8 ms·

Peter Thiel: Uber is most ethically challenged company in Silicon Valley [video]

135 points by gordon_freeman 12y ago

ddeger 12y ago
Uber has lots of bad PR, but it doesn't stop the company from growing. It's expected to go public at a valuation of 50-100 billion in a few years... I think that says it all.
- wwweston 12y ago
  A high valuation/IPO "says it all" in answer to concerns about the company's ethics?
  - ddeger 12y ago
    I think ethics is a secondary issue that can be dealt with, at least in Uber's case.
    - mikeg8 12y ago
      > "... ethics is a secondary issue ..." scary
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    Welcome to capitalism.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- rhizome 12y ago
  It wouldn't be the first company to be rewarded in spite of bad behavior, that's for sure, and I'm sure the fraternity network doesn't hurt.
dynofuz 12y ago
i stopped using uber and started using lyft for these reasons.
mattee 12y ago
Peter Thiel is correct. But, it should be noted, that as an investor in Lyft, Thiel has a big interest in scolding Uber publicly.
- softdev12 12y ago
  I agree.
- jbhatab 12y ago
  Yeah the second he said that he was invested in Uber's biggest competitor, I couldn't take him seriously. Uber has gone over the line sometimes, but he's obviously going to make it sound worse than it is.
  - sk5t 12y ago
    Do you feel that Thiel needs the money more than his credibility?
    - hawkice 12y ago
      I mostly agree. For instance, I don't believe there exists a conflict of interest in challenging the ethics of a competitor. Choosing to support a competitor because a company behaves unethically makes a lot of sense to me. That all being said, I think you overestimate the probability someone will call him out on anything. When was the last time someone was ever called out for making a bad prediction, making a false but ultimately mild allegation, or raising concerns about a competitor? I've worked at places that would state publicly that their competitors steal from customers, and never heard that even questioned on a factual basis, forget someone doing some weird kabuki theater credibility sacrificing ritual.
- 001sky 12y ago
  That's according to PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who is also an investor in Uber competitor Lyft. (first sentence of the article)
- cwp 12y ago
famousactress 12y ago
The bummer is that the bullshit misogyny feels like it's been running pretty rampant for some time, though maybe it's only lately that we're seeing the sort of graduating class of this particular brand of ethically vapid growth-hacked shops seeing some success (Uber, Tinder, Genius...) I like making things, but the part of our industry that manages to sustain such an asshole-farm gets me wishing I'd chosen a different career path sometimes. Kudos to Thiel on this, though. I think the quickest way for the culture to change is for folks to stop funding it.
- etherael 12y ago
  How is misogyny relevant to what he said or what is being discussed here?
  - famousactress 12y ago
    Seriously?
    - etherael 12y ago
      Seriously. He definitely didn't say anything about it in the actual linked video or story, so I'm assuming you're referring to some other event that isn't covered here, and thus asking you what that actually is. Or on the off chance I just missed the flashing example of misogyny at the end of the linked article, curious for a clarification on what exactly that is.
      - famousactress 12y ago
        First, there was a "flashing example" in the middle of the article: "The company has been criticized for the treatment of its drivers, its combative tactics against competitors, and a sexist promo that offered free twenty-minute rides with attractive women." Also apologies.. It was definitely unfair of me to throw a "Seriously?" on this without context, but my commentary on this issue wasn't limited to what I read in this article. I've been following the story today. This guardian editorial covers and links to plenty of other impressions that line up well with my thinking: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/uber-woman-problem http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/uber-wo... I'm just short-tempered on being asked for evidence of sexism lately because it's fucking sad how readily available it tends to be.
softdev12 12y ago
I think Thiel is an investor in an Uber competitor. If so, I'm sure this would bias his opinion. If he were an Uber investor, I doubt he would be saying this. Which implies a weird sort of ethical dilemma - where money invested makes the person not say things about ethics. Just as I'm sure Microsoft investors in the 1990's didn't call out Microsoft for its monopolistic tendencies.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  You could just as easily look at it as an explanation of why he's invested in Lyft rather than Uber.
- frandroid 12y ago
  You should have watched the video before commenting.
ivraatiems 12y ago
Notice the language here. He doesn't seem, at least from my reading, to be chastising Uber for doing things that are morally wrong. He's instead chastising them for doing morally wrong things and not pulling it off. For example: "Sometimes the people who break the rules win and sometimes they push it too far," implying that Uber could be doing wrong things in some more correct way and continue to thrive, and that there isn't anything wrong with that. He doesn't say "broke rules," or "did bad things," he said "pushed the envelope." Look at the implication there - you can and maybe should do unethical things, break some rules, "push the envelope" with questionable behaviors as long as you get away with it.
