I am an Uber survivor - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@amyvertino/my-name-is-not-amy-i-am-an-uber-survivor-c6d6541e632f <comment><USER5> >Travis is well known to protect high performing team leaders no matter how abusive they are towards their employees. The HR team was known to be deftly[sic] afraid of Travis's tendency to blame and ridicule the women and yell at HR whenever they went in with complaints of abuse. I heard about Travis personally congratulating Mike#2 for meeting strict deadlines months after I complained to HR about my abuse.

This is why I'm skeptical of Uber's promise to investigate these allegations. When I heard that they had retained Eric Holder to investigate, my knee-jerk reaction was petty and cynical: "Great, retain a Chicago politician so you know you'll get the answer you're paying for."

I was a little disappointed in myself at the time, but damn. With this company, I'm starting to think that impression might have been on the money.

<comment><USER6> Maybe I've watched too much Suits and The Good Wife, but it just seems that it's all futile. They're a huge corp, if you file suit against them they'll hit back harder with bigger and badder lawyers, and you either settle out of court, or play the lotto with the court system and try your hand at a judgement with whatever lawyers you can afford. It's really sad how stacked the odds seem.

<comment><USER7> Why is this being modded down? It's the truth. Big companies almost always come out on top in trials because they can afford the best lawyers, and they can afford to game the system to bankrupt their opponents by filing never- ending motions to delay and other tactics which increase the legal costs to the opponent. You're almost never going to get a positive result if you're a rank-and-file employee; your best course of action is to leave the company and find something better.

<comment><USER8> It's not just the best lawyers. Uber have already started contacting anyone who knows Susan Fowler, digging for dirt on her.

<comment><USER9> How can you be so sure it was Uber? Susan's tweet was intentionally vague [0].

You are forgetting that some past and present employees that could be directly implicated by Susan's evidence may also choose the smear campaign route to save their hide.

This could range from the women in HR* who _might_ get thrown under the bus by Uber for aiding and abetting, to the men that perpetrated the actual harassment.

*Of course this scenario playing out is highly unlikely given Uber's history.

[0] [https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833](https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833)

<comment><USER10> Isn't uber known for this? I remember them responding to a lawsuit or something by hiring PIs to get dirt on people - stuff beyond the merits of the case.

They've always ended up looking

<comment><USER11> Yes, they have threatened to dig up dirt on reporters and have even hired former CIA agents to go after information on someone who is suing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm really happy she felt comfortable doing this. What an incredibly brave and strong person—I can't imagine what she must be feeling.

What I really want to see is the other 20 men on her team tell their bosses to cut that shit out.

We cannot rely on the abused to stand up for themselves; for every one who does there are thousands who cannot. It is on every one of us to report abhorrent behaviour, even if we think someone else has/will.

Change comes from those in power, from people who could very rationally not care, but who go out of their way to do the right thing. It isn't an economic decision, a business decision, or a political decision. It is a personal decision on the world one wants to live in.

We can do better. We must do better. Enough is enough.

<comment><USER13> What specifically is the move forward here, though? I suppose hn as a community has the power to boycott applying to the company, but how else can we drive internal change from an external position?

Uninstalling the app and simply choosing to use a competitor's services are another option, but sapping the entire organization of revenue seems like it would hurt drivers and developers at least as much as management, if not more so. Do you think this merits organized public protest? Is the average Uber user aware of the issues/incensed enough to actually take to the streets?

Obviously I'd like to see a change, but I'm struggling with how best to actually make this happen.

<comment><USER14> OK Cupid blocked Firefox, a non-profit with less questionable business practices than most tech companies and certainly Uber, over Eich's quiet private donation which ought to be a smaller deal than systematic sexual harassment with consequences for victims instead of perpetrators (although the donation was proven while the harassment is alleged; I doubt this tips the scales of public sentiment though.) The overall reaction on HN was mostly positive. I'm sure an Uber boycott can be figured out. (Is it a good idea? I dunno, in Eich's case the question is different from this case and there's much to discuss, I'm just saying that people these days are fairly eager to boycott and fairly good at it once the proper mood sets in.)

