[Asparagirl]

Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families.

The primary reporter that Uber was talking about at that dinner is Sarah Lacey at PandoDaily. Sarah has been very critical of Uber in the past. She also has two very young children and has written a lot about what it's like to start a company and pitch investors while being pregnant and/or having young kids at home.

The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.

Here's her response, in PandoDaily: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-fa...

[DontBeADick]

> Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families.

> The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.

Obvious implication? I think it's more of a convenient assumption you're making to suit your own personal grudge against Uber.

The comments he made were clearly idiotic, but your eagerness to interpret them in the most extreme and sensational way possible is no better.

[Asparagirl]

Please explain the NON "extreme and sensational" way to interpret comments talking about spending one million dollars to target, intimidate, and smear the press and to dig up dirt on their families.

What's really cute is that even Uber doesn't even deny that this happened. No, that's all on you, dear HN commenter.

[nailer]

Didn't the parent post already explain? The journalist writes details about people personal lives for a tech gossip site. The Uber person is non seriously (even accordion to the article) musing over what would happen if the company was to do the same thing back. No conspiracy theory needed.