- akiselev 12y ago
  In the context of the rest of the video and other stuff Thiel has said, I interpreted that statement to mean that rule breaking is not necessarily immoral but a company like Uber can get carried away and what is essentially a "culture" of rule breaking meant to undermine unjust regulations becomes one meant to undermine competition at any cost.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  I think close to 100% of successful entrepreneurs would agree with the statement "You can, and must break some rule, push the envelope, and engage in questionable behavior when building a company - the challenge is in always remembering where the line is, and never crossing it." Uber clearly crossed the line when their executives voiced out load their frustration with the media and then continued talking and imagined how nice it would be to give the media a taste of their own medicine and do all sorts of reporting on them personally. It's fine to have those little fantasies in your head - but that's as far as it can ever go. What's troubling is that the Uber exec honestly thought it was acceptable to give words to those thoughts... I'm wondering if alcohol was involved.
  - techdragon 12y ago
    The difference is in what is being broken. A rule can be some conventional wisdom that is wrong, where the rule breaker is innovating through the barrier of complacency or it can be an ethical or moral consensus, a social rule, they break that may or may not be right. And those are much more troublesome. The absolute vs relative ethics debate alone makes it a nightmare to begin with.
georgemcbay 12y ago
Objectivist World View + Wild Success + Survivorship Bias = Incredibly Dangerous Mix when it comes to ethical behavior, IMO. Having said that, Thiel's very Randian himself, so I'm not sure how much of this is his actual concern for Uber's drivers or journalistic critics versus just being a Lyft investor taking a jab at the competition.
jboy 12y ago
OK, so it's obviously a little transparent of Thiel to say that Uber [a competitor to Lyft, a company in which he has invested] is "on the cusp" of going too far, but Airbnb [another company in which he has invested] has "a different feel" and is OK. But it's also a little ironic that the champion of "Competition is for losers", who says that monopolies can be a good thing for society [0], is against Uber trying their best to achieve such a monopoly. [0] "Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better." -- http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-fo...
- prawn 12y ago
  Airbnb does have a different feel. As a user of the service, there are ways they could make it less frustrating (especially in big cities in peak times), but I never get the impression that they do anything but support their property owners and try to make them better at what they do. When I've had problems, they've solved them and given credit for replacement services. I haven't heard of Airbnb doing anything underhanded to beat their competition. They are winning by doing the right things, from what I can tell. And Uber could have achieved the same. Obviously the time is ripe for the service they're offering, but they're hustling (in the negative sense) more than working and that's why it feels different.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Except of course the whole let their users list properties they know are against the law thing. Which if they really wanted to ensure no listings that violated local ordinance were posted on the site they would go out of business.
    - prawn 12y ago
      Yes, that is the obvious parallel with Uber - I assumed that went without saying. I'm talking about how they work with their users and market themselves - there is a clear difference there between the two companies. Most people aren't swearing off Uber because they are breaking into a regulated industry but because they're being dicks about it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- mturmon 12y ago
  The problem is that what you have written is useless. Your claim is that in a capitalist world, Uber has to do anything "no matter how ethically questionable they are." But presumably there is some ethical line, even for you. For instance, outright fraud, overt criminal acts, smear campaigns against families of journalists -- some or all of these might be a problem for you or for even an ardent devotee of Ayn Rand. Which leads us right back to the original question.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  What most people fail to realise is that Uber is a for-profit company. Assuming that all disagreement is rooted in ignorance is often the prelude to a fallacious argument.
001sky 12y ago
Here's the problem for uber: (1) In many places they are breaking the law and/or want the law changed so they can expand without breaking it. (2) This means they need the moral high ground. They need to have people believe they are acting in good faith when operating outside or in the grey areas of existing legislation and policy. (3) Winning at all costs mentality means operating in ethical grey areas. (4) You can exloit grey areas but you cannot at the same time occupy moral high ground. Without a coherent strategy "winning at all costs" (to hell with being ethical) will almost surely lose the war, even if it wins a few battles. That means, their future as a brand and as a company could be greatly impacted if they continue to have public PR meltdowns that involve dis-proportionate and underhanded approaches to solving their problems. Things are always going to be messy in their line of work, but they need people's trust and political support outside of pure-business. The specifics can always be debated (and the nuances sometimes are critical), but they need to demonstrate proportionatly and good faith are core values to their firm.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  This is exactly correct. As Bob Dylan so succinctly noted, "To live outside the law you must be honest."
