Peter Thiel: Uber is most ethically challenged company in Silicon Valley [video] | Hacker News Reader

Peter Thiel: Uber is most ethically challenged company in Silicon Valley [video]

money.cnn.com

135 pointsgordon_freeman122 comments

Notice the language here. He doesn't seem, at least from my reading, to be chastising Uber for doing things that are morally wrong. He's instead chastising them for doing morally wrong things and not pulling it off. For example:

"Sometimes the people who break the rules win and sometimes they push it too far,"

implying that Uber could be doing wrong things in some more correct way and continue to thrive, and that there isn't anything wrong with that. He doesn't say "broke rules," or "did bad things," he said "pushed the envelope."

Look at the implication there - you can and maybe should do unethical things, break some rules, "push the envelope" with questionable behaviors as long as you get away with it.

In the context of the rest of the video and other stuff Thiel has said, I interpreted that statement to mean that rule breaking is not necessarily immoral but a company like Uber can get carried away and what is essentially a "culture" of rule breaking meant to undermine unjust regulations becomes one meant to undermine competition at any cost.

I think close to 100% of successful entrepreneurs would agree with the statement "You can, and must break some rule, push the envelope, and engage in questionable behavior when building a company - the challenge is in always remembering where the line is, and never crossing it."

Uber clearly crossed the line when their executives voiced out load their frustration with the media and then continued talking and imagined how nice it would be to give the media a taste of their own medicine and do all sorts of reporting on them personally.

It's fine to have those little fantasies in your head - but that's as far as it can ever go. What's troubling is that the Uber exec honestly thought it was acceptable to give words to those thoughts... I'm wondering if alcohol was involved.

The difference is in what is being broken. A rule can be some conventional wisdom that is wrong, where the rule breaker is innovating through the barrier of complacency or it can be an ethical or moral consensus, a social rule, they break that may or may not be right. And those are much more troublesome. The absolute vs relative ethics debate alone makes it a nightmare to begin with.

Let's not mince words - Uber is not a tech company, what is their unique and newly developed technology? They are exploiting a loophole and operating unlicensed minicabs, profiting from the arbitrage of lower costs of not having to comply with regulation. Why is anyone surprised that they have a generally fuzzy idea about "rules"? It is on the regulators to shut them down.

Let's not go overboard. Uber's real time tracking, checkin, and reservation of cars, in conjunction with dynamic surge pricing to guarantee there will always be a vehicle, is pretty damn innovative - when it works. I use Uber a lot, and in the bay area, it's world class in terms of providing time estimates of arrival. In Dubai - not so much.

So - yes, lots of missteps by Uber, particularly on the ethics front, but don't discount how they revolutionized the real time tracking/reservation of cars.

This is exactly it.

When Uber is breaking the rules that protect a tiny medallion-holding, rent seeking cartel, that's a positive for society.

When Uber is just end-running around sensible public licensing of taxis in cities without medallion cartels that's not really doing anything for society.

When Uber sabotages Lyft, promotes misogyny and threatens vile character assassination of journalists for negative coverage that's just Uber being repulsive and is a negative for society.

I hope more areas go down the road Seoul is supposedly going with their aim for a universal taxi app.

The report you are quoting from yesterday seems to be more Valleywag gossip talk for pageviews most likely taken out of context (look at all the internet rage it has generated just on this site) than actual evil wrongdoing.

No, that actually happened. The exec and his CEO have even admitted to and apologized for it. Not one of them has denied any of the terrible quotes attributed to the Uber executive.

Sure they stated they could also hire people to dig up dirt on the reporters private lives who are trying to write gossip articles about Uber exec's private goings on, I don't really see any issue with that.

The amount of quotes in that article meant that this was not a one-line joke, but a full-blown description of some fantasy. Like somebody going on and on about the ways they would kill their ex-wife or something.

It's one thing to feel antagonised by someone, it's another to build out some revenge fantasy in detail.

Giving a gossip columnist a taste of their own medicine is really that bad?

That's interesting missing context - Was this all in response to Sarah writing about the private lives of Uber Execs? I thought it was in response to her writing about the Companies Behavior. If not excusing the idea of writing about the private lives of the reporters, it certainly provides context that didn't exist before.

Agreed. Besides, they've never acted upon those words. It was essentially a thoughtcrime.

"Breaking rules" is one thing. Showing completely immoral behavior is another.

