Uber C.E.O. To Leave Trump Advisory Council After Criticism | Hacker News Reader

Uber C.E.O. To Leave Trump Advisory Council After Criticism

nytimes.com

118 pointsJumpCrisscross313 comments

We've tried to consolidate the discussions from the previously flagged threads here, and have prevented flags from killing the thread. If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please do so thoughtfully and carefully. Users often flag these stories reflexively because they cringe at the thought of yet another uncivil political flamewar. Let's please try not to have one here.

This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? And if you're pro-Trump, this also is a good thing.

The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other. We only hurl partsisan-charged invectives at each other. Kalanack's choice here is a visible example demonstrating that "not talking" is the solution. I am saddened by his choice and I am ashamed of my fellow Americans, from all walks of the political spectrum for their choices to sling mud instead of speaking to each other and finding ways to cooperate with each other.

I also highly doubt this move will have the intended effect of mitigating the #deleteuber campaign. Even considering the facts about some of Lyft's key investors being Trump supporters. Mostly because people as a whole can't hear reason any more. Sure, #deleteuber is hurting Raisier LLC, but you know who it's really hurting? The immigrant Uber drivers who are renting/leasing their vehicle through one of Uber's partners, and are contractually obliged to drive only for Uber. There's no reasoning there. No critical thought. Just "fuck you #deleteuber".

If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

Based on his actions since Jan 20, he should be isolated, shunned, denounced and blocked by all available means until he either resigns or is impeached. It doesn't seem like "reason" is something that he will ever listen to, by this point.

That said, in principle it can be useful to have people capable of exerting the kinds of influence he seems to understand better (force, and threats of force). But not a hidebound accommodationist of dubious ethical principles like Kalanack.

(EDIT: apologies, didn't see the upvotes before revising the above substantially).

If that were completely true then he wouldn't have a council of tech advisors that all hold views counter to his own.

If the man is willing to talk to you about the things you care about, then why on earth wouldn't you?

I've independently come to the same conclusion as you and OP, but some of my liberal friends on Facebook don't agree. I don't really understand the argument to "isolate and shun" by not joining his advisory boards. If there is pressure to keep Trump's ideological enemies out of the process, then that only leaves his supporters... Which leads to all of his sources of information supporting his decisions.

> Which leads to all of his sources of information supporting his decisions.

What, in the last 18 months, gives you the impression he listens to anyone outside of his coterie of right-wing schmoozers anyway?

The fact that he spends time physically present and apparently listening to the left wing technocrats.

Nobody is expecting a radical shift in his policies, but even minor shifts on key issues are arguably worth the small time investment.

The man is self-interested, and self-interested people can generally be bargained with if you can find the places where their interests align with yours. In this case money and public opinion are good targets.

Because the Advisory Council serves in name only and is a prop to grant legitimacy.

Very succinctly put.

It feeds his ego to have the titans of tech kiss his ring.

If that were completely true then he wouldn't have a council of tech advisors that all hold views counter to his own.

That's more of a sign of him doing the best he can to scrape from the bottom of the barrel than of any real respect for diversity of viewpoints, let alone "reason."

Is he actually talking to them and listening to their advice?

If he's physically present and doesn't have his hands over his ears, he's at least hearing what they have to say. And these people are masters at finding ways to influence others based on others interests.

why on earth wouldn't you?

It all comes down to why he wants to talk to me. Is it because he's interested in listening to what to have to say and take my advice under consideration or does he just want to use my 'fame' and my name to add legitimacy to the the actions he would have taken anyway.

I think that people like Musk likely have a strong belief in their ability to persuade and influence.

I think that the idea that Trump is completely uninfluencable is a bit hyperbolic. He's not an irrationality machine. He cares about things, just maybe not the things you or I care about, and so those things become avenues for influence and negotiation.

He's not an irrationality machine.

Well, I disagree with you there. Based on his actions, especially since assuming office, "irrationality machine" seems to be the perfect description of him.

> a council of tech advisors that all hold views counter to his own.

That's an odd characterization. Regarding views, I'm sure each of them disagrees with him on something (because they're all different human beings) but several of them endorsed him. Regarding "tech", that's not how I would label Pepsi, JP Morgan, the Cleveland Clinic, Walmart, BlackRock... Tech is less represented on the forum than financial services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

Trump still has 24 hours in every day, and every hour that he's not talking to someone like Kalanick or anyone else, he is talking to Steve Bannon, possibly the most malevolent force to ever inhabit US politics. This is why Jared Kushner is particularly important at this time: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/opinion/where-is-jared...

I don't know about ability to influence but an insider/whistleblower (someone with a conscience) could be or would've been useful.

If all he has a true believers then it makes it much more opaque for those of us on the outside.

> Based on his actions since Jan 20, he should be isolated, shunned, denounced and blocked by all available means

I'd change "Jan 20" for "the 1980s" because he's always been a monstrous excuse of a human being willing to say anything and do anything to advance his personal interests.

Sure, definitely. I just like to simplify it to "since Jan 20" to sidestep any of the "let's give the guy a chance" arguments we were hearing in the first few days. In other words, we don't have to dial back to any of the insanities of his campaign, or in his public life previously. Enough has happened in the last 14 days to make it sufficiently clear as to what we're in store for, moving forward: a non-stop, white-knuckle disaster of presidency, until he is removed.

I doubt Kalanack and the way he manages Uber to be the voice of reason.

Other than a protest wasn't Uber fine until they didn't honor the Taxi strike at the airport? Seemed the #DeleteUber campaign really kicked into gear after that.

I'm not saying your statement of having smart people in Trump's ear being a good thing is wrong I just thought that the outrage mostly stemmed from the strike and not with his being on the team.

Granted maybe that doesn't matter; this is likely the only way to possibly reverse the #DeleteUber campaign. Though I'd be really curious as to how effective it has been (if at all though I'm assuming it has).

>don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

I highly doubt he actually cares.

I'm happy to talk with someone like Evan McMullin, or our local Republican state representative who has some good ideas on housing (and other ideas I don't like). Indeed, I recently sat down and chatted with him and found him to be a very well-informed, bright guy. It was a pleasant experience and makes me all the more remorseful that the national election turned out the way it did.

It is, however, pretty difficult to talk with people who are ever more convinced that the truth comes directly from Dear Leader via Twitter. Look at the whole inauguration photo thing - he's telling people to ignore what they see and believe him. That is very worrying. It's easy to have different ideas about the facts and what to do about them, but if you can't even agree on the facts, there's really not much to talk about.

Honestly, what good do you think Kalanack could do in his position on the advisory council?

> We only hurl partsisan-charged invectives at each other. Kalanack's choice here is a visible example demonstrating that "not talking" is the solution.

It's Kalanick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kalanick

> don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

Generally, yes. However, I believe there is a line that can be crossed where this is no longer a good idea. The association will always lend some credibility to the administration, and when the administration commits an action like the immigration ban, you should stop assisting them in any way, period.

If I'm in the Trump is a mad man camp, and I am in the Trump is a mad man camp, why do you think that a voice of reason will get through to a mad man? I think Kalanack just lends respectability to a mad man.

> I think Kalanack just lends respectability to a mad man.

What confuses me most is the notion that suddenly Kalanick has all this tremendous personal influence and respectability, from people who are plenty happy to jump on him in other contexts. Is there a single person who was saying, "Well, I wasn't sure about Trump, but that Uber guy supports him..."? It seems like many of the other names on the committee have much more favorable mind-share, and so in that dimension must be doing more harm, and yet are getting less criticism.

The significant figure here is Trump. So anyone associating with him will be tainted by that association.

Except that we are seeing far less of a reaction to Bob Iger or Jack Welch being involved with the exact same thing. What portion of people #DeletingUber are switching away from Pepsi products? Has the media failed to cover substantial new protest of JP Morgan?

Jack Welch is retired. So there's no consumer pressure that can be brought to bear on him.

Bob Iger is the chairman of the Walt Disney Company. He hasn't resigned from the panel but after consumer pressure he's refusing to attend:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bob-iger-wont-attend-t...

Iger has a schedule conflict. That's not remotely the same thing as "refusing to attend". Even if he "has a schedule conflict", that's still not the same thing.

Fine. You get half a point for pointing out that this has been corrected as a schedule conflict. And I get half a point for pointing out that Welch is retired.

Returning to your main point, consumer pressure is being brought to bear. Even Musk has acknowledged this while saying he wants (for now) to engage.

BTW, Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom dumped Ivanka.

My main point was that Kalanick seems to be targeted substantially because many people dislike him anyway. But if many people dislike him anyway, he's less of a problem than the others on the committee. A part of it may well just be a low-hanging fruit thing.