- thrush 12y ago
  I think you've misinterpreted what Thiel meant about Uber's ethical problem. It seems like Thiel was actually talking about the competition between Uber and Lyft rather than Taxis. The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber. Some airports legally allow Uber to stop by. Uber is incredibly better than the previous Taxi service for both the employee (read about Healthcare), and for the consumer (this is obvious). Congress people use Uber all the time. Ordering and canceling rides is just one example how Uber might be overly aggressive (read more http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...).
  - 001sky 12y ago
    The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber <Uber VP: we could spend $1M to take revenge on journalists> That was yesterday, right?
chrismealy 12y ago
When a guy who doesn't like women's suffrage says you've gone too far, that's saying something. http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-couldnt-vote http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  I didn't down vote you (I was too busy reading your link).. but he wrote a reply to this reaction to his original article.. saying what he said was: ... a commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap. It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage-isnt-danger-other-rights-are http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage-...
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  Oh come on, that's completely unfair. He's not sexist, he just doesn't like suffrage for anybody: "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."
trhway 12y ago
between Palantir and Uber? Tough choice, until of course invested in one and missed on the other (plus being invested in the other's competitor).
- tomrod 12y ago
  It's funny you bring up Palantir. I learned a bit about it today and still don't quite see what it adds to things.
  - moab 12y ago
    OP is hinting at the fact that Palantir supposedly does some fairly unscrupulous work for governments. Whether this is true or not isn't exactly 'known', but it's been widely hinted and spread around the valley. Take it with a grain of salt though, some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now, so if they're doing anything dirty they're hiding it from the engineers pretty well.
    - trhway 12y ago
      >Whether this is true or not isn't exactly 'known' There are historic facts for that. Just google "palantir hbgary" and enjoy. >some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now ethical people have been through history participating in evil things, especially in engineering roles. It is peculiar ability of human brain to not notice the dirty smell when it would be very inconvenient (to say the least) to notice it.
      - moab 12y ago
        Yeah, I know about hbgary. They definitely have a tainted public perception - I just question the extent to which people seem to vilify them. Regarding ethics - absolutely. It's also harder to notice when you're being paid quite a bit. It's a pity our profession doesn't have some explicit oaths along the lines of the Hippocratic oath. While it wouldn't stop anyone out to willfully do evil, it might at least make our the average programmer a little more thoughtful regarding values and morals and how they apply to their livelihood.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > Meanwhile, Facebook is pretty much the most evil and dangerous company in the Valley Oh, come on. You're just being a sore loser. > Look, nobody owes anyone a paycheck for their business model -- you gotta show up to work and earn it, just like everyone else. Taxi companies may not exist in 50 years, and the people involved just have to adapt to figure out what to do next. As for the people driving for Uber -- again, look, it's their prerogative to enter into financial situations that are not sustainable long-term; nobody is forcing anyone to ride for these guys. Labor regulations exist for a reason; so some asshole from Silicon Valley doesn't turn a non-insignificant part of the population into Slaves-As-A-Service. Just because Uber is lying to people about possible wages doesn't make it right [1] [2] [3]. > I believe in morals and ethics. I believe in what is right. There is NOTHING immoral about Uber. Maybe they are aggressive and crazy, but maybe you haven't seen how every single multi-billion-dollar business looks like from the inside. If anything, I find it refreshing to see Uber be so transparent in their sentiments; the sort of completely unethical and fucking evil shit rubber-stamped by Peter Thiel during the evolution of Facebook should be far more concerning. "I don't believe in evil.....but everyone else is doing it!" I'm not here to hero worship Thiel; honestly, I couldn't care less about VCs in the Valley. Uber is an amalgamation of everything that's wrong with the startup scene (Frat house culture, "win at all costs", disrupt no matter what the law is); the faster they burn through their VC money and sputter out, the better. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making-less-than-minimum-wage-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-makin... [2] http://ktla.com/2014/09/09/uber-drivers-protest-unfair-wages-harsh-rating-system/ http://ktla.com/2014/09/09/uber-drivers-protest-unfair-wages... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/10/uber_driver_salary_the_ride_sharing_company_says_its_drivers_make_great.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/10/uber...
