Why is this here? This is a non story. All I see in this article is that someone was ranting in a conversation that was entirely assumed to be off the record (they go to great lengths to justify talking about it, as if private dinners require contracts of nondisclosure). I find it beyond hilarious that here Buzzfeed stands appalled that someone would joke about hiring people to dig up dirt when they find their way into private dinners and report every unsavory thing said in confidence and without context, essentially writing off that context as "this is never appropriate." Does anyone else see the outrageous hypocrisy here? One man is joking about something because he's frustrated with poor media coverage (which is arguably of questionable ethical validity) while Buzzfeed is actually doing that thing and now everyone here on HN is joking about how terrible Uber is and how they've distanced themselves. This is HN.
This is gossip about a man's frustrated rant at shitty media coverage. It's a non story and is totally off topic. If there was evidence he had hired people to dig up dirt with intent to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce people, we could be talking about criminal proceedings. But seeing as there's no mention of any criminal wrongdoing, this is complete and utter trash, and they know it. Another in a very long list of reasons never to read Buzzfeed.
I'm not here in a position in support of Uber because I literally have no idea what is and isn't fact. If every article negative of them is as misguided and useless as this one, I can't possibly hope to form a coherent and well informed opinion about a company. Definitely not based on clickbait headlines and opinion pieces without solid evidence of wrongdoing. You can hate Uber for all the valid reasons you can find, but getting angry at someone for expressing frustration is truly next level pathetic. This clickbait shit. What the fuck.
Some people are linking a Pando article, which says, as a direct quote:
> Earlier this evening, a bombshell story by Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith proves the reality is way worse than anyone on our team could have expected.
In reference to this article. You can see why this shit can't be taken seriously. Referring to garbage like this article as a "bombshell" or "proof" of activity is completely divorced from reality.
Even the author of this article recognizes, and confirms, that it was a hypothetical.
It's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can never be frustrated.
Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it? If there was no confusion about it being "off the record", there's no need to mention any of it. And it still doesn't matter.
> It's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can never be frustrated.
I haven't read anything suggesting that people should go to jail. I know I'm unlikely to use a taxi service that contemplates blackmailing or retaliating against me using private information if they decide that I'm too annoying, though, even if they decide not to do it. I'm kind of surprised other people feel differently, TBH.
> Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it?
So that the reporter's future sources will feel comfortable giving explicitly "off the record" information with the expectation that it will stay confidential. It has literally nothing to do with the accuracy of this story one way or the other.
"That's a nice car/set of teeth/daughter you are having there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."
The gap between a funny hypothetical and a veiled threat is small, but it does exist. This, to me, comes over as a veiled threat. As such, it wouldn't completely surprise me if this would lead to a criminal prosecution and possibly to a small conviction in court. It certainly feels more real than the typical "I have a bomb" joke at an airport that gets people in trouble.
When you're in a public place: do not say that you're rich and could fund a secret team of researchers to trash the reputation of journalists who write negative pieces about you.
Feel free to say that in your boardroom.
But if you say it in front of journalists don't then be surprised if journalists then report it.
Of course they carefully report the off-the-record status of the meeting, otherwise (as has already happened) you get people saying "what about ethics?" Establishing the nature of the meeting in advance closes those threads quickly.
This is gossip about a man's frustrated rant at shitty media coverage. It's a non story and is totally off topic. If there was evidence he had hired people to dig up dirt with intent to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce people, we could be talking about criminal proceedings. But seeing as there's no mention of any criminal wrongdoing, this is complete and utter trash, and they know it. Another in a very long list of reasons never to read Buzzfeed.
I'm not here in a position in support of Uber because I literally have no idea what is and isn't fact. If every article negative of them is as misguided and useless as this one, I can't possibly hope to form a coherent and well informed opinion about a company. Definitely not based on clickbait headlines and opinion pieces without solid evidence of wrongdoing. You can hate Uber for all the valid reasons you can find, but getting angry at someone for expressing frustration is truly next level pathetic. This clickbait shit. What the fuck.
Some people are linking a Pando article, which says, as a direct quote:
> Earlier this evening, a bombshell story by Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith proves the reality is way worse than anyone on our team could have expected.
In reference to this article. You can see why this shit can't be taken seriously. Referring to garbage like this article as a "bombshell" or "proof" of activity is completely divorced from reality.