5 ms·

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

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.
  - gaius 12y ago
    Let's not mince words - Uber is not a tech company, what is their unique and newly developed technology? They are exploiting a loophole and operating unlicensed minicabs, profiting from the arbitrage of lower costs of not having to comply with regulation. Why is anyone surprised that they have a generally fuzzy idea about "rules"? It is on the regulators to shut them down.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      Let's not go overboard. Uber's real time tracking, checkin, and reservation of cars, in conjunction with dynamic surge pricing to guarantee there will always be a vehicle, is pretty damn innovative - when it works. I use Uber a lot, and in the bay area, it's world class in terms of providing time estimates of arrival. In Dubai - not so much. So - yes, lots of missteps by Uber, particularly on the ethics front, but don't discount how they revolutionized the real time tracking/reservation of cars.
  - Steko 12y ago
    This is exactly it. When Uber is breaking the rules that protect a tiny medallion-holding, rent seeking cartel, that's a positive for society. When Uber is just end-running around sensible public licensing of taxis in cities without medallion cartels that's not really doing anything for society. When Uber sabotages Lyft, promotes misogyny and threatens vile character assassination of journalists for negative coverage that's just Uber being repulsive and is a negative for society. I hope more areas go down the road Seoul is supposedly going with their aim for a universal taxi app.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  The report you are quoting from yesterday seems to be more Valleywag gossip talk for pageviews most likely taken out of context (look at all the internet rage it has generated just on this site) than actual evil wrongdoing.
  - VieElm 12y ago
    No, that actually happened. The exec and his CEO have even admitted to and apologized for it. Not one of them has denied any of the terrible quotes attributed to the Uber executive.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      Sure they stated they could also hire people to dig up dirt on the reporters private lives who are trying to write gossip articles about Uber exec's private goings on, I don't really see any issue with that.
      - rtpg 12y ago
        The amount of quotes in that article meant that this was not a one-line joke, but a full-blown description of some fantasy. Like somebody going on and on about the ways they would kill their ex-wife or something. It's one thing to feel antagonised by someone, it's another to build out some revenge fantasy in detail.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        Giving a gossip columnist a taste of their own medicine is really that bad?
      - ghshephard 12y ago
        That's interesting missing context - Was this all in response to Sarah writing about the private lives of Uber Execs? I thought it was in response to her writing about the Companies Behavior. If not excusing the idea of writing about the private lives of the reporters, it certainly provides context that didn't exist before.
- neurotech1 12y ago
  "Breaking rules" is one thing. Showing completely immoral behavior is another. Uber didn't "cross the line", they are miles off course on the wrong side.
zaroth 12y ago
There are rules and there are rules. Moral compass tells you which ones you can break, and often breaking the rule is the moral thing to do. So I think Thiel is calling them out for doing things morally wrong, not just rule breaking. Uber has lost their way. You break rules for a just cause, you get rewarded because you stuck your head out and took a risk. You put it all on the line. But you have to be willing to be held accountable. Breaking rules to avoid accountability? Well, that just sounds all too fucking familiar.
- ivraatiems 12y ago
  You're not the only one in this comment thread to present this line of thinking, but I think you have explained it most explicitly, so I'll respond here. I think that this is a very charitable interpretation of what Theil said in this interview. He doesn't talk about morality or mention it at all, except in a passing use of the term "ethically challenged." That term, and the others like it that he uses ("push the envelope," "disrupt") are all corporatespeak/Silicon Valleyspeak and euphemism. The statement is well-tailored to be against Uber's actions without speaking specifically to cause, and that raises alarm bells to me. The thing is, Uber is taking just as much risk doing something both morally and legally wrong as they are doing something morally right and legally wrong. It's the same discussion and the same innuendos from the business end. It's the morality end that gets the short.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
onewaystreet 12y ago
Almost every notable tech company has at least one unethical story behind it. Steve Jobs and Woz selling blue boxes to fund Apple is probably the most famous.
- r00fus 12y ago
  Look at the morality between your comparison. Jobs/Woz wanted to defraud a monolithic monopoly (Ma Bell) while Uber is talking about getting back at journalists (mind you I have no naive view of "reporters" and their employers). Sounds pretty distinct to me - both are rules broken, just one is about silencing investigation and the other is about stealing from the rich.
  - Lerc 12y ago
    I agree with your point, but there's a fair few genuine ethical issues from Jobs, sometimes even at the expense of Woz. Jobs was a bit of a dick sometimes, Woz still counted him a friend.
gordon_freeman 12y ago
At the end of the video where Thiel compares AirBnB and Uber in challenging ethics, he clearly says that AirBnB is empowering communities whereas Uber is 'exploiting' Limo drivers. Sounds pretty negative language to me for Uber.
blazespin 12y ago
Not all rules are ethical. I believe Uber is breaking a few of the ones that are.
mathattack 12y ago
There is acceptable gray if you're willing to live within the consequences. Big companies never do work until the contract is signed. Smaller companies live within the ambiguity. ("If we mess up, we're out of business anyway.") Big companies may never sign someone who has a non-compete. Small companies take the risk. ("It's not enforceable") If you cross too often and too far, that's when you get into trouble.