damian2000 12y ago
Title should be "most unethical".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pbreit 12y ago
Is there any hope that Uber could see some serious erosion in its business from all these gaffes? Could Lyft succeed by merely being the anti-Uber? On one hand, it does seem like Uber's ultra-agression has been an important contributor to its success. But could it have pulled all this off without the dirtbag gene? I'll finally be giving Lyft a try but wish they had black cars & SUVs.
- uptown 12y ago
  Emailed them and requested they delete my account today, so there's at least some impact, albeit minor. Just deleting the app isn't enough. They still count you as a user.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  Lyft's management hasn't looked anywhere near as competent as Uber's. They have gotten as far as they have by ridding in Uber's wake. Unless Uber destroys itself I don't see them pulling ahead.
ilamont 12y ago
Does anyone else remember the "PayPal Mafia" article (http://fortune.com/2007/11/13/paypal-mafia/ http://fortune.com/2007/11/13/paypal-mafia/) that Fortune did some years ago? There was one description that really stuck with me -- how customer service complaints were handled under Thiel's watch: Customer-service complaints flooded the phone lines and in-boxes and were often dealt with by simply not answering the phone or doing a mass deletion. What sort of leader treats customers like that, or looks the other way when minions do it? There was also the ugly Facebook ownership shuffle when Thiel got involved as an early investor and a lawsuit over Thiel and his hedge fund management company (http://www.law360.com/articles/9340/paypal-cofounder-accused-of-ripping-off-investor http://www.law360.com/articles/9340/paypal-cofounder-accused...). For Thiel to lecture Silicon Valley about ethics is a bit rich.
- hawkice 12y ago
  I clearly don't vouch for Thiel -- but isn't this an ad hominem attack? If he has a substantial critique, how is it relevant that he, personally, is bringing it up?
- beartime 12y ago
  Ok, apparently he is an asshole. Is he wrong about uber though?
- confluence 12y ago
  I've always speculated that unethical managers will outperform ethical managers under non-life threatening conditions. For example, being unethical at say a chemical company will lead to the end of your company in that area after a catastrophe. Being unethical at a payment processor and the worse that can happen is someone doesn't get paid on time or at all. So in that situation dumping the customer complaints saved a bunch of resources at little cost, since the customers would be back, PayPal was pretty good compared to their competition, leading to them out executing eBay and getting acquired. I AM NOT saying that I agree with this. I'm just thinking about the why behind it.
just2n 12y ago
Nope. This website is officially a reddit sub called /r/UberSucks. I'm gone.
chx 12y ago
This is a company that pushed subprime loans on its drivers then substracts the debt from their income. That's called indentured servitude.
api 12y ago
Uber is also the most staggering fund raising machine I have ever seen. Make of that what you will.
frequentflyeru 12y ago
"The remarks attributed to me ... do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company's views or approach," Michael later said. "They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them."
- potatolicious 12y ago
  Uber also practiced ordering and canceling rides with a competitor (Gett) in order to recruit their drivers (and possibly to act as a denial of service attack). This was discovered and the company disavowed the practice as that of a rogue group of employees. ... And then later in the year was caught doing it again, except this time to Lyft. At this point their public statements on what their company's views or approaches are is entirely useless. Uber has proven multiple times that their statements aren't just typical PR spin, but tread directly into bald-faced lies.
frequentflyeru 12y ago
"The remarks attributed to me ... do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company's views or approach," Michael later said. "They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them."
SwellJoe 12y ago
Is Groupon not in Silicon Valley?
jedp 12y ago
For one optimistic moment there, I thought this was going to be about, you know, ethics. Like how Uber abuses its drivers, or how it demeans women, or how it threatens journalists. But no, "ethically challenged" means they don't break the rules successfully enough.
capkutay 12y ago
He's a great wordsmith. Disclosing upfront that he's an investor in lyft while also just saying uber is pushing 'a little too far'. He sounds totally transparent and rational right as he puts out the gouging statement 'extracting whatever they can from limo drivers'. That's enough to fuel a branding war between uber and all the other ride sharing services. Lyft can be a friendly service that empowers drivers while uber is slanted as a hegemonic power that sucks the life out of drivers and your wallet.
uberuberuber 12y ago
More unethical than manufacturers of nuclear weapons components, missiles and drones? Makes for a nice soundbite but I hope he doesn't actually believe this given Lockheed, Texas Instruments, General Dynamics, etc. are all a part of SV.

