What Was Said at the Uber Dinner
huffingtonpost.com
huffingtonpost.com
I will admit that I am friends with Emil. We were both White House Fellows serving in different departments during the first year of the Obama administration where we both quit our jobs to take civil service positions to improve our country.
You would think someone commenting on such an important and controversial story in tech like this would fully disclose that she is in-fact friends with Emil and worked with him right at the beginning of the article? Seems like a big conflict of interest here and changes the tone from "see this from another perspective" to "I am defending my friend, so everything I write is going to be heavily biased"
I feel as though even Nicole's account is sensationalist in itself. This line right here: At that point, I wanted to grab Emil. I kind of knew what Ben was up to. - A journalist asking questions at an event for journalists? Who would have thought such a thing would happen?
Nicole then goes on to confirm what the previous lines of text confirmed that this is an emotional and personal response defending her friend:
I am upset that Ben sensationalized what happened at that dinner.
I am not trying to say that the original story by Ben wasn't sensationalist, but it wasn't a fabricated lie either. Emil said what he said, this article even confirms that. I have no issue with Nicole rallying to the defense of a friend, I would do the same, but I would at least disclose the fact before, not after.
But isn't the only reason you know those facts because she did disclose them? Like, right there in that line you quoted?
The article would have held more credibility in my eyes if she was upfront about the fact there was a conflict of interest before continuing on with the article. Heck, even an article on the likes of Techcrunch with even a remote tinge of conflict of interest is disclosed in the first paragraph before you get into the article contents. I legitimately feel misled, I was to feel as though I was reading an impartial account of what happened that night only to be told at the end that the account was from a friend nonetheless.
Lets be honest, in most cases, a friend will always defend another friend regardless of the context or the situation. It is rare that a friend will throw another under the bus, especially in a situation like this. This is why everything Nicole says is hearsay because she could easily be exaggerating what she thought she heard all for the sake of defending her friend. We do not even know for certain if Nicole heard anything to do with what happened, we were offered no new bits of information we did not already have.
I don't, by the way, find this to be a coincident. It seems perfectly logical that you would sit near people you know at a dinner party.
Why? She is probably one of three or four people on the planet qualified to speak to what actually happened there. The idea that she should recuse herself from publicly posting an account of what she saw first-hand just because she's friends with the subject of the controversy doesn't hold water in my opinion. In fact, since pretty much every article that has come out (all by people who were not themselves in attendance) has had the goal of making attacks against the company and its executives, perhaps a friend of an executive who can offer a personal insight into what happened is the best person of all to write an account of what really happened.
It seems that the public at large is more than happy to be spoon-fed facts from Pando Daily, Gawker, and BuzzFeed who carelessly level poorly-researched personal attacks heavily-weighted with personal opinions and biases passed off as "journalism" without actually asking themselves the simple question- "What has my own personal experience been?" I for one like Uber and Lyft, and use both regularly. Never have I or anybody I know experienced any serious problem after having used them several hundred times, despite the constant onslaught of accusations that females are at risk using it.
Compare that to the taxi industry. In fact, just last week, after learning that I needed to pay for my ride with a card for expense reasons, refused to let me out of the cab and tried to drive me to an atm against my will and I had to call the police to make him stop the car. This is a true story. Happened last time I took a cab. Despite the fact that it is a law where I live that cabs MUST take a credit card.
I'm certainly not suggesting that it is okay to spy on people with the intent of blackmailing or evening the score (and I suspect most everyone would agree with that). I'm just suggesting that we be fair in our criticism. Blogs have a very real incentive to get the most page views that they can and are more than happy to do so at anybody's expense. I've seen that happen enough to know not to take anything I read on the internet at face-value.
Maybe if they are feeling extra generous admit that they have a vendetta and personal bias against Uber because the CEO made a reference to "boobs" in an interview? Something that most people in the real world, I have to tell you, probably don't actually care about.
Because that would get tiresome very quickly.