<comment><USER15> The two cases are incomparable. What happened to Eich was injustice, as in a democratic state, he is (read: is supposed to be) free about supporting whatever idea he wants. We might not like it, yet "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." What happened was hypocrisy pure, and OkCupid got some positive PR from the situation. In a world where this sort of stuff works, we'll quickly end up with Inquisition and witch-hunts, reversed.

WRT Uber, their business model is shady to begin with, and that's not the only shady thing about them. Yet, the post is anonymous, and sincere though it sounds, nobody can be sure that the allegations are true. If cost of a lawsuit is the concern, I believe there are many organisations out there who'd help with the case.

<comment><USER16> So. Eich funding discrimination is free speech, whereas OK Cupid blocking his browser is not. Because why?

Aside: great insights into the victimhood mentality of the free speech zealots.

[https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of- amer...](https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-americas-new- right-629a77e87986)

<comment><USER15> There's no discrimination issue here. Just like one can support a given law, they can oppose it too. OK Cupid's move has nothing to do with free speech at all, and I believe in neither the sincerity nor the aptness thereof. Eich's actions were legal, peasurable or not, and within the protection of basic human rights.

(WRT same-sex marriage issue, I believe that civil unions should replace all kinds of marriage we've today and it should be left to the individuals to decide what their partnership(s) mean to them, wrt their philosophical/religious stances.)

<comment><USER17> Why is it a free speech issue for Eich to make a donation but not for OKC to choose not to associate with his organization? I fail to see the distinction, especially since the right to free association is closely linked to free speech. This argument has never made any sense to me. Eich's actions were protected from retaliation by the government; if you argue that the same must hold true for private individuals and organizations then you're really saying some speech needs to be more protected than others. How do we draw those lines?

<comment><USER15> \- Firefox does not belong to Eich, and Eich's words are not representative-- good or bad they be--of Firefox users or Firefox developers.

\- OKCupid blocking a certain browser to access their website means that who uses Firefox to use their service has to either agree the company and boycott Firefox themselves too or not use the service. That is, they forced those users to participate in the boycott.

\- OKCupid is a company, so all of its actions are not only in the name of their executives, but also in the name of the users.

\- What they did boiled down to a public shaming campaign, hurting, unjustly, not only a person who used their freedom to support a given political quest, but also a huge community around Firefox and Mozilla that had nothing to do with Eich's political tendencies. Free speech is not useful at all if we let the loudest to win.

What OKCupid did is probably defendable in front of law, but is completely unethical and exploitative. They tried to start a lynch to silence someone. It's no different to shaming someone for being homosexual or calling someone with the N word and excluding them. And it was an attempt to suppress freespeech, not an act thereof.

<comment><USER17> I mean, I can tear down Eich's actions the same way to justify what OKC did. That's entirely besides the point however, and my previous point still stands. Even if I buy your premise that OKC's actions are unethical, their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's! I happen to think Eich's action was unethical for a number of reasons, but I'm not arguing against his right to make it.

EDIT: Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech? You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.

<comment><USER15> > their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's!

Agreed. When I said their actions have nothing to do with free speech, I meant that they weren't confronting a free speech issue. They have the right to do what they did (IANAL, competition laws may apply, though I don't know much about American law).

> Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest > enough to be protected as free speech?

The only one who gets to moderate is the speaker themselves, and the listener. And my view is that OKCupid boggled here.

> You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do > business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their > free speech and free association rights.

Ditto. But I also think that the companies should stay neutral, especially those who serve registered users, for they represent them in that using their service continuously may (and do) cause people to get labeled with the company's tendencies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not in the business of defending Uber - quite the contrary - but reading through the comments it seems that most people are assuming that this post by an anonymous person is 100% true.

These types of posts are worrying to me. Why could this post not have been crafted by someone at Lyft? Or one of Uber's many other detractors? Given the PR nightmare that Uber is in why not pile on while the public seems primed for that type of information and stretch out the negative news cycle?

Just thought I'd throw out a word of caution: we know literally nothing about the credibility of this person.

<comment><USER19> She posted anonymously, BUT also went out of her way to provide an awful lot of information about herself. Information that her ex-coworkers could presumably verify and figure out her real identity (especially since Uber seems to have very few women in engineering positions).