> The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other.

Yes, but this is not just in the US, unfortunately. I have relatives in many places of the world, and things are escalating everywhere.

I blame social media for that.

People can't look at each other in the eye anymore, so they forget what it is like to feel empathy. They congregate around small online bubbles, and a lot of people is almost PTSD-anxious about talking to people of other bubbles. So they resort to humiliation and other tactics. When they try to talk the same way IRL, they get shunned, which makes them feel victimized and justified in their hate. Now we're seeing real politicians espousing the crazy ideas we'd only see in comment sections ten years ago.

It's a downward spiral, unfortunately.

People can't look at each other in the eye anymore, so they forget what it is like to feel empathy.

I hear a line of reasoning like this quite often and I have yet to understand it.

I simply don't accept that empathy is a necessary precondition to productive conversation.

I can have a productive disagreement with someone that I don't empathize with. I can have a productive disagreement with someone I loathe and can barely force myself to maintain eye contact. It's called being an adult.

Trump craves praise and approval. He needs people to think he's great. At the same time he reflexively rejects/attacks/hates anyone at all, even a potential ally, who criticizes him.

Furthermore, when the people protest his decisions or angrily criticize him, it actually fuels his ego and makes him more convinced that his decisions are correct.

We've seen this again and again and again.

Should my goal be to remain untainted by association or contact with Trump?

Or should it be to coax the confused monster away from his destructive path?

The only thing that will get Trump of his path is a giant whack with a clue bat. The contrast between various previous US presidents and Trump could not be greater (Bush the elder, Obama just to name two from opposing sides), he defiles the position.

> This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

I see the point, but this business council isn't going to meaningfully influence policy. The policymaking apparatus is huge and this is a tiny, tiny piece of it. However, it does send a signal to Republicans in Congress that the tech $ they want will not play along with Trump. That's a quite important signal.

I look forward to Republicans acknowledging what they said before, and working cooperatively with democrats to end the Trump presidency, impeaching him for violating the Emoluments Clause cause of the constitution.

“We’re on the verge of having someone take over the conservative movement who is a con artist,” Rubio said, accusing Trump of spending his career “sticking it to working Americans.”

"This man is a pathological liar.", Ted Cruz "Utterly amoral."

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell." Lindsey Graham.

Sarcasm? (Legitimate question)

These sorts of "centrist" comments bother me. You're acting as if Trump is a normal president, that any disagreements can be distilled down to "partisanship", and that he can actually be reasoned with if only he hears the right people.

The disagreements with the travel ban are not partisan or political — this ban will have very serious consequences for millions of people, and maybe more in the future, given what the president has said during the campaign. So far, he has delivered on his campaign promises, and has demonstrated that he cannot be reasoned with.

Some of us gave us him a chance, but now it's clear he's not going to change. If we don't take action now and prevent him from being normalized soon, it will be too late.

Nobody likes comparisons with Hitler, but I think in 30 years we may very well view Trump in a similar light — if I were there, I would've said something, why didn't anybody stop him?

I'm not saying he can be reasoned with. Just that it's better to keep talking, regardless of the result. With talk, there is hope. When we turn our backs on our fellow Americans, there is only alienation and hatred, and all the dysfunction that brings with it.

There are two things here: talking with other people, which we should absolutely do without insulting them for having voted the 'wrong' way or some such:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21715732-scoldin...

Another thing is talking with Trump and Bannon and the like. It may not be possible.

> Just that it's better to keep talking, regardless of the result.

Opposition and talking are mutually exclusive at times and then you have to choose. Trump is marching forward while people try to talk to him, using their credibility to bolster his attack. If he's ready to talk, he can always call a cease-fire and do so. These responses are very reminiscent to me of Chamberlain before WWII, who said the same about another madman, and ceded much ground and many lives of others, and then it was too late.

Talking with other Americans is an entirely different matter.

Right on. For those who are encouraging dialogue, please show me one instance in the past 10 days where Trump has shown the least bit of ability to listen to the other side. Sometimes, brute force action is the only way to make your voice heard.

Genuine question: Is anyone is the us ready for brute force?

When was the last time there was a brute force against an US administration that worked?

I'm French, so historically brute force for me means using force. Brutally. Right now I only see people marching and yelling. When's the last time that worked in the us?

I'm a little lost to understand what would work in the US to be honest. Culturally, here, what is the best way to overthrow?

I'm almost certain the GP meant brute force metaphorically, meaning aggressive political opposition with no attempt at finesse. Think of 'brute force' attacks on crypto - no actual brutality or force is used.

> If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

No, were I in that camp I would not.

First, because I don't see any evidence that I particularly want voices like Kalanick's in anybody's ear, particularly a mad man, and second because retaining the ear of a madman in a position of strength typically requires maintaining a degree of visible support for the madness to demonstrate loyalty, the harm from which often more than compensates for any benefit from whispering in his ear.

Reason and discussion is how you influence the rational, not the "mad man".

Uber's business practices have at times exhibited a disregard for the rule of law and in Austin a disregard for the will of of the people expressed through local democratic process. The Uber CEO's tech celebrity status does not impart status as a voice of reason (nor does it disqualify them) assuming that we have a solid definition of what constitutes a voice of reason. My take is that the Uber CEO's action was political speech for political and business ends and that like all political speech it came with political benefits and political costs.

I also doubt it will mitigate the effect of the Uber hashtag. I don't think there's much general goodwill among most people because most people have had crappy jobs and see the sharing economy for what it is...surge pricing and no health care and no paid vacation and a job that might go away because some drunk complained of insufficient kowtow.

Uber didn't get out front of the hashtag and is playing PR catchup against a well constructed propaganda campaign and some group of investors is making money and money is always associated with White House politics and smart money plays both parties (and only having two parties keeps costs down).

Finally, in my opinion it is usually a political mistake to dismiss one's opponents actions as naive or lacking reason or absent of critical thought. Expressing political will is a naked form of reasoned thought and the hashtag is such an expression for many people.

> I am saddened by his choice

It wasn't necessarily Kalanick's choice. I think he there's a good chance he was made to leave.

Kalanick faced pressure not just from consumers #DeletingUber, but from his own team. Uber is locked in bitter competition for talent with a bunch of smart, well-funded Silicon Valley companies all of whom offer fun challenges and comparable compensation packages. Talent in the valley is overwhelmingly concerned by Trump and in opposition to racist immigration bans, war in Asia, and pretty much the rest of the Trump issue portfolio.

I'm glad to see Kalanick distancing himself from Trump. But we should look at things like this not as a hopeful sign that Silicon Valley leadership is growing a conscience, but that it's ultimately responsive to the focused desires of its rank-and-file employees, without which none of these companies can accomplish anything.

If we're looking to create change, we should keep laser-focused on what we can do as the real engines of growth that tech companies depend on. We should look at things like Kalanick buckling as an indication that the pressure we can bring to bear works. And we should look for more ways to focus that pressure uncomfortably on our employers to ensure that none of us end up looking back 10 years from now and realizing we were culpable for something horrible that we could have avoided.

It's an important milestone that pressure was effective. It's hard to tell whether it should hearten or disturb us that the least ethical caved first.

I seriously do think we have to get over the question of whether tech's leadership is ethical. It shouldn't be up to them. The market will eventually change, and we'll lose some of this influence. But in this moment, right, now, it's rank-and-file non-unicorn-founder developers like us who need to be stepping up.

Yeah I'm not arguing with you. It just seems like a weird thing. Pressure worked and it first worked on this guy? Who knew?

I think the viral spread of Uber hashtag -- and it was viral enough to show up in the remote corner of the world that is my Facebook graph almost immediately -- may be as much related to the way people feel about the sharing economy as the administration. Lyft had already hit on it with their "they use tips to buy people gifts" ad campaign. I suspect that Uber lost a significant amount of business.

I'd also be surprised if alignment with anti-Islamic politics was going over well with the Saudi sovereign wealth fund which has a billion bucks worth of seat at the table...even if it's intellectually interesting to imagine a Utopia where workers mattered mattered more in the direction of a corporation than capital interests.

Yes, we can demand our leaders signal their virtue to us. They'll all turn their backs on Trump. Maybe we can even get Peter Thiel to do so.

I'm sure we disagree on a Thiel presidency. But I'm pretty sure we're 90% in agreement on a Bannon presidency. I'm the epitome of what Bannon opposes - the American who feels more connected to the geek in Bangalore than the trucker in Nebraska. As Thiel and Bannon try to push Trump to prioritize their own agendas, I really don't want Bannon to get his way.