Here's one example of sensationalist headlines masquerading as journalism from a cursory scan of the front page (yes, he is citing a BuzzFeed article that is apparently citing an internal memo that despite some crafty sensationalist language, is doing nothing more than outlining plans to hire an internal research department). Is this somebody who has a less-biased view of the situation that the HuffPo author?
http://pando.com/news/uber-sought-to-hire-opposition-researc...
She has no career to lose and so must be far more open about her relationship. It's bizarre that HuffPo thought it was even appropriate to publish the story given that relationship, in traditional newspapers you would expect it to appear in the letters section not as an article.
If they have working card machines, they often lose signal or are being slow and expense departments are perfectly capable of dealing with cabbie receipts.
She did! You quoted it in your post!
As you clearly have nothing substantial to say, your claim 'the disclosure is in the wrong part of the article' is specious.
Let's man up and admit that the whole story that's been pushed over last few days is looking like BS.
They built different narratives of the event, largely colored by the biases of each. The journalist had a bias towards building sensation and the friend had a bias towards downplay. If you don't read news articles expecting the bias of a journalist, then I'm sorry, I don't know what you are doing. But until that ending line in the article, she was a well-placed, mostly unbiased, bystander.
It's not [necessarily] about attention span. Most people don't have time to read in entirety every single article that they come across.
I'm sure you've skimmed articles, or read just the first paragraph or two and decided it wasn't that interesting (maybe the subject matter was different than what you expected from the headline or maybe the article was poorly written).
In this particular case disclosing a potential conflict of interest at the beginning is important because it's helpful to keep the potential conflict in mind when reading it. Some people may prefer not reading it all because of the conflict of interest so disclosing it early on can save the reader's time. [i.e. I wouldn't bother reading an article on net neutrality written by a friend of Comcast's CEO]
Not saying it wouldn't have been helpful up front, but the message is still valid IMO. Understandably I'm a bit biased for the author, but I'm also not the biggest Uber fan so if that helps...
If that were the case she wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
The author chose (subconsciously or not, strategically or not) to defer mention of that important fact to the end, by which point many readers will have already given up reading. It is a fact that people pay more attention to the beginning of an article and that a significant proportion of people fall off the end and don't finish.
Here's my big problem with all this: nobody defending this guy is saying "no, he didn't say that," or "no, he was joking," or even, "no, it was taken out of context." They're saying, essentially, that he wouldn't have disclosed his internal thought process if he knew it would be made public. I definitely wouldn't want one of my jokes or hypotheticals to be quoted out of context. But what I don't get is staying stuff you actually mean and then getting upset that people call you an asshole for thinking and believing the things you actually think and believe.
"I heard a mention of a Sarah Lacy and overheard Emil say that he felt terrible that by writing an article, Sarah had actually suggested that people choose less safe alternatives based on a charge of sexism that was really a personal attack on the CEO with no basis in fact. Emil then said that Sarah wouldn't like it if someone wrote false things about her or published an article that was factually wrong because we all have done things in our private lives we are not proud of.
There was no anti-feminist sentiment, no attacking families, no attacking children, no anger, no threats against anyone, no action plan. Nothing. It was clear to me that this was all a vague, civilized conversation. I am a woman and I am sensitive to any kind of talk like that. "
(my emphasis.)
I don't know whether she's telling the truth, but she's definitely saying "no, he didn't say that" to the most grave things he's been accused of saying.
Is it not a fabrication when you take something that was clearly a hypothetical statement and report it as if you overheard it at a strategy meeting? Both Ben and Sarah's stories represented that this wasn't a hypothetical, but rather a plan that would be carried out against Sarah and her children immediately.
IMO, that is a fabrication.
No one has done this.
Even Ben's own quotes in that article indicate it wasn't a serious suggestion.
I think it's a shame one cannot think out loud for fear things will be taken literally. Yes, we can mask things by 'anonymizing' the conversations, so instead of using a real person as an example, just say someone or 'journalists'. but it's a shame people's dinner conversations or even pub conversations will be taken as their official edicts and sanctioned pronouncements --when lots of times there is boasting, bravado, nervousness and other times there are threats and other unsavory conduct. However, it's unfair to see it all as the latter kind.
