with more care, you would have noticed that I am tending towards agreeing with you, though with reservations.

mannykannot 9y ago

I should not have presented my skepticism as a certainty, but it is based on a couple of things. Firstly, there is the length of time it took for this version of the story to come out: this you would expect from an organisation that is threading a story to be consistent with all the information about the event that has leaked (including an explanation for the delay in promulgating that story itself), without making statements that might be contradicted by further disclosures. Conversely, an entity that is just trying to get the facts straight would be best served by being forthright. Secondly, the journalists seem to be too ready to accept what they have been told, such as "Mr. Fletcher drew further details about the hacker out through emails, including ... proof that he deleted his copy of Uber’s downloaded data by looking at a virtual copy of his system provided by his host" - that cannot prove anything of consequence. Therefore, I am skeptical that the reporters have seen all the relevant communications. I accept that this may be too conspiracy-theoretical.

pfarnsworth 9y ago
The two writers, especially Mike Isaac, are pretty openly anti-Uber. To say they are the core of some conspiracy to make Uber look better is an ignorant statement about who the writers are. They said they interviewed dozens of people in getting this story, reporters (especially NY Times writers) don't rely on single sources when they report things. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Nowhere did I suggest the reporters were the core of any conspiracy. That you should so claim raises the distinct possibility that your analysis of the issue is just as flawed. If you had read my previous post with more care, you would have noticed that I am tending towards agreeing with you, though with reservations.