Trump has one fewer person in the Thiel camp talking to him. If we push harder, we can shrink the Thiel camp down to just Thiel. Trump will see the tech people moving away from him and the nationalists rallying around him. What positive result do you think will come from this?

I refuse for a moment to entertain the notion that you, of all possible personalities on Hacker News, find it ethically indefensible for a group of people to use their market power to influence policy. Pull all the rhetorical tricks you have in your bag --- "virtue signaling" is so stale it's begun to stink --- and I still won't dignify this argument from you.

I didn't say it's ethically indefensible. I said it's counterproductive.

You seem to believe Thiel is an important mover in the Trump administration. But there's very little evidence that's the case; it's the sort of thing it seems to me one could only come to believe if their only source of political news was places like Hacker News. Reality's Trump administration is governed by Priebus and the GOP establishment on the one hand, and Bannon's clownshow on the other.

I haven't read a story about Thiel's influence other than the fact that Trump made a fool out of him by enacting exactly the policy on immigration restriction that Thiel said wouldn't happen when he said people should Trump "seriously but not literally".

It seems to turn out that Thiel wasn't anywhere nearly as influential as he thought he was.

They are doing far more than "signaling", whatever that is, they are depriving Trump of an essential good in a democracy, political influence and credibility, and giving it to his opposition.

If Trump looks acceptable to high-profile business leaders, many in the business community will assume Trump and what he is doing is acceptable.

If serving on the Strategic and Policy Forum demonstrates a view that "Trump looks acceptable", then Trump looks acceptable to Jamie Dimond, Jack Welch, Bob Iger, and a pile of others who are much more "high-profile business leaders". I am not sure depriving him of Kalanick's portion of that is meaningful if that's all that happens.

Jamie Dimon, of course. Typo.

Should Elon Musk face the same pressure to resign from this council?

Of course. And, he already is facing that pressure.

Is it possible that this pressure applies more to CEOs that we don't otherwise trust?

I don't understand. Is your premise that I would otherwise trust Elon Musk?

Not you personally, I mean in general there is a public trust differential between Kalanick and Musk

I would imagine that Musk cares less because Telsa is already unable to meet demand, so bleeding off demand for a quarter or so will have less of an impact on its bottomline.

Additionally, the wealthy people who buy Teslas are more likely statistically speaking to be Trump supporters, or have a more nuanced view on politics because of their socioeconomic status.

We can't all distance ourselves from our long-time friends due to a single election vote.

> have a more nuanced view on politics because of their socioeconomic status

Less nuanced, more not giving a crap because none of Trump's policies are likely to impact them.

Did you really just imply a richer person has a more nuanced view on politics because they're rich? Smh

Nope, but those are really the only two conditions possible---either they are supportive, or they are nuanced.

If they have another state of mind, they are likely to be against him.

I think this is justified and expected. What proportion of Uber drivers are themselves first generation immigrants? In New York City anyway, it seems like > 90% of them are.

It seems untenable for the CEO of Uber to participate in a regime so with such a revanchist anti-immigration policy. Maybe Kalanick thought he could counterbalance that tendency, but he won't be able to do it. The anti-immigration fanaticism is the driving force behind Trumpism.

There is immigration, and illegal immigration.

Trump has given no sign of being against the former.

Except of course for the executive order debacle which accomplished nothing and blocked permanent residents from returning home, etc etc.

Trump's senior strategist, his appointee to the Security Council and political advisor is Steve Bannon.

  “Isn’t the beating heart of this problem, the real beating  
  heart of it, of what we gotta get sorted here, not illegal 
  immigration?” Bannon asked Miller. “As horrific as that 
  is, and it’s horrific, don’t we have a problem? We’ve 
  looked the other way on this legal immigration that’s 
  kinda overwhelmed the country?”

  Bannon goes on to decry the “oligarchs” of Silicon Valley   
  and Washington and call the number of immigrants in the 
  United States “scary.”

It's very hard to say Trump's given "no sign" of being against legal immigration. He has yet to actually put forward an anti-legal immigration Bill in the first two weeks of his presidency, but it seems likely he will given his choice of advisors.

He campaigned on banning Muslims and signed an executive order partially to that effect the other day.

> There is immigration, and illegal immigration.

> Trump has given no sign of being against the former.

Except the current E.O., which affects currently legal immigrants, and a draft the administration has circulated which targets many more currently legal immigrants [0], and restrictions on currently-legal immigration that go beyond either of those that he called for on the campaign trail.

[0] http://wapo.st/2kOhRNp?tid

Trump has actively insinuated that he supports a nativist (i.e. white nationalist) immigration policy.

Too bad. I think that the more tech insiders remain at arms length from Trump, the better. But Kalanick reports that he was pressured to resign from this position not from Trump or his cabinet, but by those that felt it was an endorsement of Trump.

I think that we need more of the Valley close to Trump, not avoiding him. They might be the ones he ends up listening to.

> I think that the more tech insiders remain at arms length from Trump, the better.

> I think that we need more of the Valley close to Trump, not avoiding him.

Eh?

In any case, I think "stay close to Trump so he'll listen to you" is an idea that has been proven wrong over and over and over again since the second he became President. And you're going to be contending with his trusted advisor Steve Bannon, who thinks there are too many Asians in Silicon Valley. So...

I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

Arm's length here means close in his/her original statement.

That's not what "arm's length" typically means. Of course, OP might not be a native English speaker.

'at arms length' vs 'within arms reach'. The phrases are similar, but different. It's an easy mistake to make.

"At arm's length" means that the two parties are impersonal business acquaintances. They treat each other just like they would treat anyone else with the same amount of goods to sell or money to spend.

When you sell a car to your nephew for $1, that is not an "arm's length" trade. In some situations, a trade that is not "at arm's length" may be taxed on an independently assessed value, rather than the actual purchase price.

In most places in the US, arm's length is literally the distance you stand from someone when closing a business deal. You can't shake hands from further away, and you can't hug each other without getting closer.

OP might have meant something along the lines of "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Or you can't be heard if you aren't even there to speak. I'm not sure if there's another idiom that would be more precise without also being less concise, but "arm's length" is probably not the best phrasing.

I am, and that is exactly what I meant, even if some disagree on the phrasing. (Sorry, I wasn't an English Lit major.) Keep your friends close and enemies closer.

Arm's length is close enough to reach them but still far enough away. That's where I think the tech industry needs to keep Trump and stand firm. Otherwise, they're completely on the outside, which I don't think helps.

Hard to change his mind when that mind is manipulated by Stephen Bannon. If Bannon leaves then I suspect he would fall more in line with a typical Republican President.

If you read anything besides the headlines, you'd realize he's more of a Democrat than a Republican. Most of the policies he supports are more traditional Democrat views, except for the anti-Muslim ones.

Oh my god. Please list the traditional Democratic views he holds, starting with abortion, health care, gun rights, separation of church and state, and undocumented immigrants. Please list the cabinet nominations he's made that would be typical for a Democrat. Please list the Supreme Court justices he's considered that would be typical for a Democrat. Please list the interactions with foreign leaders he's had that would be typical for a Democrat.

Very much pro-American workers, and anti-globalization. Rejection of TPP, increasing taxes on hedge funds by getting rid of carried interest, decreasing drug prices, full unequivocal support of LGBTQ,

If you were following the Republican nominations, the other Republicans were accusing him of being a Democrat.

full unequivocal support of LGBTQ

What has he done, or promised to do, other than lip service?

What has he done that goes against his lip service?

Not quite an action yet, but his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast makes this seem likely: http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/gender/23...

Even if you think this isn't anti-LGBTQ, it is clearly very opposed to the Democratic party's position.

Picking Mike Pence as his Vice President.

Also Jeff Sessions as attorney general. He is not as vocal as Pence, but his voting and speaking record on gay rights is not very good.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-executive-order-draft-c...

> A draft of an executive order on "religious freedom" is circulating in the Trump administration, outlining a possible weakening of protections designed to shield LGBT individuals from discrimination, according to a copy of the proposed order obtained by ABC News.

If that's true, then "A lot".

Educate yourself. Anyone can write a draft of an executive order. It's most probably not related to anyone in the White House. So there's nothing to that particular story. Stop scaring yourself over unnecessarily and wait for actual things to occur.

> Stop scaring yourself over unnecessarily and wait for actual things to occur.

It's funny - people were saying that for all of 2016 and look how well that's turned out.

Are you serious? Once in a while he says something close to a Democratic idea, like his quotes on universal healthcare, but you should pay more attention to his actions. He has not taken a single action so far that has anything to do with the Democratic party, and nearly all of his promises are either vaguely Republican, or too nonsensical to fit with either party.