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.
- gaius 12y ago
  Let's not mince words - Uber is not a tech company, what is their unique and newly developed technology? They are exploiting a loophole and operating unlicensed minicabs, profiting from the arbitrage of lower costs of not having to comply with regulation. Why is anyone surprised that they have a generally fuzzy idea about "rules"? It is on the regulators to shut them down.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    Let's not go overboard. Uber's real time tracking, checkin, and reservation of cars, in conjunction with dynamic surge pricing to guarantee there will always be a vehicle, is pretty damn innovative - when it works. I use Uber a lot, and in the bay area, it's world class in terms of providing time estimates of arrival. In Dubai - not so much. So - yes, lots of missteps by Uber, particularly on the ethics front, but don't discount how they revolutionized the real time tracking/reservation of cars.
- Steko 12y ago
  This is exactly it. When Uber is breaking the rules that protect a tiny medallion-holding, rent seeking cartel, that's a positive for society. When Uber is just end-running around sensible public licensing of taxis in cities without medallion cartels that's not really doing anything for society. When Uber sabotages Lyft, promotes misogyny and threatens vile character assassination of journalists for negative coverage that's just Uber being repulsive and is a negative for society. I hope more areas go down the road Seoul is supposedly going with their aim for a universal taxi app.
res0nat0r 12y ago
The report you are quoting from yesterday seems to be more Valleywag gossip talk for pageviews most likely taken out of context (look at all the internet rage it has generated just on this site) than actual evil wrongdoing.
- VieElm 12y ago
  No, that actually happened. The exec and his CEO have even admitted to and apologized for it. Not one of them has denied any of the terrible quotes attributed to the Uber executive.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Sure they stated they could also hire people to dig up dirt on the reporters private lives who are trying to write gossip articles about Uber exec's private goings on, I don't really see any issue with that.
    - rtpg 12y ago
      The amount of quotes in that article meant that this was not a one-line joke, but a full-blown description of some fantasy. Like somebody going on and on about the ways they would kill their ex-wife or something. It's one thing to feel antagonised by someone, it's another to build out some revenge fantasy in detail.
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        Giving a gossip columnist a taste of their own medicine is really that bad?
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      That's interesting missing context - Was this all in response to Sarah writing about the private lives of Uber Execs? I thought it was in response to her writing about the Companies Behavior. If not excusing the idea of writing about the private lives of the reporters, it certainly provides context that didn't exist before.
neurotech1 12y ago
"Breaking rules" is one thing. Showing completely immoral behavior is another. Uber didn't "cross the line", they are miles off course on the wrong side.

zaroth 12y ago

There are rules and there are rules. Moral compass tells you which ones you can break, and often breaking the rule is the moral thing to do. So I think Thiel is calling them out for doing things morally wrong, not just rule breaking. Uber has lost their way. You break rules for a just cause, you get rewarded because you stuck your head out and took a risk. You put it all on the line. But you have to be willing to be held accountable. Breaking rules to avoid accountability? Well, that just sounds all too fucking familiar.

ivraatiems 12y ago
You're not the only one in this comment thread to present this line of thinking, but I think you have explained it most explicitly, so I'll respond here. I think that this is a very charitable interpretation of what Theil said in this interview. He doesn't talk about morality or mention it at all, except in a passing use of the term "ethically challenged." That term, and the others like it that he uses ("push the envelope," "disrupt") are all corporatespeak/Silicon Valleyspeak and euphemism. The statement is well-tailored to be against Uber's actions without speaking specifically to cause, and that raises alarm bells to me. The thing is, Uber is taking just as much risk doing something both morally and legally wrong as they are doing something morally right and legally wrong. It's the same discussion and the same innuendos from the business end. It's the morality end that gets the short.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

onewaystreet 12y ago

Almost every notable tech company has at least one unethical story behind it. Steve Jobs and Woz selling blue boxes to fund Apple is probably the most famous.

r00fus 12y ago
Look at the morality between your comparison. Jobs/Woz wanted to defraud a monolithic monopoly (Ma Bell) while Uber is talking about getting back at journalists (mind you I have no naive view of "reporters" and their employers). Sounds pretty distinct to me - both are rules broken, just one is about silencing investigation and the other is about stealing from the rich.
- Lerc 12y ago
  I agree with your point, but there's a fair few genuine ethical issues from Jobs, sometimes even at the expense of Woz. Jobs was a bit of a dick sometimes, Woz still counted him a friend.

gordon_freeman 12y ago

At the end of the video where Thiel compares AirBnB and Uber in challenging ethics, he clearly says that AirBnB is empowering communities whereas Uber is 'exploiting' Limo drivers. Sounds pretty negative language to me for Uber.

blazespin 12y ago

Not all rules are ethical. I believe Uber is breaking a few of the ones that are.

mathattack 12y ago

There is acceptable gray if you're willing to live within the consequences. Big companies never do work until the contract is signed. Smaller companies live within the ambiguity. ("If we mess up, we're out of business anyway.") Big companies may never sign someone who has a non-compete. Small companies take the risk. ("It's not enforceable") If you cross too often and too far, that's when you get into trouble.