On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of transportation options, particularly late at night — then it is the taxi companies and captured regulators violating said spirit.
I agree with this. Taxi regulations might have started with noble intentions, but quickly evolved into protecting a monopoly at the expense of consumers.
Uber's biggest problem is the confrontational way they've expanded their business, often thumbing their nose at regulators the entire time and pissing off a lot of the local communities. Lyft is in the exact same business but you don't see headlines every other day about Lyft going to war with some city or another.
I think Uber's about to be a very expensive lesson about Karma and will hopefully show some of these VC babies that "move fast and break stuff" is a great strategy for software, and a terrible strategy for people.
While true, that still doesn't justify Uber's actions. Uber doesn't give a crap about those regulations, or reforming them. In fact, they want them to stay in place so they can have an unfair advantage.
"Otto having stolen intellectual property are very serious, it’s worth remembering that the entire industry is basically built on theft"
There's an interesting argument in the article, but the amount of squid-ink being squirted overwhelms it. A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit.
Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down as incompetent.
If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...)
>A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit.
Yes this left a bad taste in my mouth. Quote from article:
"The fact of the matter is that we as an industry are responsible for Uber too. We’ve created a world that simultaneously celebrates rule-breaking and undervalues women (and minorities), full of investors and companies that are utterly ruthless when money is on the line, while cloaking said ambition in fluff about changing the world."
Soo.. its our fault for enabling this behavior, but we shouldn't punish Uber for it? Nooo. The majority of us don't create the rules/hierachy of what is valued, we can only vote with our feet and wallets and we should.
I work at Google, though not on anything remotely related to cars/transportation, nonetheless I'm clearly not unbiased here.
At any rate this part of Ben Thompson's post annoyed me for a different reason - he conflates and equates patent infringement with theft of trade secrets, while those are in fact quite different things, and have correspondingly quite different forms of relief/punishment.
I don't have a strong position on whether or not that should be the case, but the fact remains that theft of trade secrets is actually a federal crime.
>Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down as incompetent.
If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...)
Watch him aim for the middle ground... weaseling and PR with the fervent prayers that attention will shift and he can keep eating the sweet cake he gets to keep. When most people can't formulate or even understand the logical proposition you're offering, heartless people are left with amazing leeway.
The most critical quote from the article: "Kalanick’s mistake was in not clearly defining, communicating, and enforcing accountability on actions that pushed the line but had nothing to do with the company’s regulatory fight. In fact, it was even more critical for Uber than for just about any other company to have its own house in order; the very nature of the company’s business created the conditions for living above the law to become culturally acceptable — praised even."
This seems like an excellent description of the problem: if you're going to run a company that intentionally pushes the boundaries of specific regulatory restrictions (in order to demonstrate a better result that can only happen without them, to get popular backing for removing them), then you need to draw a clear internal dividing line between the risky actions taken in support of that goal and all the other areas in which the company should act as a model for upstanding behavior.
A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law.
I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able to legally operate as a "limo service." In that particular case, I agree with the author. But I thought that in many other cities, Uber came in and started operating in clear violation of the letter of the law, not just the spirit.
You are not. Here is a list of scummy things Uber does that I put together recently for another thread.[1] All are pretty gross, many are "word but not spirit" issues, but at least a few of them are outright, flatly illegal.
In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.
Uber is careful to violate local (civil) laws where it has popular backing, as opposed to state or federal laws that can carry criminal penalties. Think: Zenefits or Theranos versus Airbnb.
I think you misinterpreted this article, the author claims that Uber is not violating the spirit of the law, since the spirit of the law is to promote safety, not a government run monopoly.
Given how popular Uber is, and how much people dislike the Taxi industry, it is enlightening to think about why taxi reform was never on anyone's agenda.