You know, this really isn't a problem for people who don't have thoughts about silencing critics by intimidating their families.
In other words, they both serve their own brand of red meat to their audiences.
Forget apples to oranges. What you're describing is (possibly rotten) apples to hand grenades. But since you asked, no, I wouldn't dream of behaving this way. If a reporter published something demonstrably false, I'd demand a correction. If the pattern persisted, I'd take them to court. You know, like a civilized human being, not some goddamned Mafioso or a member of the KGB.
In some cultures it's natural to only say things out loud that one has thought of 'thoughtfully'. In others you say a lot out loud but without meaning much.
Just imagine a conversation between two sorority sisters or two fraternity brothers. They can have some pretty horrible things they say about other people --it's quite disgusting; I've overheard them. Would it be fair to bring those conversations up later in life, or as they're being considered for a job? should those conversations be "wrong"?
I'd rather people be free to have all kinds of nasty thoughts --but provide disincentive upon acting them out --not just thinking them.
Another question. Now, let's say said reporter might say something under her breath to confidants. Let's suppose she's happy to see some unraveling, and let's suppose the reporter/journalist even says some hyperbolic things --should such a reporter now be attacked for expressing such feelings? People are people and I think should be free to feel enmity against others --we can't pretend we like everyone out there.
I think it's fair to judge the conversants to the extent you think it provides information about their current character. If it was a conversation years ago, well people change. If someone can't keep themselves from maliciously gossiping a week ago, then I might be reluctant to work with them.
N.B. I'm solely responding to your hypothetical here, rather than the uber situation, for I don't think your analogy fits well.
If that were not the case, I'd be afraid that university campuses or company water-coolers are overrun by psychopaths.
We cannot take people literally at all occasions. I'm afraid I cannot trust people who have an interest (whether it be page views or even a social cause, etc.) to discern the situation in a disinterested way. The dynamics are too complicated. Unfortunately it ends up being a situation where we have multiple interpretations of something. For example, I might say "I'm very happy for you" to someone, they may retort "no, you are not, you are just saying that". Who's right?
Thinking about the consequences of your speech before speaking aloud is almost literally the least people can do as a part of society. No one except the absurdly privileged could think that they somehow have any kind of right to consequence-free speech.
Here's the thing. As someone who hears that conversation, I can't tell if you are just running your mouth or serious. Moreover, for someone who could feel unsafe in a space because of that, they can't tell if they really are safe or not. Lastly, if things like gamer gate show us anything, there are a whole host of people who will act on what you say when they hear it and hearing those things reaffirms their worldview and actions. Making idle jokes or claims about harassing a someone isn't appropriate.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/11/...
I'm not refuting any ethical questions that were being thrown around, but I would never trust Buzzfeed to do any honest and serious journalism. These are the same people that created the most annoying clickbait lists, sponsored news and their whole design seems to be centered around getting as many ad impressions as possible. Sensationalizing a story for their own benefits is not beyond them.
I'd get the invitations and there would be topics and guests, much like the Uber CEO, who would be sort of the center of attention. The emails all stressed the off-the-record nature, the idea was to get everyone able to know each other a little better.
I've got mixed feelings about that. Obviously it could make reporter and reportee a bit too cozy with each other. On the other hand, I can see how remembering conversations over chardonnay and cheese would also make access a lot smoother when needed. And the reporters would know where the people they were reporting on were coming from, which is useful even if they don't print it.
tl;dr- These parties happen all the time and stay off record.
What the hell happened to journalism?
Should we, or should we not, have a witchhunt because of what this guy said over dinner?
I think this is the wrong question to ask. I've seen quite enough internet witchhunts over the last few years, and have come to the conclusion that they are always harmful, because they are never proportionate. You can't have justice if your mechanism of justice isn't proportionate.