135 points by gordon_freeman 12y ago

Uber has lots of bad PR, but it doesn't stop the company from growing. It's expected to go public at a valuation of 50-100 billion in a few years... I think that says it all.

wwweston 12y ago
A high valuation/IPO "says it all" in answer to concerns about the company's ethics?
- ddeger 12y ago
  I think ethics is a secondary issue that can be dealt with, at least in Uber's case.
  - mikeg8 12y ago
    > "... ethics is a secondary issue ..." scary
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  Welcome to capitalism.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
rhizome 12y ago
It wouldn't be the first company to be rewarded in spite of bad behavior, that's for sure, and I'm sure the fraternity network doesn't hurt.

dynofuz 12y ago

i stopped using uber and started using lyft for these reasons.

mattee 12y ago

Peter Thiel is correct. But, it should be noted, that as an investor in Lyft, Thiel has a big interest in scolding Uber publicly.

softdev12 12y ago
I agree.
jbhatab 12y ago
Yeah the second he said that he was invested in Uber's biggest competitor, I couldn't take him seriously. Uber has gone over the line sometimes, but he's obviously going to make it sound worse than it is.
- sk5t 12y ago
  Do you feel that Thiel needs the money more than his credibility?
  - hawkice 12y ago
    I mostly agree. For instance, I don't believe there exists a conflict of interest in challenging the ethics of a competitor. Choosing to support a competitor because a company behaves unethically makes a lot of sense to me. That all being said, I think you overestimate the probability someone will call him out on anything. When was the last time someone was ever called out for making a bad prediction, making a false but ultimately mild allegation, or raising concerns about a competitor? I've worked at places that would state publicly that their competitors steal from customers, and never heard that even questioned on a factual basis, forget someone doing some weird kabuki theater credibility sacrificing ritual.
001sky 12y ago
That's according to PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who is also an investor in Uber competitor Lyft. (first sentence of the article)
cwp 12y ago

famousactress 12y ago

The bummer is that the bullshit misogyny feels like it's been running pretty rampant for some time, though maybe it's only lately that we're seeing the sort of graduating class of this particular brand of ethically vapid growth-hacked shops seeing some success (Uber, Tinder, Genius...) I like making things, but the part of our industry that manages to sustain such an asshole-farm gets me wishing I'd chosen a different career path sometimes. Kudos to Thiel on this, though. I think the quickest way for the culture to change is for folks to stop funding it.

etherael 12y ago
How is misogyny relevant to what he said or what is being discussed here?
- famousactress 12y ago
  Seriously?
  - etherael 12y ago
    Seriously. He definitely didn't say anything about it in the actual linked video or story, so I'm assuming you're referring to some other event that isn't covered here, and thus asking you what that actually is. Or on the off chance I just missed the flashing example of misogyny at the end of the linked article, curious for a clarification on what exactly that is.
    - famousactress 12y ago
      First, there was a "flashing example" in the middle of the article: "The company has been criticized for the treatment of its drivers, its combative tactics against competitors, and a sexist promo that offered free twenty-minute rides with attractive women." Also apologies.. It was definitely unfair of me to throw a "Seriously?" on this without context, but my commentary on this issue wasn't limited to what I read in this article. I've been following the story today. This guardian editorial covers and links to plenty of other impressions that line up well with my thinking: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/uber-woman-problem http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/uber-wo... I'm just short-tempered on being asked for evidence of sexism lately because it's fucking sad how readily available it tends to be.

softdev12 12y ago

I think Thiel is an investor in an Uber competitor. If so, I'm sure this would bias his opinion. If he were an Uber investor, I doubt he would be saying this. Which implies a weird sort of ethical dilemma - where money invested makes the person not say things about ethics. Just as I'm sure Microsoft investors in the 1990's didn't call out Microsoft for its monopolistic tendencies.

anigbrowl 12y ago
You could just as easily look at it as an explanation of why he's invested in Lyft rather than Uber.
frandroid 12y ago
You should have watched the video before commenting.

ivraatiems 12y ago

Notice the language here. He doesn't seem, at least from my reading, to be chastising Uber for doing things that are morally wrong. He's instead chastising them for doing morally wrong things and not pulling it off. For example: "Sometimes the people who break the rules win and sometimes they push it too far," implying that Uber could be doing wrong things in some more correct way and continue to thrive, and that there isn't anything wrong with that. He doesn't say "broke rules," or "did bad things," he said "pushed the envelope." Look at the implication there - you can and maybe should do unethical things, break some rules, "push the envelope" with questionable behaviors as long as you get away with it.