Uber didn't "cross the line", they are miles off course on the wrong side.

There are rules and there are rules. Moral compass tells you which ones you can break, and often breaking the rule is the moral thing to do. So I think Thiel is calling them out for doing things morally wrong, not just rule breaking.

Uber has lost their way. You break rules for a just cause, you get rewarded because you stuck your head out and took a risk. You put it all on the line. But you have to be willing to be held accountable.

Breaking rules to avoid accountability? Well, that just sounds all too fucking familiar.

You're not the only one in this comment thread to present this line of thinking, but I think you have explained it most explicitly, so I'll respond here.

I think that this is a very charitable interpretation of what Theil said in this interview. He doesn't talk about morality or mention it at all, except in a passing use of the term "ethically challenged." That term, and the others like it that he uses ("push the envelope," "disrupt") are all corporatespeak/Silicon Valleyspeak and euphemism.

The statement is well-tailored to be against Uber's actions without speaking specifically to cause, and that raises alarm bells to me. The thing is, Uber is taking just as much risk doing something both morally and legally wrong as they are doing something morally right and legally wrong. It's the same discussion and the same innuendos from the business end. It's the morality end that gets the short.

Almost every notable tech company has at least one unethical story behind it. Steve Jobs and Woz selling blue boxes to fund Apple is probably the most famous.

Look at the morality between your comparison. Jobs/Woz wanted to defraud a monolithic monopoly (Ma Bell) while Uber is talking about getting back at journalists (mind you I have no naive view of "reporters" and their employers).

Sounds pretty distinct to me - both are rules broken, just one is about silencing investigation and the other is about stealing from the rich.

I agree with your point, but there's a fair few genuine ethical issues from Jobs, sometimes even at the expense of Woz. Jobs was a bit of a dick sometimes, Woz still counted him a friend.

At the end of the video where Thiel compares AirBnB and Uber in challenging ethics, he clearly says that AirBnB is empowering communities whereas Uber is 'exploiting' Limo drivers. Sounds pretty negative language to me for Uber.

Not all rules are ethical. I believe Uber is breaking a few of the ones that are.

There is acceptable gray if you're willing to live within the consequences. Big companies never do work until the contract is signed. Smaller companies live within the ambiguity. ("If we mess up, we're out of business anyway.") Big companies may never sign someone who has a non-compete. Small companies take the risk. ("It's not enforceable")

If you cross too often and too far, that's when you get into trouble.

OK, so it's obviously a little transparent of Thiel to say that Uber [a competitor to Lyft, a company in which he has invested] is "on the cusp" of going too far, but Airbnb [another company in which he has invested] has "a different feel" and is OK.

But it's also a little ironic that the champion of "Competition is for losers", who says that monopolies can be a good thing for society [0], is against Uber trying their best to achieve such a monopoly.

[0] "Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better." -- http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-fo...

So, I think you're putting words in his mouth suggesting these comments are anti-monopoly in this sense. I don't think in the abstract he's saying he's against a company like Uber striving for market domination.. he's just saying they crossed a line in that pursuit.

As for AirBnB I think the Uber vs AirBnB comparison is a really fair one. AirBnB is a very similar example of a company doing serious disruption and facing pretty severe friction in the form of established lobbies and laws... but they've not been accused of threatening journalists, hoteliers, or anyone else who's challenged them. That's the distinction being made here.

There are lots of startups that appear to be really riding the line that I think Thiel is identifying here (AirBnB, Tesla, and 23andMe come to mind) by taking risks in the name of getting innovative services to customers, not in the name of providing air-cover for cashing in at the expense of their users.

I don't think that I'm putting words in his mouth. He's become famous recently for beating the "Monopoly good, competition bad" drum, but he's never really laid out a path to get to monopoly (other than "compete effectively, eg, win a niche and expand in concentric circles"). I suspect that a lot of people have (like myself) fit his comments into a larger patchwork of contrarian startup advice, which also includes suggestions to be mischievous (PG), move fast enough to risk breaking things (Facebook), etc.

It's interesting to me (and yes, it seems slightly ironic) that he has now, when discussing a competitor to one of his portfolio companies, discovered a second dimension of what's most important in his worldview. "Two! Two most important things for a startup! Monopoly and ethics!"

(Surely you would agree that he's never previously said "Monopoly is a virtue, BUT ...")