This is one the few times I've felt actually disappointed in Thompson. He is exactly right that Google (and basically every other company in SV) is totally implicated with the same problem. But saying that Kalanick should get another chance to turn around the company? Look back to 2014: Kalanick tweeted out an apology for one of his execs threatening a (female, natch) journalist, but decided not to fire the exec in question, because "I believe that folks who make mistakes can learn from them- myself included." 2014 was his opportunity to turn around the culture. He failed, utterly and massively- and Fowler (who didn't join the company until almost a year after that tweet storm) and plenty of other women paid the price for his failure. We're now three years later and clearly the culture is even worse, and there is no evidence of improvement. Again, she didn't join the company until a year after he promised to work to show "that Uber is and will continue to be a positive member of the community. And furthermore, I will do everything in my power towards the goal of earning that trust." Where is the evidence that he should get another chance? Ultimately, it's that Kalanick is a high performer, the same excuse Uber gave Fowler.
One very serious shortcoming of this article is the claim that the theoretical spirit of taxi regulation is exclusively (or even primarily) rider safety. Regardless of how we believe it has all worked out in practice, taxi regulation has long been earnestly pushed for a multitude of reasons: traffic congestion, driver pay and rights, consumer protection (from fare abuse), road safety (independent from rider safety), and, yes, the kind of rider safety that Uber is far better at through GPS tracking and driver reputation.
There are many attitudes to have about taxi regulation. Some would argue that the market will eventually provide better solutions; even for issues like traffic congestion. Others might contend that the regulation is necessary because the market will either not find solutions or the cost of finding those solutions via the market is prohibitive. Some might take a less principled approach and consider whether the current regulations are better at solving problems or creating them. Regardless, we have to honestly consider the whole story. It's easiest to argue for Uber's approaches when you consider only the small part of the argument where Uber and its ilk clearly best the entrenched taxi system.
This is a good point, but I think regardless reform is in order.
Sometimes the best way to reform a thing is to tear it down, and I think that's where Thompson's cautiously optimistic post about Brexit landed. (Perhaps this one? https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/)
Here's a devils advocate take on it: Taxi regulation is as much and more about "Guilds", Ghettos, and outright racism. It's been used as a blunt instrument to keep many people out of doing a simple, everyday activity that many view as a form of entertainment - driving around - for cash. The effect, if not the goal, of medallions has been to enforce the assumption that drivers are underpaid immigrants. The assumption of the driver as a criminal has lead to their mistreatment. The serfdom that medallion enforcement has created - Where drivers do not own their job, merely rent it from landlords demanding an increasingly greater cut - Has created the toxic environment that has allowed even awful competitors an advantage.
> Note the easy conflation: avoiding regulators, allegedly tolerating sexual harassments, it’s all the same thing. Well, I disagree.
I would say there's an equal danger of conflating their disrupting regulations with innovation or progress. There's some relation, but it's not equivalent. Treating them the same is only good for Uber.
Or maybe it's that "innovation" and "progress" are mistaken to be only good things.
Travis fits the mold of a ruthless kind of CEO, always pushing the ethical line as far as he can get away with. Bill Gates in his first incarnation as ruthless CEO has engaged in all sorts of questionable behavior. For example, interview a bunch of people from a rival, figure out who's key, and hire them all away at once. Or structure the agreement with IBM to eventually own the rights to Windows, then screw IBM over by slow-pedalling and malingering on OS/2, and then release Windows in co-ordination with the newly created clone PC market, which he relentlessly encouraged behind IBM's back.
Note that I'm not judging - I have come to realize (sadly) that a certain ruthlessness may be necessary for large-scale success in business, especially in the tech industry.
I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take down Uber. The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't.
The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators. And then you have other bloggers cashing in on the situation by writing these kinds of posts to get page views.
"I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take down Uber."
If there is, it's from Uber itself. Everything that has come out are things that Uber has done by itself. No one else's fault but Uber and it's leadership.
"The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? "
The buck stops there. He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company.
"Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't."
No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously.
"The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators."
Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile workplace environments at Uber before.
