[DontBeADick]

Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threats.

"Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became:

> threatening to reveal details of the location of their children

There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.

[Asparagirl]

In the same story that they talk about digging up dirt on reporters' families, Uber revealed details of a different reporter's movements to her, without her consent, and supposedly an impossible thing to do. Is it such a stretch to think that revealing details about your family + revealing details about your movements and location could also = revealing details about the movements and location of your family?

Again, read Sarah Lacey's rebuttal piece in PandoDaily. Her first thought after hearing about the threats (by phone) is for the safety of her kids, who are not with her at that moment.

[felixgallo]

It's not fair to make up a very specific statement, attribute it to someone, and then say it was in accordance with how you think their views run. You are right about uber being slime but don't pull a mark fuhrman.

[philwelch]

Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it.

Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.

[acdha]

> Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces

1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable?

2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?

[philwelch]

1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's PandoDaily's business model.

2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's interpretation of them as a threat against her children, which is unwarranted by the original report and likely her own sensationalism.

[acdha]

1. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department.

2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.

[philwelch]

I think Sarah's sensationalizing it because sensationalizing things is her business. That's all.

[scarmig]

Isn't it a clearly established principle of journalism that reporters should report only for the benefit of the people and organizations they're reporting on?

If she wasn't kowtowing to Kalanick's PR team, she was remiss and doubtlessly only hunting for page views. Definitely had it coming--turnabout is fair play.

[exelius]

Regardless, there's a line: press intimidation is unacceptable from any company. Even if the press is biased and has an axe to grind. If their reports are factually untrue and you have evidence to the contrary, write a press release and present it publicly. If this happens to a reporter enough times, they'll be branded unreliable. If their reports are factually correct and the facts therein piss off your customers, well, that was always a risk of doing those things in the first place.

But this type of stuff has happened to Uber enough times that they've developed quite a shady reputation. Uber has lost the benefit of the doubt in many people's eyes because at the very best, they hire shady people to do shady things for them. At the worst, they're stalking private citizens and intimidating them to keep quiet.

[ceph_]

Are you saying that wasn't a threat?

Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?

[Dylan16807]

>Does that make it better?

It avoids the "think of the children" reaction, so yes.

[DontBeADick]

The guy never threatened to target children or reveal any information about them. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

[crpatino]

How long would it take to get a restraining order if he had done as you say? And what would be the effect on the valuation of the company if that happened?

Play fair. Don't be a Prolog interpreter.

[crpatino]

You clearly have no children of your own, Mr. Throwaway. While Asparagirl might have been a bit too creative when filling in the details, every parent would be very concerned when some hostile entity hints to be "looking into... your family".

While confrontational by nature, I do not see any of the parts displaying stupidity, but perhaps yourself. Please try to live up to your chosen handle for this exchange.