akiselev 12y ago
In the context of the rest of the video and other stuff Thiel has said, I interpreted that statement to mean that rule breaking is not necessarily immoral but a company like Uber can get carried away and what is essentially a "culture" of rule breaking meant to undermine unjust regulations becomes one meant to undermine competition at any cost.
ghshephard 12y ago
I think close to 100% of successful entrepreneurs would agree with the statement "You can, and must break some rule, push the envelope, and engage in questionable behavior when building a company - the challenge is in always remembering where the line is, and never crossing it." Uber clearly crossed the line when their executives voiced out load their frustration with the media and then continued talking and imagined how nice it would be to give the media a taste of their own medicine and do all sorts of reporting on them personally. It's fine to have those little fantasies in your head - but that's as far as it can ever go. What's troubling is that the Uber exec honestly thought it was acceptable to give words to those thoughts... I'm wondering if alcohol was involved.
- techdragon 12y ago
  The difference is in what is being broken. A rule can be some conventional wisdom that is wrong, where the rule breaker is innovating through the barrier of complacency or it can be an ethical or moral consensus, a social rule, they break that may or may not be right. And those are much more troublesome. The absolute vs relative ethics debate alone makes it a nightmare to begin with.

georgemcbay 12y ago

Objectivist World View + Wild Success + Survivorship Bias = Incredibly Dangerous Mix when it comes to ethical behavior, IMO. Having said that, Thiel's very Randian himself, so I'm not sure how much of this is his actual concern for Uber's drivers or journalistic critics versus just being a Lyft investor taking a jab at the competition.

jboy 12y ago

OK, so it's obviously a little transparent of Thiel to say that Uber [a competitor to Lyft, a company in which he has invested] is "on the cusp" of going too far, but Airbnb [another company in which he has invested] has "a different feel" and is OK. But it's also a little ironic that the champion of "Competition is for losers", who says that monopolies can be a good thing for society [0], is against Uber trying their best to achieve such a monopoly. [0] "Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better." -- http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-fo...

prawn 12y ago
Airbnb does have a different feel. As a user of the service, there are ways they could make it less frustrating (especially in big cities in peak times), but I never get the impression that they do anything but support their property owners and try to make them better at what they do. When I've had problems, they've solved them and given credit for replacement services. I haven't heard of Airbnb doing anything underhanded to beat their competition. They are winning by doing the right things, from what I can tell. And Uber could have achieved the same. Obviously the time is ripe for the service they're offering, but they're hustling (in the negative sense) more than working and that's why it feels different.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  Except of course the whole let their users list properties they know are against the law thing. Which if they really wanted to ensure no listings that violated local ordinance were posted on the site they would go out of business.
  - prawn 12y ago
    Yes, that is the obvious parallel with Uber - I assumed that went without saying. I'm talking about how they work with their users and market themselves - there is a clear difference there between the two companies. Most people aren't swearing off Uber because they are breaking into a regulated industry but because they're being dicks about it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mturmon 12y ago
The problem is that what you have written is useless. Your claim is that in a capitalist world, Uber has to do anything "no matter how ethically questionable they are." But presumably there is some ethical line, even for you. For instance, outright fraud, overt criminal acts, smear campaigns against families of journalists -- some or all of these might be a problem for you or for even an ardent devotee of Ayn Rand. Which leads us right back to the original question.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 12y ago
What most people fail to realise is that Uber is a for-profit company. Assuming that all disagreement is rooted in ignorance is often the prelude to a fallacious argument.

001sky 12y ago

Here's the problem for uber: (1) In many places they are breaking the law and/or want the law changed so they can expand without breaking it. (2) This means they need the moral high ground. They need to have people believe they are acting in good faith when operating outside or in the grey areas of existing legislation and policy. (3) Winning at all costs mentality means operating in ethical grey areas. (4) You can exloit grey areas but you cannot at the same time occupy moral high ground. Without a coherent strategy "winning at all costs" (to hell with being ethical) will almost surely lose the war, even if it wins a few battles. That means, their future as a brand and as a company could be greatly impacted if they continue to have public PR meltdowns that involve dis-proportionate and underhanded approaches to solving their problems. Things are always going to be messy in their line of work, but they need people's trust and political support outside of pure-business. The specifics can always be debated (and the nuances sometimes are critical), but they need to demonstrate proportionatly and good faith are core values to their firm.

