Hacker News Reader

Comment by anarazel | Hacker News Reader

So what? What'd be right thing to do in this case? I disagree with Uber on a bunch of things, but me judging them to do the wrong thing on some issues, doesn't prevent them doing the right thing on others. By critizing them for doing the right thing you're just disincentivizing from doing the right thing again.

I think this line of argument weakens "our" position considerably.

View on HN

> What'd be right thing to do in this case?

The right thing to do is for Kalanick to loudly and publicly resign his position on Trump's "economic advisory group".

This group has zero influence on the administration. Its only purpose is to legitimize the administration and its policies of hate.

In exchange for collaboration and legitimization, Kalanick might buy some preferential treatment for Uber. There's nothing principled here.

If the Muslim ban stands and Kalanick doesn't resign, it will be obvious that he's a total hypocrite.

Far from "standing up for what's right", Kalanick has sold out to hate.

I realize that the parent comment focused on Uber, but my concern is directed at the personalization of the post. This was posted under Travis' personal Facebook account. It was a statement by him to his employees that he chose to then release publicly (also look at his use of personal pronouns in places). If this were a statement released by Uber I would take less issue with it.

I have seen the fallout from friends who personally experienced horrible treatment by the guy, so this fake hero crusade is what I take issue with. Uber paying affected drivers, on the other hand, is fantastic.

*Edited for clarity.

Why do you care? If getting credit as a "hero" is what it takes to get him to do good things, then let him have it. Even if this is a PR stunt, it has positive externalities that can only be amplified by adept public relations management.

I cannot overstress this or agree with you more. I genuinely don't care what people's internal monologue is. I fully understand a lot of altruism is for social credit.

All that is fine, so long as over time it forms a more free, open, and welcoming society for everyone.

No one is forgetting Uber is a company with a checkered past. This just fills in one of the good squares in contrast to the bad ones.

Ubers position on immigration is not relevant to ubers business so it costs them little to take any attention grabbing position they can as that offers the a cheaper marketing model than paying for ads. Ironically trump uses similar strategies.

Assuming that's the case: So what? They could also do similarly on a lot of other topics, some directly opposing the current statement.

I also doubt that opposing positions on one the current government's key issues is actually free. Uber has a lot of local regulatory issues, and complex enough international setup - federal (and some state's) goodwill surely has some affect on Uber's success.

> Ubers position on immigration is not relevant to ubers business

Are you sure about that? A large percentage of Uber drivers are immigrants.

>Ubers position on immigration is not relevant to ubers business

Immigration drives down semi and unskilled worker's wages (which drives up profits).

Uber absolutely has a dog in this fight.

Arguably the reason why Trump's rhetoric has struck such a chord is precisely because wages have been driven down by (among other things) immigration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com