Ridiculously false.

Since when was gutting Obamacare, the border wall, his Cabinet choices, and a Scalia-like SC nominee, Democratic positions?

I have no clue why people defend Trump and Bannon for these antics either. It's just clear that both together is like the anti-peanut-butter-chocolate combo.

> If Bannon leaves then I suspect he would fall more in line with a typical Republican President.

How so? This was the same guy who ran on a platform that was the antithesis to the Republican establishment.

His policy platform was literally the GOP's standard platform (excepting the Mexican Wall).

> Hard to change his mind when that mind is manipulated by Stephen Bannon. If Bannon leaves then I suspect he would fall more in line with a typical Republican President.

Interesting speculation, but based on what?

This inevitably has the effect of normalizing his behavior. At some point, you have to decide if his behavior is so far outside the bounds of acceptable that the only option left is to disengage from it.

There is nobody, anywhere along the political spectrum, that decided Trump was good because Kalanick was an advisor, and nobody that will now change their mind because he quit.

"Normalization" is the angry mob's buzzword. It has no basis in reality, only in "you're either with us or against us" hysteria.

The fewer sane people who will work with him, the harder it is to maintain the fiction that the way he's behaving is within any normal frame of reference. It's a cumulative effect.

Spare me the talk of "hysteria" when he spent the entire election fear-mongering the rubes. The "angry mob" is the people who elected him.

Both his base and the people calling him a fascist are angry, hysterical mobs. Again, you're proving my point that Kalanick's move is good for the left, bad for America. All that matters is how you prioritize both.

Silicon Valley corps not working with POTUS on new jobs and better regulation is a lose-lose for them and for America, and objectively only serves to appease the mob.

> Both his base and the people calling him a fascist are angry, hysterical mobs.

Why? Because you say so? Because you repeat it?. Because it's an equivalency?

Because both are extremely emotionally-invested, which I think is a reasonable definition of hysteria. What do you disagree with?

Trump doesn't match the scholarly definition of fascism.[0] So from my point of view, it's emotional rhetoric, not serious discourse. He's more Sarah Palin than Mussolini.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics...

The parent comment creates the facts and therefore the conclusion.

Very few say he is the textbook definition of fascism; that's another created fact. Interestingly, if you watch clips of Mussolini's behavior, there is a strong resemblance ...

>Very few say he is the textbook definition of fascism

Check the rest of the thread, and most of people tweeting about Kalanick a few days ago.

I'm sympathetic to the Resistance crowd, but here, what, practically, does Kalanick's move achieve? What bad Trump policies will be curtailed by this? How many percentage points will Trump's approval rating dip because of this?

Why isn't the fact that the President's base of support is an angry, hysterical mob bad for America? It's odd how the term "left" is so often used in opposition to "America", as if the left isn't just as much America as the right.

On the contrary, I believe the left represents American values better than the right. Should I rephrase that it's good for the left in the short-run, bad for America in the short-run, and good for America in the long-run?

> Spare me the talk of "hysteria" when he spent the entire election fear-mongering the rubes.

To my mind, incoherent response to a real threat can be "hysteria" - it doesn't imply (as "paranoia" does) that the threat itself isn't real. I would be interested to know if others interpret it differently.

> There is nobody, anywhere along the political spectrum, that decided Trump was good because Kalanick was an advisor

The parent comment made that up. Kalanick lends him credibility; I've actually had people tell me 'important people are working for Trump, so how bad can he be?'

> "Normalization" is the angry mob's buzzword. It has no basis in reality, only in "you're either with us or against us" hysteria.

In fact, research says that social norms are a/the leading determinants of people's behavior. As one researcher put it, 'humans are hard wired to follow social norms'. Most people don't want to be the sole dissenter in a meeting or do something 'uncool', much less stand up to massive social pressure.

> I've actually had people tell me 'important people are working for Trump, so how bad can he be?'

I haven't heard that, honestly. Even so, will this move really hurt Trump?

> In fact, research says that social norms are a/the leading determinants of people's behavior. As one researcher put it, 'humans are hard wired to follow social norms'. Most people don't want to be the sole dissenter in a meeting or do something 'uncool', much less stand up to massive social pressure.

True. I meant "normalization" specifically with regards to Trump, not as a sociological concept. WRT Trump, the "normalization" rhetoric poses as a moral imperative but doesn't achieve anything. It's not a strategy. Staying on Trump's advisory team, with every member of that team publicly and directly denouncing Trump's immigration ban (on TV, "open letters" are useless), and forcing Trump to kick them off himself would have been more effective, for example. Why didn't he donate to the ACLU, too?

And how will leaving hurt Trump? He's following public opinion, not influencing it. Your "credibility" point can be addressed simply by having everyone on the board disavow Trump, and criticize future anti-immigration moves, but saying that if Trump wants to help the Valley, they'll work with him on those issues specifically. He doesn't kick you off, great, you can influence him on tech issues. He fires you, great, that'll hurt him.

All Kalanick did was leave Trump's council, and have Uber, Inc. buy Facebook ads targeting ACLU supporters.[0] Just seems like posturing at this point, not action.

[0]: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/30/14441770/uber-aclu-faceboo...

I think you greatly underestimate the power of norms and normalization, specifically with regard to Trump.

It's a democracy. People see Kalanick act and will follow; and politicians will follow their constituents.

I hope you're right, honestly. The cynic in me just sees Trump going on with terrible policies for the next 4 or even 8 years. Regardless of Kalanick's impact, there's too much hand-wringing and not enough people studying how to influence public opinion, how to run a successful movement that won't peter out, and how to organize from the grassroots.

It'd be neat if there were a website where you can put in any company you might do business with, and it'd give you a "Crooked President" rating, for how likely it is to be one which enriches the President in some way. Particularly by being a subsidiary or partly-owned etc. (Obviously there are limits to how accurate you can get when it comes to those Cayman island accounts and things.)

While it's no excuse for his complete lack of ethics, Trumps' refusal to divest and Congress' lack of action means it may be up to individuals to ensure they don't inadvertently encourage in government corruption...

It would be more than neat, it would create accountability when the daily flood of information makes things easily forgotten. The website should have every leader, public figure, and prominent organization too:

'What did they do during the Trump years?'

Sort of exists, here: https://grabyourwallet.org/

I believe the creator put this together during the campaign when his 'grab them by the p*' news broke. To be honest, I haven't really looked through it in much detail so unsure of it's accuracy, but it certainly seems like an extensive list!

In fact, Uber was taken off this list after this statement. So they are in fact keeping it up to date.

And Nordstrom's now too: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/nordstrom-ivanka...

I've actually contemplated building something similar, but to find if a product you want to use is run by someone who has previously screwed over the customer base of a previous product of theirs. Like allowing an acquisition and immediate shutdown of a product.

How does it help to drive out a smart person from Trump's sphere of influence? This man needs as much help as he can get.

He's actively demonstrated he doesn't want help

Do you really think a peripheral advisory council is "Trump's sphere of influence?" Trump isn't even consistently listening to people in his own executive branch.

Trump is a despicable person trying to do despicable things. Helping him to limp along marginally less disastrously would be a shallow, short-term palliative benefit.

Our long-term prospects are better if we stumble for 4 years and prove that flushing out competent but flawed public servants, who believe in and preserve the principles of our system, and replacing them with reality TV hosts is not an improvement.

This is an inflection point in history that will inform future generations whether winning an election with lying, demagoguery, and appeal to fear is a winning long-term strategy or a losing one.

So how is it better for Travis to quit now rather than in two or three years after he can credibly talk about specific things the council has been tasked with?

It seems that Travis was essentially shamed into virtue signaling by quitting.

The fact that you see the world in terms of people signalling virtue and not sincerely believing in virtue says more about you than it does about them.

> not sincerely believing

At the time Travis was invited to join the council, there was already more than enough information known about Trump to warrant declining the invitation.

This is a silly statement. It's almost impossible not to think he left his position on the advisory council due to the fantastic level of backlash his company has received over the last couple of weeks. To think he is doing anything except trying to stop the bleeding seems willfully ignorant.

I don't understand. What has Trump done during his presidency that calls for such outrage?

Temporarily closing the border to foreigners may hurt the economy. It may hurt the US status abroad. It may even frighten people because we all know what closing the borders usually is a prelude to.

However it will not destroy America. It does not automatically make the US a fascist state.

