[param]

Because that's what shares represent. I 'give you money' to try to add wealth to the economy. If you do anything illegal, you burn. Not me.

Economics and law 101

Edit - just want to clarify - if the company execs do something ILLEGAL, they should go to jail. Shareholders WILL get punished beause shares will get a hit. But how is it fair to start punishing the company overall with consumer activism just because there are allegations of misconduct?

[Xylakant]

Because as a shareholder you own and share part of the well or ill-being of a company. You can pressure the CEO directly since the shareholders control the company. So shareholders can and should set the ethical framework in which the company acts. If that framework doesn't attract business, then that's their loss.

[brown9-2]

But how is it fair to start punishing the company overall with consumer activism just because there are allegations of misconduct?

How is it fair to always assume the best? This is not the first story of Uber's misdeeds.

[param]

Sure, but it could also be confirmation bias. Why is it that there have been so many stories of misdeeds and they still haven't been punished?

In your world, it could be because they are an evil monster, and they bought off the cops and the plaintiff.

In my world, it is possible that none of them were instances of breaking the law and worth going after.

PS: read up on confirmation bias.

[vertex-four]

If shareholders were held accountable in a much more direct way, perhaps they would spend more effort ensuring that the companies they invest in didn't break the law?

[param]

I agree with you. But that's not the world we live in today.

[vertex-four]

It could be. Consumer action affects the company which affects shareholders, so when there's consumer action over what are at the very least unethical practices, shareholders are affected. Both the company and the shareholders get punished - the company for what it's done, and the shareholders for funding the company without a care for its practices.

[param]

Point taken. That's why I am here to sort of point out a counter argument to DHH. He seems to be calling for consumer activism without making a serious case (at least for me) so as to WHY.

There have been allegations of misconduct, fine. Latest there is a sexual harassment claim... Those are VERY attractive to certain class of lawyers. Why not let law take its course? Why do WE, who know nothing of what happened, have to PRE-JUDGE and punish the company upfront?

[vertex-four]

Note that innocent until proven guilty is, largely speaking, something that only applies to Government interactions, like most rights - specifically because the Government can unilaterally do something, but the people need to organise in order to have any significant effect. Or, in other words, judging someone is probably fine since a significant chunk of society would have to come to the same judgement in order to effect any sort of punishment without doing something illegal themselves.

Additionally, innocent until proven guilty isn't even a thing in civil court - all outcomes are on the balance of probabilities. So we still wouldn't know what our Government has to say as to whether it happened or not, just that it more likely happened than not. Even if you have complete trust in the court system to make the right choices, you still have to make your own judgement as to whether or not you think it actually happened (since the court hasn't actually decided that), and then as to whether additional consumer action is necessary.

And this is making the assumption that Susan wants to take it to court, and go through that whole rather horrible process, and have all her dirty laundry dragged out in public for people to spend the next couple of years harassing her over. Uber, of course, being an amoral company with plenty of cash, will be fine whatever the result.

[mjmsmith]

There's ample evidence of what kind of company Uber is and consumers are under no obligation to give them the benefit of the doubt yet again, even if it does negatively affect selfless attempts to "add wealth to the economy".

[mhluongo]

So you're against boycotts and people voting with their dollars? This is a core part of capitalism. If you don't like something, don't support it.

[param]

Yes, and my original comment was that DHH didn't do a good enough effort to convince me. And I was saying that I won't support it.