| Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, but here are the same stories from a bunch of other publications. My initial comment was just a quick Google search, so the originals and highest SEO'd articles win out. Feel free to accept whichever one you deem a "good enough" source: [6]: http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-self-inflicte... [7]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-worst... [8]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-exec-... [9]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ubers-boys-club-wha... [10]: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-avions-de-chasse-promoti... [11]: http://www.fastcompany.com/3037552/uber-cancels-sexist-hot-c... [12]: http://www.newsweek.com/uber-taxi-e-hailing-riding-app-travi... [13]: http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1 [14]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/opinion/we-cant-trust-uber... [15]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/emil-michael-of-ube... [16]: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/acting-like-jer... [17]: http://www.alternet.org/7-evil-things-uber-did-2014-you-shou... [18]: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-... [19]: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-scandals-timeline-michiga... It's trivial to verify that a source has the right story, so once verified then conversations should shift from debating the accuracy of the source to the consequences of the story itself. |