There are many instances in which we as a society have chosen disproportionate responses as a way to deter future infractions by others thinking about doing the same thing. Think about penalties doled out to corporations for bad behavior and/or when juries award large damages in cases of wrongful death from the police or what not.
edit The damages you discuss are punitive damages, but again are not intended to be disproportionate; they are intended to be proportionate in a way that is an adequate remedy to the basis of a lawsuit (when compensatory damages won't work). Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application.
Justice should always be proportionate. Sadly, there is often too little justice served in our society, and too much abuse, as evidenced by people defending disproportionate justice.
The parent is objecting to replacing that justice system with mob justice (which is usually disproportionate, harmful to everyone involved, and often just plain wrong).
edit - Am meaning it more as an exception that proves the point. Someone really has to be nasty on the scale of Ceaușescu before forming a badly informed mob can be a good idea.
It's a witchhunt if it's merely an accusation without evidence. In this case, Emil Micheal publicly confirmed the veracity of the Buzzfeed report and apologized. In another example that was labelled a witchhunt, Brendan Eich was on public record as supporting an anti-gay proposal.
It's not a witchhunt if the people in question are attacked over what they do or say and not over unproven allegations.
As for proportionate, that's quite subjective. It's not a coincidence that the subjects tend to be fundamental issues of ethics and ideology over which opinions vary wildly.
My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind. Absence of government censorship is only a small part of it. It was good enough long ago, when governments were the only powerful groups that could scare you into silence, but today it's no longer enough.
> My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their mind.
Aren't the people doing the 'attacking' (assuming you're being metaphorical and I've not missed an account of a physical assault), also simply speaking their mind?
Edit: Just a note that this isn't specific to this case, but the general notion that you can say what you want without being criticized seems to actually limit the speech of others.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first...
A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it. If you try to address an idea, your success depends on how good the idea is; if you try to silence it, your success depends on how powerful you are and how many pitchforks and torches you can provide on short notice.
For those who tend to believe free speech should not protect you from criticism/social opprobrium/etc, does the same apply to Communists in Hollywood? Remember, the blacklist was not an act of congress - it was nothing more than an article in the Hollywood Reporter.
A few years ago mainstream opinion was opposed to blacklists, I guess it's different now?
That doesn't make any sense. People with bad ideas frequently fall to silence when the discussion of countervailing good ideas makes them sound like idiots if they persist. Indeed, that's how good ideas (eventually) win.
What you're describing as "a bad argument" isn't really an argument at all. It's the abandonment of argument in favor of a personal threat.
[EDIT: "threat of violence" changed to "personal threat" to remove confusing specificity.]
Although disliking a person for their ideas seems rather petty, don't you agree?
No. I'd argue that ideas are pretty much the most relevant and least petty bases for (liking or) disliking a person.
Nothing to dislike about them.
Certainly, more generally, there are certain ideas that I personally think are more important factors in liking or disliking than other ideas. But I can't think of much that isn't an idea that is more relevant to like/dislike than ideas.
What rule could I use that overcomes my biases and makes that decision?
In that context, would you say "You have a right to say what you want. You don't have a right to have people continue to like you..."? Is that a reasonable response?
Certainly Sarkessian cannot have an "expectation" that people won't criticize her (if "expectation" means "belief about the future").
Accusations without evidence are made all the time without turning into a witch hunt. It's an element of "mob justice" and disproportionality that makes for a witch hunt, not whether or not the allegations are true. For instance, McCarthyism was a witch hunt, even though historical evidence now available to us proves there was widespread Communist infiltration of the government and media and that many of the individuals persecuted at the time were, indeed, Communists or Communist sympathizers.
The people bashing Uber over this story were mostly the same people that have always bashed Uber. They weren't looking for justice over this particular event, and it was obvious that many didn't actually read the absurdly written story that started this whole thing. They simply saw a mob that agreed with their dislike for Uber and joined it.