Based on the article, she is:

      1) A woman in her late 20s
      2) who used to work at Uber in Engineering working on database and networking scalability
      3) went to a top private college
      4) has a Masters in Information Systems
      5) previous to Uber worked as a Data Analyst in a tech company in the Midwest and left when it was acquired by a Chinese firm
      6) is 5 foot 7 Caucasian with dark hair
      7) never wears high heels

So yeah, the target demographic of the article is almost certainly her ex- coworkers. It seems to be a call to action of sorts.

<comment><USER20> But the OP's point stands generally: If this _were_ a smear campaign by a competing company, how different would it look?

I sympathize greatly with Ms. Fowler not least because she put her reputation out there and claimed to have documentation of the specific offenses, which a decently respectable journalism outfit like the NYTimes could fact-check. Fowler's story _could_ be exaggerated, but I have reasonable doubt that it's true, or true enough to merit scorn toward Uber.

As inexcusable as this "Amy"'s story is if true, we have to keep our heads and recognize when we have a falsifiability problem on our hands with the current facts.

<comment><USER21> It just seems surprising to many of us that this skepticism only seems to crop up in situations surrounding racial or gender discrimination.

<comment><USER20> Can you describe a general situation where this kind of skepticism is avoided? I'm keenly aware that selective application of standards of evidence in legal matters is a serious bias problem, but if you are suggesting it happens in some issue to people across the ideological spectrum on that issue I don't know what you're talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I consider the HN community to be one of the most thoughtful I've found on the web, yet am stunned by how quickly a righteous mob is formed based on an anonymous, cartoonish, and IMO barely plausible account of what it's like to work for a large US tech company.

Having spent years working at multiple SV tech companies, where even the slightest tinge of a racist or sexist affront would land you in an office in front of HR and a company lawyer, I find this account to be _very_ difficult to believe. Slanty eye joe? Please.

We don't know if this is a (poorly written) attempt to sink Uber (which I don't happen to care for) by someone with a short position and an evening to spare, or if it has been penned by an employee with a grudge.

Please have some credulity before parading your #deleteuber hashtags and morally superior posturing so the world can marvel at how virtuous you are. There has never been a more evil force in the world than an outraged, self- righteous mob inflamed by twisted anecdotes.

And yes, I've resorted to creating a throwaway account, fully expecting the flagging and down-voting groupthink brigade to be in force. If there's a shameful story here, it's more likely this disturbing human phenomenon, not an anonymous blog post, the veracity of which we know _nothing_ about.

<comment><USER23> I think the idea of "victim-blaming" has morphed into its own beast. We're so scared of doing it that asking for evidence or asking critical questions is now in a weird way associated with victim blaming. Everyone in this thread who's said what you said has ipso facto gotten downvoted.

I find myself suspicious of this new culture of "standing together in solidarity," "letting vulnerable people tell their narratives," "being supportive," etc. These all sound like perfectly upstanding things to do, but nowadays they dominate discourse. Facts, reason, and inquiry are now considered oppressive.

I've met some people who have asked, why is this a problem? Who cares if a couple people make things up, when there are so many people hurting out there? Well, people who make things up make real stories less believable. And it incentivizes victimhood, which nowadays carries with it the reward of not having to engage in debate, because anyone who voices doubt is considered a monster. Someone earlier got _flagged_ for saying what you said. Not just downvoted so his post would be light gray, but flagged so his post would disappear.

And really, at the end of the day, what can trigger-happy moral outrage accomplish that a quiet sense of justice backed by reason, fairness, and determination can't?

<comment><USER24> >I think the idea of "victim-blaming" has morphed into its own beast. We're so scared of doing it that asking for evidence or asking critical questions is now in a weird way associated with victim blaming.

This is a critical point. Is there a way to express doubt, sans body language, that can further a discussion without evoking responses such as this? [[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13748089](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13748089)]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Some of the responses to that article express a sentiment that women should fight back and not just silently take it.

I wonder (doubt) if they've ever been abused. It's hard for someone who has been abused to come forward, let alone stand up to an abuser.

Besides, men outnumber women in tech by a very large margin. It's on our shoulders to help women fight back. Strength in numbers is a thing, and having men who speak up on their own, and who support and reinforce women who come forward can only a be a good thing.

<comment><USER26> She did fight back, told HR about what was happening, stood up to the abusers in meetings. Then when she was physically handled and verbally threatened in a meeting with many eye witnesses, nothing was done to support her or protect her.