The article makes a good point: Uber seems to have conflated pushing regulatory boundaries with pushing the boundaries of decent behavior. For a company trying so hard to overturn regulatory capture they sure did let their own house become a shambles.
It's like if Edward Murrow went after McCarthy without bothering to double-check his own staff for anything that could be used against him.
This is super interesting. I guess one of the reasons why Uber has been so successful in taking on powerful regulations and a lot of push back from different players is BECAUSE of their super aggressive business cultural.
And I could easily see this "fuck the world, we do what we do" attitude creating a hyper-alpha atmosphere where sexual harassment is scoffed at.
So, one could argue that without this attitude, Uber would have run out of steam or lacked the hustle to take on the Taxi companies and government regulations.
Still, regardless of the success that this culture has achieved, you can't treat your workers like shit and ignore sexual harassment.
I could easily see Uber being replaced by another company after Uber does all the hard legwork of taking on the Taxi companies and governments.
Especially if Uber lacks the ability to fix its' image.
Moreover, one of Uber’s other “scandals” — the fact that Kalanick asked Amit Singhal to step down as Senior Vice President of Engineering after not disclosing a sexual harassment claim at Google — reflected far worse on Google than Uber: if Singhal committed a fireable offense the search giant should have fired the man who rewrote their search engine; instead someone in the know dribbled out allegations that happened to damage a company they view as a threat.
It's not clear when Uber learned about these allegations of sexual harassment. I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they acted immediately after all the other cultural problems with harassment they seem to have.
> Google at least pushed Amit out as soon as the allegations were substantiated.
We don't have any evidence that the allegations were substantiated. We have some internal, anonymous leaks that claim that Google found the allegations were "credible".
Gee, and there was me thinking that the rise of Trump had put an end to the argument that these types of unethical behaviour are not symptoms of the same problem.
Defending a lack of ethics with ideology is a nothing more than a cheap trick. And I'm not falling for it anymore.
[+] [-] crabasa|9 years ago|reply
I agree with this. Taxi regulations might have started with noble intentions, but quickly evolved into protecting a monopoly at the expense of consumers.
[+] [-] FussyZeus|9 years ago|reply
I think Uber's about to be a very expensive lesson about Karma and will hopefully show some of these VC babies that "move fast and break stuff" is a great strategy for software, and a terrible strategy for people.
[+] [-] brudgers|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] st3v3r|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freshflowers|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|9 years ago|reply
Your argument is basically valid, but fails to account for Uber's consistent violations of law at several levels of government and geographic areas.
[+] [-] _jal|9 years ago|reply
There's an interesting argument in the article, but the amount of squid-ink being squirted overwhelms it. A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit.
Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down as incompetent.
If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...)
[+] [-] zaptheimpaler|9 years ago|reply
Yes this left a bad taste in my mouth. Quote from article:
"The fact of the matter is that we as an industry are responsible for Uber too. We’ve created a world that simultaneously celebrates rule-breaking and undervalues women (and minorities), full of investors and companies that are utterly ruthless when money is on the line, while cloaking said ambition in fluff about changing the world."
Soo.. its our fault for enabling this behavior, but we shouldn't punish Uber for it? Nooo. The majority of us don't create the rules/hierachy of what is valued, we can only vote with our feet and wallets and we should.
[+] [-] rrdharan|9 years ago|reply
At any rate this part of Ben Thompson's post annoyed me for a different reason - he conflates and equates patent infringement with theft of trade secrets, while those are in fact quite different things, and have correspondingly quite different forms of relief/punishment.
I don't have a strong position on whether or not that should be the case, but the fact remains that theft of trade secrets is actually a federal crime.
[+] [-] M_Grey|9 years ago|reply
If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...)
Watch him aim for the middle ground... weaseling and PR with the fervent prayers that attention will shift and he can keep eating the sweet cake he gets to keep. When most people can't formulate or even understand the logical proposition you're offering, heartless people are left with amazing leeway.