My view is that the US, the UK, France, and Germany are entering a period where they will draw back from international affairs and focus on domestic policy. This isolationism in the US already reminds me of existing protectionism, and pro-homeland sentiment in Europe.

> a shallow, short-term palliative benefit.

A shallow, short-term palliative benefit is still a benefit, might make a big difference to a lot of people, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand but weighed against alternatives.

These kinds of councils have nearly no influence; they're photo ops. But leaving does signal that Silicon Valley $ isn't going to play along with Trump, which Republican Members of Congress are going to care a lot about as they think about how to raise money in the future.

Maybe the CEO is thinking first about his company, and the company is feeling a negative impact (#DeleteUber) because of his association with Trump?

I've also had a hard time understanding why Uber's been singled out so strongly on this issue. How is Tesla and everyone else managing to not get the same PR backlash?

Aside from already having a bad reputation, they screwed themselves over by breaking the JFK strike and proceeded to mess up their PR around it even worse.

Elon Musk has a lot more social capital, but I imagine a few snafus like this could land him in the same position.

The number of people who can afford to use Uber is much greater than those that can reasonably buy a Tesla, at this point.

Also, many younger politically activist liberals live in urban areas where they might not have a car at all, but may use Uber on a regular basis.

Tesla sells cars to rich people, they have a lot less interaction with the common populace than Uber does.

Uber is seen as a taxi-replacement, and everyone uses taxis.

They're even trying to get into delivery services, so anytime you order Pizza, you might hear the Uber name.'

Additionally the criticism of Uber is spearheaded by their competitors who already didn't like them. The taxi union of NYC has been broadly critical leading to the #deleteUber hashtag, but taxis who are being driven out of business by Uber were already inclined to oppose them.

Tesla on the other hand doesn't have as much existing organized opposition with connections to the broad public masses. Who hates Tesla? Car dealerships who have statutory privilege, but everyone already dislikes car salesmen.

Because it signals that Uber's employees and customers have more ability to impact the company (via it's bottom line) than a presidential policy or statement.

"Give the governor harrumph!" [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY

From those well-known commies at Bloomberg Businessweek, note the image half-way down:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-02/stability...

Business is figuring out that the Trump endgame isn't going to be good.

And yet the market is near an all time high. What gives?

What gives is that people are forgetting that the Dow 20K thing was already super close toward the end of Obama's term, and that the DJIA stood at 8279.63 on the day of Obama's first inauguration.

If you're riding what are basically daily fluctuations of the massive high achieved in your predecessor's term, it's hard to claim the market likes you.

The fact that markets haven't tanked suggests that investors aren't predicting major negative events in the future. That doesn't mean investors are correct, but I would think that if "[b]usiness is figuring out that the Trump endgame isn't going to be good" then it would likely be reflected here.

Maybe so. But there's also people's natural desire not to believe the worst will happen. I admit to being one of those people in 2007. Based on the last couple of weeks, I don't see good reason to believe that his (and Bannon's) recklessness will be brought under control.

He came in with a business-friendly agenda after eight years of stability had erased the memories of 2008. Nobody wants to be the first to decide he's an unhinged mess, just like nobody will want to be the last to decide.

Current stock market performance is not a very good predictor of future economic health. They're almost always highest right before crisis, so trying to prognosticate based on like DJIA is tough game. You fail either by insisting that there's a bubble about to pop any day now for 5 years or by insisting that everything is fine because there are record highs and steady growth for years. I'd look more at business investment, particularly in greenfield projects, but I'm not an economist.

Business isn't figuring that out, it's just good publicity. There's a difference

Like many here, I'm also disappointed about his decision to quit.

I've read some articles comparing Trump's style to some Latin American leaders, and I can see several things that look alike (populist style, protectionism, appealing to nationalism, etc). But what I've learned living under those kinds of governments, is that when they first get to power, they usually have advisors that avoid them from going too far to either side of the political spectrum.

But eventually, as some of the advisors with different points of view start to leave (usually because of internal struggles), the leader tends to take far more radical positions reflecting the view of the surviving group of advisors.

And this starts a spiral that ends up with the leader having an inner circle so radicalized, with a few powerful advisers and several obsequious servers, that won't accept any opposing view on almost any subject.

In Argentina, the last example of this was Cristina Kirchner, whose economic policies were similar to what Trump is suggesting (mainly protectionism, and that's why several of her former economic team praised Trump). When she first got to the presidency after her husband, she 'inherited' most of the advisors his husband had. But the leftist side won her ear, and as the most centered advisors started to resign, her policies started to be more and more reactionary and radicalized.

What I mean with this is that even when you don't agree with the one who is in charge now, just the fact that you are in a position to make him hear you, even if you frequently argue, probably sometimes not in the best of terms, at least it shows that there is going to be lots of resistance and that tends to moderate in some ways some policies that would otherwise be much much worse.

If you leave the inner circle, the only ones who are left are either the ones trying to radicalize the leader, of the ones who won't move a finger as long as they keep their share of power. And that inner circle becomes an eco-chamber, where eventually the leader really believes that what he is doing is great and can not comprehend why some people can't agree with what he proposes, basically living in a fantasy fed by the remaining advisors.

Again, this is what I've seen happening several times, not some wild speculation... and I hope this won't happen here. But every day I'm a little more pessimistic.

Trump isn't clay waiting to be molded; he has clear ideas on what he wants to do, he's been talking about them since mid-2015 and has been acting on them, extremely aggressively, since November. It's past time to believe that he means what he says.

In the last week:

* He acted to ban immigration by many Muslims

* He issued a statement on the Holocaust, and then defended it, using the language of Holocaust deniers.

* He said immigration would favor Christians.

How far does he have to go before you say, 'enough'?

He is not clay, of course, but his policies and ideas can be softened. But that won't happen if the people who can talk to him behind closed doors, where they can be truly honest about what they think, just leave!

If the ones who can tell him to his face that he is wrong with something quit, you can't expect this to get any better, and believe me when I tell you that it can get much much worse.

> He is not clay, of course, but his policies and ideas can be softened.

What makes you say this? I don't agree and I've seen no sign of it, from mid-2015 until now. Has anyone softened them?

There are two options:

A) Advise him: There's a tiny chance you'll affect his policies, but there's a certainty that you will empower him by giving him your credibility. On a selfish level, he will devour that credibility, because he can only discredit you in return.

B) Oppose him: Your advice and resources will help the opposition slow or stop Trump, and you will give them credibility (which will enhance your own credibility).

I strongly believe B will accomplish far more good than A.

I know it's counterfactual history... but what if his only advisers would have been fanatics? Seeing his rhetoric in the campaign, with a full radicalized Trump, I guess the ban would have been much larger, including many other countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, etc).

And the same could be applied to other issues: e.g. exit NAFTA altogether overnight instead of renegotiating.

Is the argument really that 'it could be worse'? I guess that argument theoretically can be used anywhere, but then what does it mean? Arguably, it's never been worse.

My strong belief is that lack of opposition makes things much worse than lack of advice.

As a side note, one radical advisor people are forgetting about in this discussion is National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

The argument is that giving up and leaving, is the best way to have a more radicalized group leading the country, and that will result in even worse policies.

You don't want to have a POTUS with majority control of the Congress and a friendly SCOTUS, to be fully radicalized. But that is what you'll get if their only advisers left are the ones wanting him to rule like that.

And the only reason why the ban doesn't encompass those countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) is because Trump has business dealings there.

Translation: "Uber CEO closes barn door after criticism following horse departure."

I do think this is a good sign though. Perhaps others won't be so quick to silently disagree and there by leave the barn door open.

Personally I'd consider using uber again. If everyone hates uber and refuses to use them, then they aren't customers and uber has 0 incentive to listen to them.

If a bunch of people delete the uber app, and the CEO takes positive action, then I think we should reward good behavior and consider reinstalling it.

Could you clarify why you would consider? I started using Lyft after the taxi situation in NY (At the request of some immigrant friends) and have noticed absolutely no reason to switch back to Uber. The price is on par, the service is on par, the app in general is on par (In San Francisco, where I use ride-sharing around ~5-10 times a week). I guess I don't see a reason to switch back, which I'm hoping you can clarify?

I favor Uber because Uber is pushing the world forward. Uber regularly engages in civil disobedience and political actions (at significant cost to themselves) that are necessary to defeat the entrenched powers.

Lyft and the others are free-riding on Uber's work. They wait for Uber to fix the world then they try to make money in that new, better world.

I question whether it's genuinely possible for a corporation to engage in civil disobedience, even insofar as the government considers corporations to be the same as people in certain circumstances.

If you prefer, it's the humans behind Uber who are engaging in civil disobedience. I prefer to support these humans.