What else do they expect her to do? Bring a weapon to work and shoot everyone?

<comment><USER25> I took their comments to mean directly to the abuser in a more aggressive way than "please stop" or even "that's not appropriate."

But you're right: in any adult, rational sense she "fought back."

<comment><USER27> Because everyone knows that being aggressive back to your abuser is an easy, viable option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think the bottom line is that some founders believe that you have to tolerate abusive personalities in order to hire the best.

I had a person on my team once who I did not hire but who had a reputation for being one of the smartest and most capable engineers. As his new manager, I expected that I'd soon promote him. But then I saw that he treated others on the team very poorly and often said highly inappropriate sexual things.

I talked to the founder and was told that he's really a great guy, etc. As it got worse I mentioned the pattern to HR, and HR was initially concerned, but then after HR met with the founder it was as if I was imagining the problem.

I tell this story simply to point out that the same culture that tolerates bullies and harassment can happen even when there is a female founder.

I know it's a cliche that bullies are always deeply insecure. I think that is the case for workplace bullies too. The brash, over-confident, aggressive act that these people put on works to help them find out who they can victimize.

Others who interact less closely often perceive people (particularly engineers) who have a brash, confident attitude as being smart and capable. Just because someone quickly points the finger and shoots down other peoples' ideas doesn't mean his/her ideas are smart :)

I don't think bullies can thrive in a healthy workplace culture. There should not be any question that certain behavior is inappropriate and is grounds for a stern warning (or worse). But once this doesn't happen, a sort of law of the jungle emerges and bullies and exploiters can take over.

The more information that comes out about Uber's culture, I think Travis probably needs to go.

<comment><USER29> I'll be real with you. I worked at Uber for a while. I never noticed any sexual harassment while I was there, but what I did notice was that the company culture was quite excellent until the number of employees got up to 1000 or so. It wasn't until there were many layers of management that things got shitty. I left once the culture no longer felt friendly.

I haven't spoken to Travis in quite a few years now, but I find it very hard to believe he is responsible.

Shitty, evil, manages are great at being two-faced. When their boss is around they act one way, but you better watch out when no one is looking.

<comment><USER30> No. There is simply no excuse for this kind of abusive environment to exist at your company. If you are CEO, you are responsible:

\- Kalanick doesn't interact with every employee every day like the olden days, but he certainly hired the people who do (directly or indirectly).

\- Greenshift is a real problem, but it's not like the management chain is the only way a CEO can find out about problems.

And nobody's saying that Kalanick is telling his execs that it's OK to harass employees. In my mind, he is responsible and culpable even if he simply turns a blind eye when harassment happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It comes as no surprise to me that a company as cavalier toward local laws and its drivers as Uber is would also mistreat its other workers.

On the off-chance Amy or Susan is reading this, thanks for sharing your stories.

</comment><comment><USER32> Why would someone write an anonymous blog post but then declare that they are:

      1) A woman in her late 20s
      2) Who used to work at Uber in Engineering working on
         database and networking scalability
      3) Went to a top private college
      4) has a Masters in Information Systems
      5) previous to Uber worked as a Data Analyst in a tech
         company in the Midwest and left when it was acquired
         by a Chinese firm
      6) Is 5 foot 7 Caucasian with dark hair

<comment><USER33> Did a search of all current/past Uber employees based on public data mainly from LI, found only 6 people with those degrees and none were female. Did another search for people who worked as Data Analyst and worked at Uber came up with 6 different people again all male. As other answers suggest the information could be twisted, but definitely not "slightly".

<comment><USER34> What was your motivation for doing this?

As soon as someone doesn't want to be associated with a story critical of anything, the salt is implicit isn't it?

Considering the last few stories that have come out about how women are being treated in tech, what I've observed (and been enraged by) I'm pretty sure this happened/is happening still.

Are you just trying to verify the legitimacy of the post? If someone finds the courage to speak out, why would you then try to out them for doing so?

Does it even matter if it's faked if most of us could totally believe it's not? There are bigger problems being highlighted here than this individual incident...

But what do I know... Do you work there? Is someone trying to fsck with uber's valuation or something?

<comment><USER35> _Are you just trying to verify the legitimacy of the post? If someone finds the courage to speak out, why would you then try to out them for doing so?_

Because if it's not legitimate then it's worth knowing that? To me, this story seems far more suspicious than Fowler.

