EDIT: For the record, the parent has ghost-edited their post.
Best case scenario (which I think is more likely), they are simply interpreting this story in context. Uber has several ethics scandals under their belt including ones involving them gathering and analyzing data for unethical purposes (guessing which of their customers have had one night stands).
For the record, what I am reacting to is not the possibility of a belief that Uber might do such a thing[1], but the defence of a naked lie.
1: I think such a belief is an extremely shallow reading of Uber as wanting to do evil in and of itself, rather than willing to bend a lot of rules very very far to serve their customers (and sometimes cross the line in creative data-driven marketing), and have created a toxic corporate culture in the process -- it's easy to see how 'break all the rules as long as you're winning' can do that. I also don't think they will survive long, companies with less toxic cultures (but no less friendly to the taxi-interest-captured regulatory bodies or unions) will prevail because they can attract the better talent. Firing a driver with good performance because he doesn't listen to the company podcast is not even remotely consistent with that willingness. But that's not the discussion we're having.
The headline is incorrect - they're not being forced - but it's hardly "fake news" conspiracy theory to speculate that some drivers may feel pressured over this.
Speculating what people might be doing, especially when it sounds plausible, then presenting it as fact, is exactly fake news.
I believe it implausible that Uber didn't consider the pressure/intimidation aspect that a daily prompt to listen to their propaganda entails when adding it to the system.
The difference is between presenting your ideas as "facts" - or making it clear that they are theories, ideally with reasons given why you think they are worth considering.
This exchange belonged to the latter category.
More generally, the term "fake news" is thrown around far too often for my tastes. If I remember correctly, the origin was a scandal about eastern european scammers writing deliberately doctored news to create controversy and cash-in on ad revenue.
Nowadays, this term seems to be used by anyone to describe any kind of rumors or guesswork (or occasionally well-researched journalism) that doesn't fit their particular view.
Right, but in some peoples' opinions, the moon landing being a conspiracy is reasonable. That doesn't mean we should discuss it like it's true on this website.