alexqgb 12y ago
This is exactly correct. As Bob Dylan so succinctly noted, "To live outside the law you must be honest."
thrush 12y ago
I think you've misinterpreted what Thiel meant about Uber's ethical problem. It seems like Thiel was actually talking about the competition between Uber and Lyft rather than Taxis. The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber. Some airports legally allow Uber to stop by. Uber is incredibly better than the previous Taxi service for both the employee (read about Healthcare), and for the consumer (this is obvious). Congress people use Uber all the time. Ordering and canceling rides is just one example how Uber might be overly aggressive (read more http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...).
- 001sky 12y ago
  The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber <Uber VP: we could spend $1M to take revenge on journalists> That was yesterday, right?

chrismealy 12y ago

When a guy who doesn't like women's suffrage says you've gone too far, that's saying something. http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-couldnt-vote http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...

rgbrenner 12y ago
I didn't down vote you (I was too busy reading your link).. but he wrote a reply to this reaction to his original article.. saying what he said was: ... a commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap. It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage-isnt-danger-other-rights-are http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage-...
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Oh come on, that's completely unfair. He's not sexist, he just doesn't like suffrage for anybody: "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."

trhway 12y ago

between Palantir and Uber? Tough choice, until of course invested in one and missed on the other (plus being invested in the other's competitor).

tomrod 12y ago
It's funny you bring up Palantir. I learned a bit about it today and still don't quite see what it adds to things.
- moab 12y ago
  OP is hinting at the fact that Palantir supposedly does some fairly unscrupulous work for governments. Whether this is true or not isn't exactly 'known', but it's been widely hinted and spread around the valley. Take it with a grain of salt though, some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now, so if they're doing anything dirty they're hiding it from the engineers pretty well.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >Whether this is true or not isn't exactly 'known' There are historic facts for that. Just google "palantir hbgary" and enjoy. >some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now ethical people have been through history participating in evil things, especially in engineering roles. It is peculiar ability of human brain to not notice the dirty smell when it would be very inconvenient (to say the least) to notice it.
    - moab 12y ago
      Yeah, I know about hbgary. They definitely have a tainted public perception - I just question the extent to which people seem to vilify them. Regarding ethics - absolutely. It's also harder to notice when you're being paid quite a bit. It's a pity our profession doesn't have some explicit oaths along the lines of the Hippocratic oath. While it wouldn't stop anyone out to willfully do evil, it might at least make our the average programmer a little more thoughtful regarding values and morals and how they apply to their livelihood.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 12y ago
> Meanwhile, Facebook is pretty much the most evil and dangerous company in the Valley Oh, come on. You're just being a sore loser. > Look, nobody owes anyone a paycheck for their business model -- you gotta show up to work and earn it, just like everyone else. Taxi companies may not exist in 50 years, and the people involved just have to adapt to figure out what to do next. As for the people driving for Uber -- again, look, it's their prerogative to enter into financial situations that are not sustainable long-term; nobody is forcing anyone to ride for these guys. Labor regulations exist for a reason; so some asshole from Silicon Valley doesn't turn a non-insignificant part of the population into Slaves-As-A-Service. Just because Uber is lying to people about possible wages doesn't make it right [1] [2] [3]. > I believe in morals and ethics. I believe in what is right. There is NOTHING immoral about Uber. Maybe they are aggressive and crazy, but maybe you haven't seen how every single multi-billion-dollar business looks like from the inside. If anything, I find it refreshing to see Uber be so transparent in their sentiments; the sort of completely unethical and fucking evil shit rubber-stamped by Peter Thiel during the evolution of Facebook should be far more concerning. "I don't believe in evil.....but everyone else is doing it!" I'm not here to hero worship Thiel; honestly, I couldn't care less about VCs in the Valley. Uber is an amalgamation of everything that's wrong with the startup scene (Frat house culture, "win at all costs", disrupt no matter what the law is); the faster they burn through their VC money and sputter out, the better. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making-less-than-minimum-wage-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-makin... [2] http://ktla.com/2014/09/09/uber-drivers-protest-unfair-wages-harsh-rating-system/ http://ktla.com/2014/09/09/uber-drivers-protest-unfair-wages... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/10/uber_driver_salary_the_ride_sharing_company_says_its_drivers_make_great.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/10/uber...