The corporate person is just a simpler way to speak about the same topic.

Ah yes, civil disobedience like testing out their self-driving vehicle -- which can't recognize red lights and doesn't understand bicycle lanes -- in a dense urban area, in noble and glorious disobedience to the parasitic leeching government communist over-regulators who'd prefer they get it closer to, y'know, safe before unleashing it in a place where there are lots of squishy meatbags it could kill.

I agree, although I wonder how Uber is going to survive/thrive as a business. I sometimes wonder if their research into algorithmic dispatching and now self-driving cars are just a song & dance to distract investors. They create new markets but there is a fundamental lack of entry barriers to protect their market share. If what I am saying is correct, then not only is Uber pushing the world forward, but its investors are engaged in a noble transfer of wealth from the rich to the rest, for the benefit of society.

As an Uber employee and an immigrant I am very happy to see this. It's a good day.

"Earlier today I spoke briefly with the President about the immigration executive order and its issues for our community. I also let him know that I would not be able to participate on his economic council. Joining the group was not meant to be an endorsement of the President or his agenda but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this and mapping it to our values. There are a couple that are particularly relevant:

Inside Out - The implicit assumption that Uber (or I) was somehow endorsing the Administration's agenda has created a perception-reality gap between who people think we are, and who we actually are.

Just Change - We must believe that the actions we take ultimately move the ball forward. There are many ways we will continue to advocate for just change on immigration but staying on the council was going to get in the way of that. The executive order is hurting many people in communities all across America. Families are being separated, people are stranded overseas and there's a growing fear the U.S. is no longer a place that welcomes immigrants.

Immigration and openness to refugees is an important part of our country's success and quite honestly to Uber's. I am incredibly proud to work directly with people like Thuan and Emil, both of whom were refugees who came here to build a better life for themselves. I know it has been a tough week for many of you and your families, as well as many thousands of drivers whose stories are heartfelt and heart-wrenching.

Please know, your questions and stories on Tuesday, along with what I heard from drivers, have kept me resilient and reminded me of one of our most essential cultural values, Be Yourself. We will fight for the rights of immigrants in our communities so that each of us can be who we are with optimism and hope for the future."

You can't bring about the change you want by disengaging from the system.

If I had my career to live over, this is the most commonly-repeated "advice" I'd ignore. In my experience, it's damn near impossible to bring about change while remaining in a system, if that system is toxically dysfunctional to begin with.

"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House." -- Audre Lorde.

Totally disagree with this. Voice can be good, but exit can be the right choice for many situations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

Reminder: Uber is the utmost evil.

1. It dismantles the very society by undermining the rule of law. What would remain of society if every business decided there are some regulations it could wilfully ignore and build a business based on this?

2. It pushes subprime car mortgages on its drivers. Then the repayment comes out of their wages. Often these cars have remote inhibitors so if you didn't make enough, your car won't start next week. All this has a name: indebted servitude.

3. It launched automated cars with known bugs that put cyclists in deadly danger. It even admitted doing this although not the "deadly" part.

These are all easy to verify to facts. I know I will be downvoted, I am always downvoted when I post this (although 3. is somewhat new), I do not know why I am downvoted -- but I will not stop. Edit: barely a minute after posting I am already downvoted but there's never an answer disputing the facts.

Edit: really? I need to repost this pile of links every bloody time?

1. I do not have or need a source on this, ignoring taxi legislation is what Uber does, simply.

2. 2014 article on subprime loans: http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-and-its-shady-partners-are-... 2016 article on subprime loans: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/inside-ub... A personal experience report: https://twitter.com/shashashasha/status/688734478181732352

3. Self driving shit: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self... (and again it defies regulations!)

Maybe if you published your sources, instead of voicing unsustained claims, you'd be less downvoted.

Sure.

If this garners much media interest (and I can't see how it won't), what are the chances that Trump takes it as a public rebuke and looks for revenge?

Yesterday, it was with Australian PM Turnbull whose crew had been publicly very supportive of Trump and especially on this immigration issue. Up came the 1,250 refugee deal that risked making Trump look like he lacked control, and he reacted pretty badly and very publicly. And that was with a long-time ally and ongoing supporter.

An article I wish I could find pointed out that Trump regularly acts against people who support him, often openly humiliating them. Turnbull isn't alone.

The theory was that Trump respects strength only and not political support. Remember the President of Mexico met with Trump during the campaign, yet with a Mexican delegation in DC Trump humiliated him over Twitter.

Note that Trump has very few political allies in DC.

I assume Travis saw his "Digg moment" coming from Lyft and this is purely damage control. I envision he said something like "Sorry Donald, our share is tanking, I can't stay visible with you, I have to leave the council, even if it costs me some insider information and state-driven business in the future", and then went off to write a memo with a spin to make Uber Look Great Again ;-)

Right call. Though I understand that being on the council is not an endorsement, it does normalize Trump and set back the resistance movement.

> I understand that being on the council is not an endorsement

I disagree. He can say it's not an endorsement, but that's its effect. Kalanick is no fool or neophyte; he knows that if he is an advisor for Trump, he is saying that he and Trump have mutual respect and Trump takes his advice; if he says he'll talk to Trump, it implies that Trump is open to reasonable discussion on these issues.

A fantastic argument about whether to serve and try to mitigate, or to oppose Trump:

The Case Against Serving

https://www.justsecurity.org/34404/case-serving-trump/

It's a prominent government attorney and Georgetown professor advising others.

It's

This is pretty astonishing considering the Uber exec's personality is not exactly held in highest esteem, that even he thought it was unpopular to be affiliated with Trump. I guess the power and potential wealth isn't enough to balance out the abuse. With Donald Trump's confrontational demeanor, he might push a lot of big egos away, and some that he would have to contend with.

Based on Kalanack's very high-profile role in the tech community, the news item was certainly "of interest to hackers", per the HN guidelines. Seems inappropriate for it to have been flagged.

The 'no politics, please, we're techies' likely reflexively flag anything that contains the word 'Trump'. I wouldn't be surprised if there are bots active to do this, the speed with which some articles are flagged is eerie.

Does anyone know here the Business Advisory Council's homepage is? I looked around with no luck.

I'd like to know who else is on it. Elon Musk is one, but who else?

It's the awkwardly named "Strategic and Policy Forum". Names are included here: https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-addit...

As I understand it, the first meeting is today, and all but Kalanick (who dropped out) and Iger (who had a scheduling conflict or "had a scheduling conflict") will be attending (or "are attending" or "did attend" - not sure exactly when it was scheduled).

Did he leave because of pressure from employees and customers or because he didn't want to or couldn't work with the Donald?

Silicon Valley culture needs to recognize its tendency towards bullying people that are perceived to not fit the ideological mold, and fix it. Like now. Brendan Eich and Peter Thiel are two examples in recent memory. In addition to being ethically wrong, it's also bad for business in the long run. Trump isn't going away anytime soon, and part of his nationalist populist economic strategy to pick winners and losers. Silicon Valley may find itself as one of the losers.

I would rather be a loser in Trump's world than profit from normalizing it.

This isn't about their ideology; it's about their actions. We should be putting pressure on anyone working with Trump regardless of ideology.

If everyone who cares what you think stops advising Trump, all his advice will come from people who don't care what you think. Why would you ever want that!?

All his advice already comes from people like that. If Trump were planning to swap out Bannon for Kalanick, what you're saying would make sense, but this is a relatively unimportant advisory council. It's not exactly Trump's inner circle.

What exactly is Trump going to replace Silicon Valley with, his 10 year old son who is "good at cyber?"

Imagine this dream. All of Trump's advisors get so scared they leave. Trump's support base falls over and he becomes powerless. We can dream.

Imagine this reality.

Trump's tech influencers (the Thiel crowd) get scared and leave. Thiel loses influence. Bannon and the nationalists don't get scared. They show loyalty to Trump.

Trump then favors the priorities of those who are loyal to him.

Don't kid yourself, trump will only surrounded himself with like minded people. Judging from the people in Council. Uber exec isn't exactly known to be progressive.

This is a lot of fear-mongering, relativist nonsense.

Peter Thiel is a billionaire. In the words of Killer Mike, 'who's gonna bully me if I got a billy?'

The oppression faced by millionaires like Brendan Eich and billionaires like Peter Thiel is one of the biggest issues facing America today. We should all stand up in solidarity for the minority demographic "Holders of Immense Wealth".

Part of marketing is associating yourself with good things; that is, things your customers like or at worst don't care too much about. This is why most companies avoid controversy when they can.

