Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

I don't really understand why the author of the article is worried about the CEO not being a woman... Seriously, who cares? It's not going to look good for who ever takes over and there are a lot less woman candidates. Uber will be lucky if it makes it to 2019 IMO.

Would give them 6 months, but half the valley invested in them.

View on HN

Kara Swisher writes "Ew" in news articles. Her work is devoid of substance and just pushes an agenda that is populist and will get her likes from the largest group of people on Twitter

There is no better evidence of her bias against Travis and Uber than how she conducted herself in her interview with Adam Lashinsky. Here's the full transcript:

https://www.recode.net/2017/7/16/15980006/transcript-journal...

She isn't a journalist. She's an activist pushing an agenda, facts-be-damned. Long gone are the day's of Walter Cronkite's "And that's the way it is."

This is a much broader trend in contemporary media. The line between news and editorial has been all but erased.

Yes, I agree. However, it's one thing to occasionally give an opinion in the course of practicing journalism and something entirely different to steer the conversation towards the message you're trying to push. Kara wasn't even subtle about it this interview. Her bias was not just showing, but on full display for all to see.

It's really unfortunate because the individuals in the general population don't really get the facts and an opportunity to each come to slightly different conclusions. It's journalist malpractice to tell people what to think, since that's not journalism. That's propaganda.

Yup, this doesn't contain any quotes from well placed sources or anything like that nor delivers any new information about, say, Meg Whitman's candidacy. Totally devoid of merit.

I guess you just must have been momentarily distracted when you reached the part in the article in which she explicitly states why: "While gender of a leader should not matter to dispatching such appalling behaviors, the symbolism over the appointment of a female CEO at Silicon Valley’s most toxic-bro startup is unquestionable."

That quote seems to have some sexist elements itself.

It doesn't when this entire drama is due to the company's sexist and toxic culture.

The sexist part is the implication that every man is "bro" somehow... that only a female CEO could count as a symbolic change in leadership.

That isn't being implied.

And an "unquestionable" symbolism is not the same as "the only possible" symbolism.

The only unquestionable symbolism would be hiring a female CEO?

You're exhausting if only because you try to place the comments of others into a linguistic box of your own creation, not theirs.

There are undoubtedly many things Uber could do that would be "unquestionably symbolic." Hiring someone else with a history of sexual harassment would be unquestionably symbolic. Nowhere did anyone say that hiring a female CEO is the only unquestionably symbolic act they could do. But it is one of them, and in that hypothetical instance, the symbolism would be positive.

And no, it isn't the only unquestionably positive act they could do.

I don't see the implication at all. The culture of the company can be "bro" without every single employee being "bro". By your logic all the women working at Uber would also have to be "bro".

sexism + sexism != sexism?

Are you implying the only possible solution for that is a women? That itself is very sexist.

Indeed, my point exactly.

I will bet you any amount of money that you care to wager that Uber "makes it to 2019."

Your criticism of company is one thing but thinking that they are not lasting longer than 6 months is a complete oversight on your part of how dominant they are in market or how many new markets they are trying to enter. No one cares about their management troubles outside silicon valley and rightly so. Consumers care about product and convenience . I agree with the part that they should aim for competent candidate not female candidate but thinking they are not making it into 2019 is just laughable.

Agreed. I wish they would just state the facts, and avoid the SJW nonsense. I don't care about the author's thoughts on identity politics - I just want the substance of the story.

Calling out the prime goal of remedying a toxic sexist culture in an article that is being written because of said company's toxic sexist culture isn't identity politics nor SJW, it's reality.

Here's reality: kowtowing to leftist media pressure in the name of making a company more 'sensitive and diverse' (i.e., hiring people for any reason other than their competence, such as their addition to 'diversity'), will kill it. Full stop. Ridesharing is quickly turning into a low margin, commodified business, and the more time Uber wastes with this nonsense, the more of an edge its competitors will gain on it.

Unfortunately, your observation applies to all American companies.

Diversity can contribute value in many contexts, but diversity for the sake of diversity is a distraction. Homogeneity can also contribute in many contexts as well. Homogeneity and diversity exist on a spectrum and the right balance between those two depends on what you're optimizing for. There is no silver bullet.

That all said, the only diversity that really matters is diversity of knowledge, experiences, opinions and thoughts. Not all experiences, opinions and thoughts are relevant to the task at hand. Diversity of identity is generally a poor proxy for the type of diversity that has utility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com