When discussing becoming a successful company lots of us don't consider it obligatory to mention that you also shouldn't threaten people.

I tend to suspect that he was comfortable with the idea that some limits to what's ethically reasonable were assumed.

For lots of us the fact that ethics are a given is what makes them ethics.

Get a patent. Become a monopolist.

Is that unethical?

No.

Build a great product that everyone uses volunatrily.

Is that unethical?

No.

Commandeer the bay bridge and charge tolls.

Is that unethical? Sure

None of that is relevant to Uber.

Uber is involved in regulated businesses.

Those are monopolies by law (eg, taxi medalions in nYc)

the monopoly nature is not by choice of lyft or uber.

the issues about ethics involve how the process to enter those markets is being pursued.

That is not just a business question, but one of pr, lobbying, and legislative changes.

The process is what it is. Has nothing to do with Thiel.

How the game is played is another matter-- that's what he's commenting on.

Back to econ 101 for you.

Please elaborate.

please see my comment above. I don't think you have a solid handle on what makes a monopoly exist. Nor on the relation between the existence of a monopoly (earned or granted) and the concept of ethics. The existence of monopoly doesn't imply lack of ethics. Nor does the operation of a monopoly imply lack of ethics. That being said, you can un-ethically aquire a monopoly. And you can unethically abuse a monopoly position. But none of that makes any sense vis-a-vis you're approach. You need more resolution in your framework.

I agree, bribing (sorry, I meant lobbying) polticians seem to be the easiest way for Uber to get out of the situation right now.

I watched that presentation and he really wasn't championing monopolies in the sense of no internet or water competition, or even really from a consumer standpoint. He was talking about positioning your company so that you aren't really competing with anyone else, either because you are doing something different, or your product is orders of magnitude better (first iPhone) so you don't realistically have competition.

Airbnb does have a different feel. As a user of the service, there are ways they could make it less frustrating (especially in big cities in peak times), but I never get the impression that they do anything but support their property owners and try to make them better at what they do. When I've had problems, they've solved them and given credit for replacement services.

I haven't heard of Airbnb doing anything underhanded to beat their competition. They are winning by doing the right things, from what I can tell.

And Uber could have achieved the same. Obviously the time is ripe for the service they're offering, but they're hustling (in the negative sense) more than working and that's why it feels different.

Except of course the whole let their users list properties they know are against the law thing. Which if they really wanted to ensure no listings that violated local ordinance were posted on the site they would go out of business.

Yes, that is the obvious parallel with Uber - I assumed that went without saying. I'm talking about how they work with their users and market themselves - there is a clear difference there between the two companies.

Most people aren't swearing off Uber because they are breaking into a regulated industry but because they're being dicks about it.

Don't forget that Thiel is also an investor in Uber through Crunchfund.

Peter Thiel is correct. But, it should be noted, that as an investor in Lyft, Thiel has a big interest in scolding Uber publicly.

I agree.

Yeah the second he said that he was invested in Uber's biggest competitor, I couldn't take him seriously. Uber has gone over the line sometimes, but he's obviously going to make it sound worse than it is.

Do you feel that Thiel needs the money more than his credibility?

I mostly agree. For instance, I don't believe there exists a conflict of interest in challenging the ethics of a competitor. Choosing to support a competitor because a company behaves unethically makes a lot of sense to me.

That all being said, I think you overestimate the probability someone will call him out on anything. When was the last time someone was ever called out for making a bad prediction, making a false but ultimately mild allegation, or raising concerns about a competitor? I've worked at places that would state publicly that their competitors steal from customers, and never heard that even questioned on a factual basis, forget someone doing some weird kabuki theater credibility sacrificing ritual.

That's according to PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who is also an investor in Uber competitor Lyft.

(first sentence of the article)

True, but actually, he was too easy on them. He said, "and I think Uber's right on the cusp of going simply too far on many of these things."

Uber's not on the cusp. They have gone too far.

To be fair, the comments were noted to have been made before the latest issue. So, perhaps they were on the cusp last week, and have plummeted over it this.

And Lyft is not without their own issues.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/lyft-guts-luxury-service-stickin...

Given that the drivers agreed to buy the SUVs in the first place, I'm not sure what else Lyft could really be expected to do here. They helped the drivers sell the SUVs and sent them a fairly sizable bit of compensation.