It seems naive to think that if you associate yourself with something some of your customers especially hate, it won't have any effect. Sometimes you gotta take a stand, but it has costs.

(It's kind of weird to apply this to Uber though, since they're hardly a company that avoids controversy.)

I understand why people feel this way. But the premise of this concern is that the Trump administration could be meaningfully influenced by these clubs. In really no administration is this the case. Kalanick's real role on the "Business Advisory Council" is as an endorser of Trump and his policies. That's not just supposition: it's Kalanick's stated reason for leaving the "Council".

Further, there being no rational basis for the construction of an immigration ban that detains pre-schoolers at the border and denies visa- and green-card-holders access to their homes, we've already reached a point where the idea of rational inputs to Trump's policy process miss the point. Trump isn't looking to accomplish serious domestic policy objectives.

Finally, I don't think we need to spend too much time on the concern that leaving a "business advisory council" is going to deprive the leadership of multi-billion-dollar corporations of access to the policy-making process anyways. I'm pretty sure any CEO in the Fortune 500 can get any meeting they want regarding policymaking in the Trump (or Obama) administration.

Unless there's some demographic anomaly about Uber I haven't picked up on, Kalanick's employees overwhelmingly oppose the Trump administration. I prefer to see this as a hopeful sign that no matter how outsized their compensation, tech's leadership remains beholden in at least some ways to its rank-and-file employees. Now it's time to find better ways to put that influence to use.

We can't spend 8 years complaining on this message board about how unfair options packages at big tech companies are and then shrink away when given the opportunity to use our market power to help people in real need.

I agree with this analysis.

Let's presume that Mr. Kalanick feels the way that I think most of us do, which is different from how Mr. Trump feels.

Staying on the council will give the appearance of endorsement. That's a negative for him (and Uber, probably). That could be counterbalanced by his ability to affect change. And if Mr. Trump had given him the impression that he could influence his behavior in any way, perhaps he would have accepted the negative in exchange for a chance at the positive. I simply doubt that Mr. Trump gave him any reason to think he would have any real influence. Therefore, quitting expeditiously is a rational move.

It's also very possible that Kalanick saw the writing on the wall that Trump and his administration could not be reasoned with, and these protests against the immigration EO (and Uber's snafu) gave him an "out" based on external pressure.

I'm reminded of Eliot Cohen's response after trying to work with the administration in good faith:

After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.

https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800

The story I read about this announcement said that Kalanick called and spoke with Trump about this. I imagine that he could have walked back on it had Trump's reaction given him hope.

Not all (I'd actually venture out to say most) people important to Uber (customers!) think like you do.

Look into the #deleteUber campaign and the subsequent rise of Lyft usage. I was pretty disappointed to see the same reactionary protesters you talk about, not doing due research. But they have the capacity to hurt Uber very much.

So being bent to them is actually the better move if you ask me. If he would've stayed, sadly most would see it as a choice of siding with Trump administration, and Uber or Kalanick can't really afford another anti-Uber hashtag movement.

I agree people should not be reactionary, but it doesn't not apply in this case.

Trump has been advocating these things for over a year and a half, to a far greater extreme and more brazenly than any major party candidate possibly ever. He has been acting on them since Election Day, including via appointing xenophobic, hateful people such as Steve Bannon to high positions, and with his actions post-inauguration. Over the same period Trump has also demonstrated an extreme unwillingness to listen to anyone, including people in his own government, in his own party and his own political allies.

If this was Trump's first day on the campaign trail, I'd agree. But at this point it's not at all reactionary to draw conclusions about Trump and to oppose him. What more evidence do we need? What more could he provide? We cannot wait for him to capture more ground and hurt more people in return for a very slim chance that he will suddenly change his personality, behavior and policies and listen to reason. This man has openly declared war on the values of much of America and the world; as his forces advance across the metaphorical landscape, should we stand back and try to negotiate Peace in our time?

We have been through this. It is not like this council is anything other that Trump administration looking for endorsement from the tech industry.

Do you seriously think that it would all be fine, if only Kalanick and Musk mentioned to Trump that it was a bad idea to ban muslim refugees?

This is not to mention Trump's trying to control businesses by giving out favors in exchange for endorsements is a path to legitimizing autocracy. The administration wants feedback from business leaders? Fine, go ahead and listen to the media or read their open letters.

The CEOs having to prize and endorse Trump in exchange to not being slammed on Twitter is so wrong I do not even know where to start.

This endorsement was a bad business and morally and ethically wrong.

there is not a shard of morality involved in this, he's quitting because it's hurting his business...

Convenient timing - wasn't there supposed to be a meeting of CEOs and Trump tomorrow?

Honestly this is a bit of a bummer.

Not because it's good or useful for Travis to be on the advisory board, but because I want to live in a world where Uber continues to correctly be branded across social media as a fascist-collaborating parasite that nobody wants to use

Why does Elon Musk get a pass but not Uber's CEO?

Arguably, because Uber is in the spotlight as a result of breaking the taxi worker strike at JFK. Don't think Musk is getting a pass per se, as much as he hasn't attracted attention to himself.

Because Musk didn't draw attention to himself the way Kalanick did during the NYC cab driver strike. Also Kalanick tends toward the image of someone trying to do away with labor unions whereas Musk is seen as someone trying to save the planet.

He didn't: https://electrek.co/2017/01/31/tesla-model-3-reservation-hol...

I wonder why the techcrunch article just got flagged? (how do you even flag something here, do you need to have an account with a certain number of points?)

discussion was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13555124

I see a flag button. I think it's points? I have 1325

HN users compulsively flag any articles with political relevance. Unfortunately.

Harder to justify when so many of them are directly related to tech and the SV startup scene.

This post has more top-level comments criticizing the decision, so I guess it stays.

Yep... and this post is already downvoted to the 2nd page. Despite gathering over 70 comments during the last hour...

Comments from the previous thread moved here. Since I can't delete the above, consider it retracted, and thanks sctb.

Yes, there's a minimum karma necessary to flag submissions. I don't recall the threshold off the top of my head.

I think a lot of members are feeling some degree of politics exhaustion. There's still plenty of discussion going on.

> have prevented flags from killing the thread

Which is why -- 20 minutes later -- it shows up on page 3 when pts vs time indicates it should be the #1 result?

I realize the number and voting on comments can affect this rating somewhat but should it drop the #1 result to #63+ so that it shows up around +8 submissions that are 3 times as old?

We've also dampened penalties that would have otherwise tanked the story, like flags and the overheated discussion detector.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13556391 and marked it off-topic.

Does the [flagged] tag mean some individual flagged it, or that the moderators approved the flag?

Unless HN is changing its standards, and I wouldn't like to see that, then this shouldn't be flagged.

They're both evil, but incompatible. Uber needs cheap illegals to keep driver costs down. That's not a good match to Trump's position.

I don't have any reason to believe that a wall will stop that. I don't think anyone does. I also don't think most uber drivers are actually illegals.

I do think his stance on worker rights is wrong, but that's a separate issue.

> Uber needs cheap illegals to keep driver costs down.

Inflammatory phrasing aside, are you sure an 'illegal' could actually become an Uber driver? I suspect not - they are forced to work for cash-in-hand payment and don't have social security numbers. I don't see how Uber could enable that.

I don't believe that it's a serious problem, but you could probably drive in someone else's name if you needed to - I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to be the 'named driver' for a cut of your income.

I'm happy to share how on a private message. But the answer to your question is yes.

> they are forced to work for cash-in-hand payment and don't have social security numbers

Seriously? Do you really think needing an SSN is a barrier to employment these days? Aside from the fact that I'm sure uber would take a ITIN, it is not at all unheard of for 'undocumented immigrants' to 'borrow' SSNs from unwitting citizens. In fact, many times this isn't even a problem for the legitimate holder of the SSN.

Plus, these days you don't need to have immigrated to the US legally at all to get a driver's license*

Now, that said I doubt very much that Uber relies on such employees - I just think saying it can't happen is ridiculous.

[1]http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/ab-60-drivers-license.php

When Austin TX required fingerprinting and photos for drivers, Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin.

The EO at issue is all about legal immigrants.

Don't forget this. Don't let this turn cloudy in your mind. The administration campaigned for a crackdown on illegal immigration and immediately went after legal immigrants instead, despite assurances to the contrary.

No, the 90 day suspension is on travel, not immigration. Green card holders and dual citizens can enter the US freely (now that the botched implementation details have been cleared up).

I don't support the travel ban, but I also don't support the rampant mis-characterization of it in the media and here on HN.