damian2000 12y ago

Title should be "most unethical".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pbreit 12y ago

Is there any hope that Uber could see some serious erosion in its business from all these gaffes? Could Lyft succeed by merely being the anti-Uber? On one hand, it does seem like Uber's ultra-agression has been an important contributor to its success. But could it have pulled all this off without the dirtbag gene? I'll finally be giving Lyft a try but wish they had black cars & SUVs.

uptown 12y ago
Emailed them and requested they delete my account today, so there's at least some impact, albeit minor. Just deleting the app isn't enough. They still count you as a user.
onewaystreet 12y ago
Lyft's management hasn't looked anywhere near as competent as Uber's. They have gotten as far as they have by ridding in Uber's wake. Unless Uber destroys itself I don't see them pulling ahead.

ilamont 12y ago

Does anyone else remember the "PayPal Mafia" article (http://fortune.com/2007/11/13/paypal-mafia/ http://fortune.com/2007/11/13/paypal-mafia/) that Fortune did some years ago? There was one description that really stuck with me -- how customer service complaints were handled under Thiel's watch: Customer-service complaints flooded the phone lines and in-boxes and were often dealt with by simply not answering the phone or doing a mass deletion. What sort of leader treats customers like that, or looks the other way when minions do it? There was also the ugly Facebook ownership shuffle when Thiel got involved as an early investor and a lawsuit over Thiel and his hedge fund management company (http://www.law360.com/articles/9340/paypal-cofounder-accused-of-ripping-off-investor http://www.law360.com/articles/9340/paypal-cofounder-accused...). For Thiel to lecture Silicon Valley about ethics is a bit rich.

hawkice 12y ago
I clearly don't vouch for Thiel -- but isn't this an ad hominem attack? If he has a substantial critique, how is it relevant that he, personally, is bringing it up?
beartime 12y ago
Ok, apparently he is an asshole. Is he wrong about uber though?
confluence 12y ago
I've always speculated that unethical managers will outperform ethical managers under non-life threatening conditions. For example, being unethical at say a chemical company will lead to the end of your company in that area after a catastrophe. Being unethical at a payment processor and the worse that can happen is someone doesn't get paid on time or at all. So in that situation dumping the customer complaints saved a bunch of resources at little cost, since the customers would be back, PayPal was pretty good compared to their competition, leading to them out executing eBay and getting acquired. I AM NOT saying that I agree with this. I'm just thinking about the why behind it.

just2n 12y ago

Nope. This website is officially a reddit sub called /r/UberSucks. I'm gone.

chx 12y ago

This is a company that pushed subprime loans on its drivers then substracts the debt from their income. That's called indentured servitude.

api 12y ago

Uber is also the most staggering fund raising machine I have ever seen. Make of that what you will.

frequentflyeru 12y ago

"The remarks attributed to me ... do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company's views or approach," Michael later said. "They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them."

potatolicious 12y ago
Uber also practiced ordering and canceling rides with a competitor (Gett) in order to recruit their drivers (and possibly to act as a denial of service attack). This was discovered and the company disavowed the practice as that of a rogue group of employees. ... And then later in the year was caught doing it again, except this time to Lyft. At this point their public statements on what their company's views or approaches are is entirely useless. Uber has proven multiple times that their statements aren't just typical PR spin, but tread directly into bald-faced lies.

frequentflyeru 12y ago

SwellJoe 12y ago

Is Groupon not in Silicon Valley?

jedp 12y ago

For one optimistic moment there, I thought this was going to be about, you know, ethics. Like how Uber abuses its drivers, or how it demeans women, or how it threatens journalists. But no, "ethically challenged" means they don't break the rules successfully enough.

capkutay 12y ago

He's a great wordsmith. Disclosing upfront that he's an investor in lyft while also just saying uber is pushing 'a little too far'. He sounds totally transparent and rational right as he puts out the gouging statement 'extracting whatever they can from limo drivers'. That's enough to fuel a branding war between uber and all the other ride sharing services. Lyft can be a friendly service that empowers drivers while uber is slanted as a hegemonic power that sucks the life out of drivers and your wallet.

uberuberuber 12y ago

More unethical than manufacturers of nuclear weapons components, missiles and drones? Makes for a nice soundbite but I hope he doesn't actually believe this given Lockheed, Texas Instruments, General Dynamics, etc. are all a part of SV.