A lot of car share drivers, particularly for UberX, end up buying cars as part of driving. It seems like a reasonable though failed experiment.

I bet his public response would be a lot different if he were an investor in Uber...

Here's the problem for uber:

(1) In many places they are breaking the law and/or want the law changed so they can expand without breaking it.

(2) This means they need the moral high ground. They need to have people believe they are acting in good faith when operating outside or in the grey areas of existing legislation and policy.

(3) Winning at all costs mentality means operating in ethical grey areas.

(4) You can exloit grey areas but you cannot at the same time occupy moral high ground.

Without a coherent strategy "winning at all costs" (to hell with being ethical) will almost surely lose the war, even if it wins a few battles.

That means, their future as a brand and as a company could be greatly impacted if they continue to have public PR meltdowns that involve dis-proportionate and underhanded approaches to solving their problems.

Things are always going to be messy in their line of work, but they need people's trust and political support outside of pure-business. The specifics can always be debated (and the nuances sometimes are critical), but they need to demonstrate proportionatly and good faith are core values to their firm.

This is exactly correct. As Bob Dylan so succinctly noted, "To live outside the law you must be honest."

I think you've misinterpreted what Thiel meant about Uber's ethical problem. It seems like Thiel was actually talking about the competition between Uber and Lyft rather than Taxis.

The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber. Some airports legally allow Uber to stop by. Uber is incredibly better than the previous Taxi service for both the employee (read about Healthcare), and for the consumer (this is obvious). Congress people use Uber all the time. Ordering and canceling rides is just one example how Uber might be overly aggressive (read more http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...).

The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber

That was yesterday, right?

It really seems like your points were towards legislation that prevents Uber from operating as business where Taxis are the main competition, not other similar services like Lyft. Journalists cover lots of stories, and I think the one that I linked in the Verge is a great example of something Uber would not want released. $1M is also nothing compared to what they pay their lawyers to fight legal battles against Taxi incumbents.

They have to operate in a policy grey area. They don't need to operate in an ethical grey area. Mixing the two is bad for business.

I agree. The policy issue is between Taxis and existing legislation. The ethics issue is between Lyft. Taking a step back, this is one of the craziest market competitions that can exist, and it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Remember, Taxis didn't have nearly as fierce competition between themselves it reminds me of cable companies. Perhaps they'll eventually have to settle for different territories to manage.

I'd like to completely retract my statement! Reading the Senator's letter (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8633683) put things in perspective for me. Forget bad for business, it's bad for human rights. Ethical grey area is an understatement.

The bummer is that the bullshit misogyny feels like it's been running pretty rampant for some time, though maybe it's only lately that we're seeing the sort of graduating class of this particular brand of ethically vapid growth-hacked shops seeing some success (Uber, Tinder, Genius...)

I like making things, but the part of our industry that manages to sustain such an asshole-farm gets me wishing I'd chosen a different career path sometimes.

Kudos to Thiel on this, though. I think the quickest way for the culture to change is for folks to stop funding it.

How is misogyny relevant to what he said or what is being discussed here?

Seriously?

Seriously. He definitely didn't say anything about it in the actual linked video or story, so I'm assuming you're referring to some other event that isn't covered here, and thus asking you what that actually is.

Or on the off chance I just missed the flashing example of misogyny at the end of the linked article, curious for a clarification on what exactly that is.

First, there was a "flashing example" in the middle of the article: "The company has been criticized for the treatment of its drivers, its combative tactics against competitors, and a sexist promo that offered free twenty-minute rides with attractive women."

Also apologies.. It was definitely unfair of me to throw a "Seriously?" on this without context, but my commentary on this issue wasn't limited to what I read in this article. I've been following the story today. This guardian editorial covers and links to plenty of other impressions that line up well with my thinking: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/uber-wo...

I'm just short-tempered on being asked for evidence of sexism lately because it's fucking sad how readily available it tends to be.

Got it, I totally missed the link to the avions de chasse thing in the middle of the article and I can see how some people might think that is misogynistic. Thanks for the explanation.

Amorality and lack of proportion

aren't really gendered concepts, tho.

This particular incident involves Kalanick's targeting of PandoDaily Editor-in-Chief Sarah Lacy. Sarah shined the light on various Uber failings of late. I personally wouldn't speculate how Kalanick's rant might have changed if Sarah were male, but it has become part of the story.

