5 ms·
If I say: "I wish that guy/girl would get exposed" - that's a pretty non-specific statement. You can laugh that one off and it can be spun all kinds of ways. I
by drivingmenuts 12y ago
If I say: "I wish that guy/girl would get exposed" - that's a pretty non-specific statement. You can laugh that one off and it can be spun all kinds of ways.
If I say: "I should dig up dirt on that person" - that's much more specific, but not always. It's harder to ignore and it's far more difficult to put a just-kidding spin on it.
If I say: "I should spend a million dollars and hire four researchers to dig up opposition research on this person to expose their private life" - that's pretty damn specific. You can't unsay that. There's no way to spin that that it doesn't sound like a threat, especially if it's known, or at least believed, that you have the resources and connections to pull that off.
Michael may be a guy who was just spouting off in frustration without thinking first, which is fine - it happens from time to time. But he's also in the top tier of a very valuable company and he's paid to pay attention and be on his toes.
And he wasn't.
He then tried to laugh it off by saying "he doesn't think that way". Well, it came from somewhere in his brain. There weren't any flying monkeys dropping notions from the sky; no random inspiron from a long-dead galaxy just collided with a neuron and LOL I SEZ STUPID STUFF.
He screwed up badly. He needs to be held to account for that and harshly, because that idea is out there now. It might not be acceptable now, but sooner or later, given enough repetition, it will become acceptable.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- cjensen 12y agoThe context was a CEO in front of multiple reporters. A CEO's words always matter; when spouted in front of reporters, there are no do-overs.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- downandout 12y agoWrong. The CEO didn't say this. If you're going to skewer a whole company over something stupid like this, at least get your facts straight.
- scarmig 12y agoOn the plus side, even Kalanick has agreed that the spying and stalking suggestion is terrible and reprehensible, although there's no suggestion that a firing is imminent.
- downandout 12y agoAlso on the plus side, it was an off-the-cuff remark that only people who like getting upset over nonsense got upset about. If firing were imminent, it would be an insult to all reasonable human beings who know that sometimes you vent at parties. If you want to dislike Uber, dislike them over their anti-competitive practices, not over this.
- drivingmenuts 12y ago> it was an off-the-cuff remark There's no such thing without some form of prior agreement that it's off the record. If you're hanging out with family, it's probably off-the-record, even if they're reporters. If you're hanging out with friends, it's likely but not guaranteed off-the-record, even if they're reporters. If you're in front of reporters that don't have specified ground-rules, it's on the record. It has been established time and again that if it's not specified off the record, then it's on the record. Michael called the subject reporter and asked for an off-the-record conversation, which she refused to grant, and he hung up. Clearly he knows the difference. He wrote an apologetic email later, knowing full well we're now in a time where an ostensibly private email can be made public by the recipient and did not ask for any special status. It's not like he doesn't know the difference between on-the-record and off-the-record. So, why does he get a pass on an unbelievably stupid statement?
- meepmorp 12y ago> Why should this guy get a pass? What's the guideline? Many HNers like Uber and identify with its leaders because it's a successful startup. Therefore, they want to give him a pass.
- 12y ago