Also, given the article is by someone who overheard an Uber executive suggest that Uber should pay people a million dollars to say nice things about them and disparage opponents, I must admit I am somewhat skeptical of the tone the article is taking.
Furthermore, given that Uber came out with an immediate apology and did not in any way claim that anything said by the journalist was false, I will treat a report by a professional politician who is both a friend and a colleague of Emil, with a grain of salt so large that Sisyphus couldn't roll it.
That's directly from the end of the linked article in Applecore's post. I haven't been following this "scandal" particularly closely, but from what I have read, I haven't seen many people talking about this.
If the identity of the author of the OP article causes you to take said article with a grain of salt, does a financial connection between Lyft and BuzzFeed produce another, similarly sized grain of salt?
I suppose I'm somewhat inclined to discount BuzzFeed's reporting. It's probably not fair of me, but my opinion of them has definitely been dragged down by the general "clickbait-y" property of the site as a whole.
I have no idea how Buzzfeed works internally, so I don't know if their Exec. Chairman's connections could influence their reporting, but I feel like it's a significant enough conflict that it should have been disclosed.
[1]: http://www.buzzfeed.com/about/team
[2]: http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/side-cr
edit - remember, this is the half-heard sympathetic version:
"The last comment that I heard was when Emil hypothesized about creating a coalition for responsible journalism. Ben said that would likely fail because companies have no expertise in journalism. Emil flippantly said he could hire professional journalists for $1 million to get the expertise to make sure that they could respond when negative articles come out."
"I heard a mention of a Sarah Lacy and overheard Emil say that he felt terrible that by writing an article, Sarah had actually suggested that people choose less safe alternatives based on a charge of sexism that was really a personal attack on the CEO with no basis in fact. Emil then said that Sarah wouldn't like it if someone wrote false things about her or published an article that was factually wrong because we all have done things in our private lives we are not proud of."
Even this version still sounds much like a plan for a well funded astro-turf operation with an implicit threat to go after journalists, specifically Sarah Lacy, no matter how flippantly, casually or politely it was said.
That might actually make for an interesting dinner conversation. What could a company do to protect itself from attack pieces written as actual journalism. It's bias masquerading as fact. A possible solution to that might be to investigate that bias and expose it (if someone writes an article for a company who has a major investor also invested in a competitor - maybe the public SHOULD know that, even if it's not disclosed because the writer isn't really a journalist but is pretending to be one on a blog). In fact, that shouldn't be too contentious of a position.
The problem was that 1) the quote makes it seem like the Uber Exec somehow advocated actually doing that (it sounds like he didn't), and 2) It requires knowing the context (that it's with regards to unethical bloggers who write biased attack pieces because of a conflict of interest they don't mention and not applied to ALL journalists). It's a complex point that requires context. The buzzfeed writer intentionally misrepresented that for clicks, but that's what buzzfeed does.
For one thing, the response from Uber has not given the indication that this story was misrepresented, but rather has reinforced its reliability:
---
"I wanted to apologize to you directly — I am sorry. I was at an event and was venting, but what I said was never intended to describe actions that would ever be undertaken by me or my company toward you or anyone else. I was definitively wrong and I feel terrible about any distress I have caused you. Again, I am sorry."
---
"The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner — borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for — do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach. They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them."
---
There is no indication there that the reporting was false and those quotes are direct from Emil.
The writer neither acknowledges his own conflict of interest nor does he give any indication that it's an answer to a hypothetical question. The real answer is that the uber exec isn't going to do anything about the attack pieces because they haven't done anything about them.
Based on what I've read, Uber CEO sounds like a douchebag. But I'm not really sure, never met the guy or seen him in person, it's all from stuff read online.
But clearly the media loves to hate this guy.
And yet, in spite of it's complete triviality, it's important. Lots of people will scan their newsfeed and make the connection between Uber and "evil" -- and that matters.
This whole thing was disgusting, as was HN's wholesale acceptance of Sarah Lacy's nonsense as fact. I expected better.