> Sarah shined the light on various Uber failings of late

It's also relevant that she shone the light on various Uber failings, including several instances of misogyny (statements made by the Uber CEO, ads that sexualized women, etc.[0]).

It's not just that Lacy is a woman, though that's certainly part of it. It's relevant because this is how Uber chose to respond specifically to a woman complaining that they are misogynistic, not just to a reporter of unspecified gender accusing Uber of generally underhanded business practices.

[0] http://pando.com/2014/10/22/the-horrific-trickle-down-of-ass...

Uber's executives are known for making some sexist remarks and just generally being douches.

I don't think it's fair to say that Silicon Valley has a misogyny problem, but Uber's hilariously stereotypical "frat boy" culture certainly seems to.

> I don't think it's fair to say that Silicon Valley has a misogyny problem

Okay, let's flip it then. What's the canary? What are signs that an industry/organization/culture has a misogyny problem?

I'd honestly love to see someone posit a reasonable litmus test that the Valley(slash-our-industry) doesn't qualify for.

Let's flip it again; what are signs that various female dominated occupations have a misandry problem in the same fashion? The thing we were just discussing with avions de chasses, why is that intrinsically misogynistic while the similarly themed ManServant startup is not intrinsically misandrist? Why are the attacks on the former a blaring cacophony and the attacks on the latter practically non-existent?

I don't think it's reasonable to actually claim that something so broad can actually exist unless it's utterly global. It's individuals that make choices on their acceptable behaviours, not the industries in which they are employed.

Some individuals are misogynistic or misandrist, and they might be drawn to industries where their own gender is dominant, but using that as a petard to attack those industries in entirety and everyone involved within them strikes me as missing the problem entirely.

Because manservants is just another instance of an actual escort service where the audience is "people who want an escort service", and the avions de chasse is the insertion of an escort service into an otherwise everyday service that has an audience of people who (i suspect) mostly aren't interested in an escort service. Its similar to how a billboard that is OK in the red light district won't be acceptable in the main street or the suburbs.

Manservants is explicitly not an escort service (http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/07/the-manservants-service-...) (http://manservants.co/become-a-manservant.html), though. In both instances it's simply trading on the sexual market value of men or women (just because it's not sex doesn't mean the sexual market value of the person in question isn't relevant, see booth babes, ad et al). If you consider this to be misogynistic or misandrist in either instance, it ought to be in both.

Sure, I forgot the non-escort bit - although as you say, it is definitely about sexual attraction. However the defining point I made was that ManServants is explicitly joining that market of sexual market value, but Uber is adding that service to their existing commodity service which did not express interest in it. I consider it unnecessarily sexual to do the latter, but not the former.I consider it misogynist because they have looked at a large mixed gender audience and decided to cater to the sexual desires of the men in it. If you can point out the existing mixed gender non sexual audience that ManServants has started pushing their product on, I might consider it comparable.

Avions was a marketing promotion for uber lyon where people could sign up for a free 20 minute ride with one of the models. I don't know if I see how that is "pushing" the service on the unwilling, but I acknowledge its not the same as having specifically gone to a single outlet vendor for a specific kind of service.

More like offering to have your photo taken for free with a cosplaying booth attendant at a convention for a non sexual product or using sex for advertising (terribly uncommon right?)

Are you making that comparison in actual ignorance of people objecting to booth babes, or in a deliberate attempt to invoke their objections?

It's a deliberate attempt to force people into consistency. If you object to sex being used for marketing of unrelated products that should always be true. Whether that's uber with avions, car or game companies with booth babes, or the "just squeezed" juice ads with continuously flexing male glutes or voodoo stocking etc etc etc.

Well, I do object to booth babes and the Uber promotion, I'm not familar with the others you mention. So no need to force anything. Many people have previously objected to boothbabes with the exact same arguments, and I don't see anyone saying one is OK but not the other, so I don't know why you are acting like there is some hidden inconsistency to be exposed.

You don't find it the slightest bit interesting that you're intimately familiar with the foremost examples of female objectification that spring to mind, but male examples of the same are so beneath your awareness that you don't even notice them generally speaking?

That's the way it is for most of society.