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|9 years ago|reply
This seems like an excellent description of the problem: if you're going to run a company that intentionally pushes the boundaries of specific regulatory restrictions (in order to demonstrate a better result that can only happen without them, to get popular backing for removing them), then you need to draw a clear internal dividing line between the risky actions taken in support of that goal and all the other areas in which the company should act as a model for upstanding behavior.
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able to legally operate as a "limo service." In that particular case, I agree with the author. But I thought that in many other cities, Uber came in and started operating in clear violation of the letter of the law, not just the spirit.
Is that true, or am I just misinformed?
[+] [-] ivraatiems|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13793923
[+] [-] tedunangst|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nilved|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Eridrus|9 years ago|reply
Given how popular Uber is, and how much people dislike the Taxi industry, it is enlightening to think about why taxi reform was never on anyone's agenda.
[+] [-] mandevil|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoondan|9 years ago|reply
There are many attitudes to have about taxi regulation. Some would argue that the market will eventually provide better solutions; even for issues like traffic congestion. Others might contend that the regulation is necessary because the market will either not find solutions or the cost of finding those solutions via the market is prohibitive. Some might take a less principled approach and consider whether the current regulations are better at solving problems or creating them. Regardless, we have to honestly consider the whole story. It's easiest to argue for Uber's approaches when you consider only the small part of the argument where Uber and its ilk clearly best the entrenched taxi system.
[+] [-] wrsh07|9 years ago|reply
Sometimes the best way to reform a thing is to tear it down, and I think that's where Thompson's cautiously optimistic post about Brexit landed. (Perhaps this one? https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/)
[+] [-] GauntletWizard|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdulli|9 years ago|reply
I would say there's an equal danger of conflating their disrupting regulations with innovation or progress. There's some relation, but it's not equivalent. Treating them the same is only good for Uber.
Or maybe it's that "innovation" and "progress" are mistaken to be only good things.
[+] [-] not_that_noob|9 years ago|reply
Note that I'm not judging - I have come to realize (sadly) that a certain ruthlessness may be necessary for large-scale success in business, especially in the tech industry.
[+] [-] Tycho|9 years ago|reply
The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators. And then you have other bloggers cashing in on the situation by writing these kinds of posts to get page views.
[+] [-] st3v3r|9 years ago|reply
If there is, it's from Uber itself. Everything that has come out are things that Uber has done by itself. No one else's fault but Uber and it's leadership.
"The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? "
The buck stops there. He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company.
"Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't."
No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously.
"The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators."
Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile workplace environments at Uber before.
[+] [-] brilliantcode|9 years ago|reply
Downvotes not going to fix Uber.
[+] [-] civilian|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xenadu02|9 years ago|reply
It's like if Edward Murrow went after McCarthy without bothering to double-check his own staff for anything that could be used against him.
[+] [-] socrates1998|9 years ago|reply
And I could easily see this "fuck the world, we do what we do" attitude creating a hyper-alpha atmosphere where sexual harassment is scoffed at.
So, one could argue that without this attitude, Uber would have run out of steam or lacked the hustle to take on the Taxi companies and government regulations.
Still, regardless of the success that this culture has achieved, you can't treat your workers like shit and ignore sexual harassment.
I could easily see Uber being replaced by another company after Uber does all the hard legwork of taking on the Taxi companies and governments.
Especially if Uber lacks the ability to fix its' image.
[+] [-] ariwilson|9 years ago|reply
It's not clear when Uber learned about these allegations of sexual harassment. I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they acted immediately after all the other cultural problems with harassment they seem to have.
[+] [-] jimmywanger|9 years ago|reply
We don't have any evidence that the allegations were substantiated. We have some internal, anonymous leaks that claim that Google found the allegations were "credible".
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] davidgerard|9 years ago|reply
Well, except the bit where they didn't do that either.
[+] [-] perseusprime11|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freshflowers|9 years ago|reply
Defending a lack of ethics with ideology is a nothing more than a cheap trick. And I'm not falling for it anymore.
[+] [-] perseusprime11|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superduper36|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]