←back to thread

Bill Gurley Is Leaving Uber’s Board

(www.nytimes.com)
198 points 101carl | 3 comments | 22 Jun 17 00:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.687s | source
Show context
johan_larson ◴[22 Jun 17 01:32 UTC] No.14609498[source]▶
I remain flabbergasted by all of this upheaval at Uber. What's happening is the sort of housecleaning I would expect if the company had to file for bankruptcy or got caught flat out bribing judges or something. But really, what triggered all this was acting like jerks.

It seems to me, what should have happened (a long time ago) was that they got shut down for systematically breaking the law, or encouraging others to do so. That would have made sense.

But instead they are getting flayed alive by not much more than bad press for being jerks. Makes no goddamn sense.

replies(23): >>14609514 #>>14609557 #>>14609559 #>>14609591 #>>14609615 #>>14609628 #>>14609681 #>>14609683 #>>14609754 #>>14609773 #>>14609906 #>>14609910 #>>14609913 #>>14609985 #>>14610088 #>>14610181 #>>14610211 #>>14610357 #>>14610400 #>>14610983 #>>14612054 #>>14612964 #>>14614659 #
stale2002 ◴[22 Jun 17 02:39 UTC] No.14609754[source]▶
Sexual harassment and retaliation against employees for reporting it is not "just being jerks".

It is illegal.

replies(3): >>14609872 #>>14609880 #>>14610189 #
tyingq ◴[22 Jun 17 03:13 UTC] No.14609880[source]▶
Perhaps it should be actually illegal, like criminally punishible, but it is not.

It is a tort, civil violation, etc...but nobody is going to jail.

replies(3): >>14609982 #>>14610243 #>>14612553 #
stale2002 ◴[22 Jun 17 05:11 UTC] No.14610243[source]▶
From the civil rights act of 1964:

"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."

http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/

If the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits something, I think that that fits the common definition of "illegal" that a normal person would use.

Maybe a lawyer would use a different word, but who cares, everyone understood what you meant.

replies(3): >>14610460 #>>14611378 #>>14611445 #
1. dang ◴[22 Jun 17 06:30 UTC] No.14610460[source]▶
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments. That's an abuse of the site, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't use HN this way.

The key test is 'primarily'. Commenting occasionally on political topics, among others, is fine. But using the site primarily for political battle is not fine, regardless of which politics you favor. It's destructive of the intended use of the site, which is the gratification of intellectual curiosity. Since we can't have both kinds of site, we have to be careful about this.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...

replies(1): >>14611339 #
2. neoeldex ◴[22 Jun 17 11:03 UTC] No.14611339[source]▶
I have to reply to your comment, since I don't find his comment to be political at all, more pointing to the semantical point of things being illegal. Second, I've browsed through the comments and their submitters comments. I find it striking some people's accounts have been banned on the basis of very few comments.

Lastly, the political debate is often the thing I find interesting about the comment threads on HN, Its getting to see the different viewpoints which interests me. Ofcourse we have to be civil and respectful towards each other, but when we are, I don't see any problem on any topic, how can any topic be destructive to the intended use of the site?

replies(1): >>14611548 #
3. mattmanser ◴[22 Jun 17 11:50 UTC] No.14611548[source]▶
I also have no idea what was wrong with that comment. I wonder if dang replied to the wrong commentator?

I also find it crazy they do this in the threads and not by email, very easy to miss if you don't religiously check your /threads. I got a warning from dang once and he claimed I'd been warned before, which from my perspective I'd never been warned. They have my email.