Frankly I don't particularly care, I don't really understand why people get incensed over these things. There is a market for them and where there is a demand that demand will be met. Complaining about it bitterly won't change that fact. We may as well attempt to wish away our sex drives. I bring up the inconsistency between the two not because I think that the war on female objectification should be expanded to the male counterpart thereof, but just to expose the difference in the views on the two subjects by society at large.

No, I don't think its odd that I am familiar with examples in the tech industry but not those outside of it. I see boothbabes at conferences, I don't see ads for juice anywhere. I am not convinced that society is more OK with objectifying men than women and I don't think my exposure to advertising is evidence for your point.

You see more female objectification in the tech industry because it's a male dominated industry. That's just demographics. If you think there is just as much outrage over the sexual objectification of men as there is over the same for women in society at large though I really don't know what to tell you.

Do you have an example of a female dominated industry that hires half dressed men as decoration for their conferences? I don't think this happens, although I'd be fascinated to be proven wrong. I don't think there is as much outrage over the sexual objectification of men because I don't think there is as much of it to be outraged by. The use of hot women in advertising is a standard, why aren't you mentioning that? Overall, why do you keep mentioning different categories of things and saying that because one involves a man and one involves a woman they make a good comparison? Uber offering rides with women != ManServants, boothbabes != an orange juice ad. Try and find some actually similar examples to talk about.

Edit: although Uber == boothbabes seems accurate, so I guess they weren't all off!

Well, I have no serious empirical data to say whether it is or isn't. But just based on what I hear in the media and online, it does not seem like there is any more misogyny than any other industry; basically it seems to be like "what you'd expect" given a sufficient sampling of the population. Take hundreds of thousands of people and a bunch are bound to be thieves, murderers, or misogynists.

SV currently has a culture of "making it," rather than "making." Until it flips back to the latter, it'll continue to be infested by people trying to get theirs at all costs.

Objectivist World View + Wild Success + Survivorship Bias = Incredibly Dangerous Mix when it comes to ethical behavior, IMO.

Having said that, Thiel's very Randian himself, so I'm not sure how much of this is his actual concern for Uber's drivers or journalistic critics versus just being a Lyft investor taking a jab at the competition.

I think Thiel is an investor in an Uber competitor. If so, I'm sure this would bias his opinion. If he were an Uber investor, I doubt he would be saying this. Which implies a weird sort of ethical dilemma - where money invested makes the person not say things about ethics. Just as I'm sure Microsoft investors in the 1990's didn't call out Microsoft for its monopolistic tendencies.

You could just as easily look at it as an explanation of why he's invested in Lyft rather than Uber.

You should have watched the video before commenting.

Does anyone else remember the "PayPal Mafia" article (http://fortune.com/2007/11/13/paypal-mafia/) that Fortune did some years ago? There was one description that really stuck with me -- how customer service complaints were handled under Thiel's watch:

Customer-service complaints flooded the phone lines and in-boxes and were often dealt with by simply not answering the phone or doing a mass deletion.

What sort of leader treats customers like that, or looks the other way when minions do it?

There was also the ugly Facebook ownership shuffle when Thiel got involved as an early investor and a lawsuit over Thiel and his hedge fund management company (http://www.law360.com/articles/9340/paypal-cofounder-accused...).

For Thiel to lecture Silicon Valley about ethics is a bit rich.

I clearly don't vouch for Thiel -- but isn't this an ad hominem attack? If he has a substantial critique, how is it relevant that he, personally, is bringing it up?

I've always speculated that unethical managers will outperform ethical managers under non-life threatening conditions.

For example, being unethical at say a chemical company will lead to the end of your company in that area after a catastrophe. Being unethical at a payment processor and the worse that can happen is someone doesn't get paid on time or at all. So in that situation dumping the customer complaints saved a bunch of resources at little cost, since the customers would be back, PayPal was pretty good compared to their competition, leading to them out executing eBay and getting acquired.

I AM NOT saying that I agree with this. I'm just thinking about the why behind it.

For one optimistic moment there, I thought this was going to be about, you know, ethics. Like how Uber abuses its drivers, or how it demeans women, or how it threatens journalists. But no, "ethically challenged" means they don't break the rules successfully enough.

He's a great wordsmith. Disclosing upfront that he's an investor in lyft while also just saying uber is pushing 'a little too far'. He sounds totally transparent and rational right as he puts out the gouging statement 'extracting whatever they can from limo drivers'. That's enough to fuel a branding war between uber and all the other ride sharing services. Lyft can be a friendly service that empowers drivers while uber is slanted as a hegemonic power that sucks the life out of drivers and your wallet.

between Palantir and Uber? Tough choice, until of course invested in one and missed on the other (plus being invested in the other's competitor).

