Comment by the8472 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by the8472 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"what kind of batshitty, drunken affair was it such that an Uber executive could even think it'd be worthwhile to loudly muse about such a plan"

CEOs are just humans harboring things commonly called "emotions" just like everyone else. They are not the flawless machines that PR wants you to believe. That's why they and everyone else needs some privacy, to just entertain idle thoughts that are neither politically correct nor moral to implement. Those "could spend a million dollars" are basically a white collar version of "I'd love to take them out to the back alley and punch their faces because they make me angry". Even when you know that it would be stupid, criminal and in no way a good way to resolve an issue such thoughts still may pass everyone once in a while.

I generally don't think that holding "public figures" to flawless standards is a good thing, it just asks for them to play a game of pretend, putting up a facade all the time.

The moments they think they are in private those fake masks fall. Remember for example the event were Obama and Sarkozy call Netanyahu a liar when they think the microphones are off.

It's one thing to afford a public figure some margin of fallibility for being human. It's another thing entirely for that executive to publicly express authoritative, aggressive behaviors towards potential dissidents. This is some dictator shit right here.

But it wasn't publicly. That's why I said that everyone needs some privacy and it certainly is also an aspect why the notion of "off the record" exists.

And while I wouldn't call it "dictator shit" since a CEO is not a government official with direct power over his targets, it would certainly be a smear campaign which I wouldn't condone.

I'm operating on the assumption that people say many things that they do not intend to follow up with deeds, especially when they think they are not talking publicly.

Private expression is fine in your own home. When you spout off about attacking journalists, in front of journalists, you are asking for it.

Plus, as mentioned earlier, this was not an off-the-record conversation.

source? article sayse dude was not invited, was +1 of an invited guest.

If this was in a a different context, maybe. But private dinner, and expressed in the hypothetical, it a bit of a stretch. This story is media hype for two reasons: (1) greed and ego of the press; and (2) greed and ego of the press. Buzzfeed looks good for breaking the story, and the comment is an existential threat to other journalists and their business models. Ego, here we are.

I'd be more worried about this if their were some evidence that this was a view (1) meant to be expressed in public (or actually articulated to the public); or (2) articulated in confidence internally in a professional context (which means the intent was real, not just rhetorical; or (3) if other eye-witness testimony comes forth that unequivically supports that this was an actual threat mean to intimidate those actually present (seems unlikely...but lets see).

Without that, this is just another internet shitstorm, manufactured by people who have something to gain financially or who are emotionally invested in maligning this individual or the company.

I don't think you need to give anone the benefit of the doubt here, its more that the evidence doesn't really support the conclusions that are implied by the reporting (at least, yet).

> they and everyone else needs some privacy, to just entertain idle thoughts that are neither politically correct nor moral to implement

That private space is amply available in the board room. That's a suitable space to say stupid shit as part of a process of working off steam and then finding a better solution or of playing devil's advocate.

A public meeting with journalists without pre-arranged privacy arrangements is not a good place to say really stupid stuff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com