Visa holders are legal immigrants too, and it appears they've been entirely banned.

people on tourist visas are not immigrants. Many kinds of visas.

and some visas are immigrant visas.

that doesn't make 'Visa holders are legal immigrants too' statement true.

> No, the 90 day suspension is on travel, not immigration.

Immigration requires travel. Banning travel effectively bans immigration

> Green card holders and dual citizens can enter the US freely (now that the botched implementation details have been cleared up).

You mean, now that federal judges have issued orders to stay the President's ban. There was no exception mentioned for green card holders in the executive order.

The President is not above the law. When he breaks it he will be held accountable.

I think this is a very bad development. Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc. In our quest for ideological purity, we are driving all the people who can provide Trump with good advice to stay away from him.

Trump is hardly an ideologue on this matter:

Trump: “When someone is going to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Stanford, all the greats and then they graduate, we throw them out of the country, and they can’t get back in, I think that’s terrible, We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country.”

Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-disgusted-a...

Guess what - now Trump has one fewer voice telling him to be inclusive. Bannon is still advising Trump to double down on nationalism.

Realistically, we can have two presidencies: the Bannon presidency or the Thiel presidency. The odds of a Bannon presidency just went up.

A message board comment like this is the only place in the world anyone believes there was a likelihood of a "Thiel presidency". Thiel's influence is in no way comparable to Bannon's.

So the President of the United States is such a weak-minded fool that he can be taken in by a white supremacist hell-bent on destroying the foundations of this society, but it will be the opposition's fault if he continues to listen to him? Again, THIS IS NOT NORMAL. You don't appease that kind of insanity, you fight it with every tool you have.

If he is such a weak minded fool, wouldn't you want to stay on his advisory board and influence him?

Isn't it a bit unreasonable to just assume that people on that board will have enough actual influence? I know what you said is said often, but it seems to rely on a pretty big assumption there.

Obviously they won't influence Trump on what he sees as a national security matter. But if you accept that Trump means everything he says, then jobs are also one of his top priorities. He wants Silicon Valley and automotive manufacturers there for a reason.

> Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc.

...And what concrete good was produced by that exposure? Intelligent (even well-informed) people don't produce better results just by exposing themselves to others, independent of those others intention and inclination not.just to passively bask in their flow, but actively engage.

There's the 2 for 1 rule, which Trump is trying to quietly sneak it through while everyone is distracted by immigration stuff. https://nypost.com/2017/01/30/trump-executive-order-creates-...

There's Trump's FDA shortlist - Balaji Srinavasan and Jim O'Neill: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/31/14364090/pet...

These are both certainly far more based on Thiel's influence than Bannon's.

The first is just plain stupid, and the other seems actively harmful (though likely ideologically the same orientation as Bannon or Priebus would have recommended, if not the same individuals, so perhaps not actually a net negative), so I don't see any good that would be lost by them not being attached to Trump.

As someone else pointed out, the 2-for-1 rule has long been a GOP talking point.

Trump has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, since 2015, that he will not listen to anyone who disagrees with him and is not interested in knowledge, expertise, or reason.

There always is a slim possibility of some tiny influence. This is the reasoning of people who have advised all sorts of monsters, including the many ministers who helped the Nazis and Soviets. It's also a convenient, seductive rationalization to avoid risking yourself and your career in a political war. Far beyond the tiny influence they lend him, they lend him their enormous credibility. People see him talking to people like Musk, Kalanick, etc, and think he has their respect, their advice, and their approval (at least enough to keep working with him). And they deny the opposition that same credibility.

Think of it this way: Would they work with a CEO who consistently and publicly (not in private) pushed the same hateful ideas as Trump? Not for long.

At some point, one must decide there is a war and pick a side. To stay home, to keep one's head down and play it safe while victims are suffering and dying, and while other people are standing up, taking those same risks and suffering themselves, is cowardice. (A harsh term, but I think it's applicable.)

If Trump's behavior over all this time doesn't convince someone there is a war and an enemy, I don't know what will. I can't imagine what could make it more clear. Evil people usually are far more subtle; look at Putin, for example.

Bannon disagreed with him (see the quotes above) yet he's listening to Bannon.

Consider the possibility that your caricatures of Trump being stupid and irrational might not be true - if they were, he probably wouldn't have won the election.

If you look at his cabinet picks, and the actions he's taken so far, there is pretty clear Thiel influence. The 2 for 1 rule on regulations is pretty clearly Thiel. So is Balaji Srinavasan and O'Neill for the FDA. In fact, much of the transition team is Thiel, as is much of the advisory council.

This is a facile argument. The "cut N regulations for every K new regulations" has been a Republican trope for decades; Romney used it in 2012. Virtually none of Trump's appointees are within 6 degrees of Thiel.

I didn't say stupid. He's good at generating publicity and to a degree, being a demagogue (though that isn't going well so far). The reality of Trump's actions and words is far more convincing than the parent comment's theoretical analysis.

> Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc.

I was under the impression that the "Strategic and Policy Forum" has not met yet. (Not, of course, relevant to Thiel)

It appears that bullying does work. I mean "criticism". Trump is President for at least the next four years. This childish "us vs them" attitude is not healthy. Silicon Valley needs to have people advising Trump, regardless of their differences.

[Update]

I'll update here so I have one downvoted answer, not several.

1. Bullying doesn't necessarily involve violence. The future of his company was threatened. Here's an example of Trump being called a bully for threatening to remove funding from Berkeley:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/uc-berkeley-milo-p...

> Trump is President for at least the next four years.

Incorrect. There are at least four ways, without violating the Constitution, Trump could stop being President before his term ends.

> This childish "us vs them" attitude is not healthy.

Not having an "us v. them" attitude is foolish (and possibly suicidal) when "them" are genuinely opposed to "us".

Are you them or us? I think I'm us, but I'm not sure.

"Who am us, anyway?"

> There are at least four ways, without violating the Constitution, Trump could stop being President before his term ends.

Impeachment, resignation, death... what's the fourth?

Some sort of medical incapacitation?

I think you're likely right.

25th Amendment impairment (though technically he'd still be President, just without the powers of the office.)

Hard to advise someone infamous for not taking advice.

> It appears that bullying does work

How is a boycott bullying? There is no violence here.

> childish "us vs them" attitude is not healthy

It's called nonviolent resistance and resisting normalization. It's very healthy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/2...

> Trump is President for at least the next four years

Nope... impeachment... Lotsa work to do... No non-violent resistance that has mobilized more than 3.5% of the population has failed in the last 100-ish years. On Jan 21st 1-1.5% of the US population participated. https://rationalinsurgent.com/2013/11/04/my-talk-at-tedxboul...

Bullying does not imply violence.

Seems like it can imply violence, but you're right doesn't have to. I feel like calling a boycott bullying is still a strong misrepresentation.

> Nope... impeachment... Lotsa work to do... No non-violent resistance that has mobilized more than 3.5% of the population has failed in the last 100-ish years. On Jan 21st 1-1.5% of the US population participated.

While there certainly was a large anti-Trump sentiment at the Woman's March, there were a plethora of issues that brought all those people together. To imply that all who participated want a Trump impeachment is not accurate.

> To imply that all who participated want a Trump impeachment is not accurate

Really? Were you at one? I can't speak for everywhere, but the 100k folks I marched with in Denver seemed pretty gung-ho on the idea. Most common theme on signs I saw was something to the effect of: "This cat has claws" (tried to clean it up a bit ;) )

Also, currently 40% of registered voters support impeaching Trump: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317627-poll-4-in-...

Ultimately though that data is about what percentage you can mobilize and activate. Just answering a survey isn't enough.

> Really? Were you at one?

Yes, I was at the one in Oakland.

I'm surprised that was your impression then, but I certainly could be projecting my own biases.

I'm sure there was a rigorous internal debate, giving up a seat at that table is a huge loss of influence.

I vehemently disagree. the Advisory Council is simply a way for Trump to show how he's just like any other president and to legitimize himself, he will not hear anything those people have to say.

I wish Elon went the same way, Trump is planning to destroy everything he stands for.

Why is opposition childish?

This childish "us vs them" attitude is not healthy.

You know, sometimes in life, when dealing with certain forces of chaos and disruption, which can be safely categorized as entirely malignant, e.g. the Mafia, the Khmer Rouge, ISIS... or a certain mentally imbalanced fascist demagogue currently masquerading a the leader of the free world -- you just need take a clear stand, and call a spade a spade. Which you can call an "Us v. Them" attitude, if you like.

But calling people who recognize this fact "childish" isn't helpful at all.

So exercising discretion in who you do business with is bullying? What happened to free markets? What happened to accountability to consumers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com