It's funny you bring up Palantir. I learned a bit about it today and still don't quite see what it adds to things.

OP is hinting at the fact that Palantir supposedly does some fairly unscrupulous work for governments. Whether this is true or not isn't exactly 'known', but it's been widely hinted and spread around the valley.

Take it with a grain of salt though, some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now, so if they're doing anything dirty they're hiding it from the engineers pretty well.

>Whether this is true or not isn't exactly 'known'

There are historic facts for that. Just google "palantir hbgary" and enjoy.

>some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now

ethical people have been through history participating in evil things, especially in engineering roles. It is peculiar ability of human brain to not notice the dirty smell when it would be very inconvenient (to say the least) to notice it.

Yeah, I know about hbgary. They definitely have a tainted public perception - I just question the extent to which people seem to vilify them.

Regarding ethics - absolutely. It's also harder to notice when you're being paid quite a bit. It's a pity our profession doesn't have some explicit oaths along the lines of the Hippocratic oath. While it wouldn't stop anyone out to willfully do evil, it might at least make our the average programmer a little more thoughtful regarding values and morals and how they apply to their livelihood.

> I just question the extent to which people seem to vilify them.

The government needs software like Palantir. So I think they're on par with say Lockheed.

Cloud you be more specific to the content of the rumours about Palantir?

The hbgary stuff that trhway mentioned was what I was thinking of. It's sketchy, and the higher ups definitely don't seem to be above this sort of underhanded nonsense.

Is there any hope that Uber could see some serious erosion in its business from all these gaffes? Could Lyft succeed by merely being the anti-Uber? On one hand, it does seem like Uber's ultra-agression has been an important contributor to its success. But could it have pulled all this off without the dirtbag gene?

I'll finally be giving Lyft a try but wish they had black cars & SUVs.

Emailed them and requested they delete my account today, so there's at least some impact, albeit minor. Just deleting the app isn't enough. They still count you as a user.

Lyft's management hasn't looked anywhere near as competent as Uber's. They have gotten as far as they have by ridding in Uber's wake. Unless Uber destroys itself I don't see them pulling ahead.

"The remarks attributed to me ... do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company's views or approach," Michael later said. "They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them."

Uber also practiced ordering and canceling rides with a competitor (Gett) in order to recruit their drivers (and possibly to act as a denial of service attack). This was discovered and the company disavowed the practice as that of a rogue group of employees.

... And then later in the year was caught doing it again, except this time to Lyft.

At this point their public statements on what their company's views or approaches are is entirely useless. Uber has proven multiple times that their statements aren't just typical PR spin, but tread directly into bald-faced lies.

More unethical than manufacturers of nuclear weapons components, missiles and drones?

Makes for a nice soundbite but I hope he doesn't actually believe this given Lockheed, Texas Instruments, General Dynamics, etc. are all a part of SV.

This is a company that pushed subprime loans on its drivers then substracts the debt from their income. That's called indentured servitude.

Uber is also the most staggering fund raising machine I have ever seen. Make of that what you will.

i stopped using uber and started using lyft for these reasons.

Is Groupon not in Silicon Valley?

Title should be "most unethical".

Nope. This website is officially a reddit sub called /r/UberSucks. I'm gone.

When a guy who doesn't like women's suffrage says you've gone too far, that's saying something.

http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...

I didn't down vote you (I was too busy reading your link).. but he wrote a reply to this reaction to his original article.. saying what he said was:

... a commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap.

It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage-...

Oh come on, that's completely unfair. He's not sexist, he just doesn't like suffrage for anybody: "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."

Uber has lots of bad PR, but it doesn't stop the company from growing. It's expected to go public at a valuation of 50-100 billion in a few years... I think that says it all.

A high valuation/IPO "says it all" in answer to concerns about the company's ethics?

I think ethics is a secondary issue that can be dealt with, at least in Uber's case.

> "... ethics is a secondary issue ..."

scary

Welcome to capitalism.

It wouldn't be the first company to be rewarded in spite of bad behavior, that's for sure, and I'm sure the fraternity network doesn't hurt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com