 _Does it even matter if it 's faked if most of us could totally believe it's not?_

Perhaps a variety of fake incidents have caused you to believe things that aren't true. Maybe the bigger problem being highlighted is also fake.

I recently had a conversation with someone telling me about a rape on a college campus. I told her I was skeptical. She said it was so common, why am I skeptical, and supported her case that it was common by citing Duke, Mattress Girl and UVA as examples. She was shocked when I suggested she google those incidents. Repeated fake incidents can cause people to change their priors.

So yes, the reason why "most of us could totally believe it's not" actually matters quite a lot.

<comment><USER34> What would be the motivation behind creating a 'false' rhetoric such as the experiences of women in tech?

I've certainly seen this happening / had to deal with it, I do feel that this is still an issue and something we need to improve. While it's not an across the board problem, I suspect most women working in tech would agree with me; the story, which I don't stand behind as as legitimate, is very similar to the sorts of things I've seen going on.

I wish we could just make it very hard for either false (I've seen this case happen, demonstrably, too) or true claims such as these to occur.

In most cases, talking to leads/mgt BEFORE these things get really bad would have helped and that's something we should be making easier..

<comment><USER35> I don't know the motivation. Perhaps someone feels harassment is a real problem, but can't find any real examples of it, so feels the need to tell lies for a good cause? Perhaps someone merely wants to harm Uber? They certainly have no shortage of people who hate them.

But regardless of motivation, the facts show that many people are willing to fake stories just to support their "team". Sometimes they do this at great personal risk and cost, e.g. lighting their own truck on fire or making false police reports. As an example of one category, there have been many such incidents since Nov 7:

[http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/12/23/denton- man-s...](http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/12/23/denton-man-set- vehicles-ablaze-painted-racial-slur-garage-door-wife-says) [http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/14/hate-hoax-nyc- musl...](http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/14/hate-hoax-nyc-muslim- arrested-claiming-attack-trump-fans/) [http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/S-Jersey-man- ar...](http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/S-Jersey-man-arrested-in- post-election-vandalism-in-South-Philly.html?mobi=true) [http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/ann-arbor-police- womans-s...](http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/ann-arbor-police-womans-story- about-being-force-to-remove-hijab-did-not-occur) [http://patch.com/new- york/gardencity/man-who-drew-swastikas-...](http://patch.com/new- york/gardencity/man-who-drew-swastikas-across-nassau-community-college- arrested-police)

So it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that such a person took an hour to write a medium post in an incognito window for such purposes.

<comment><USER34> Sure; I can't fault any of that. Even if this was a link to a chapter of a fictional book though, I'd be saying the same thing.

I don't accept this as truth, I assume it's fiction as no one is standing behind it. My only point was, that in general, none of us are terribly shocked by stories such as these, and that's what I wanted to talk about.

I really do hope that less of this goes on than is reported, I sadly feel that the opposite is true -- and that's from personal experiences not unverifiable stories on the internetz.

<comment><USER36> Real or not, no one's shocked because we just had a major eye-opener (Fowler) so recently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think it's pretty obvious that Travis Kalanick should resign. He is the constant in all these stories supporting this nasty company culture. In the past year he has also been linked with Uber's shady business (attacks on press, fake income for drivers, etc) . He is the one pushing on borderline legal tactics. Even their business model is borderline legal (if anything). How he can deny knowing anything like the sexual harassment not happening ?

<comment><USER38> There was a time when founders were replaced too soon with "professional management". The pendulum has swung the other way with the mythology of the founder. Now, founders are rarely if ever replaced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Without getting into any details this: "Once in a group chat, team members referred to a new Asian American recruit as slanty eye joe" seems very strange to me. The Uber tech org is like 80%+ foreign born, this makes pretty much zero sense. Disclaimer: I work for Uber.

<comment><USER40> Racism isn't limited to locals. Foreign born people can be just as racist as everyone else. For example, it's suprisingly common to hear immigrants complain that there is too much immigration now.

<comment><USER41> I don't know if you realize it, but you are conflating anti-immigration sentiments with racism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> You can delete your Uber account here: [https://help.uber.com/h/24010fe7-7a67-4ee5-9938-c734000b144a](https://help.uber.com/h/24010fe7-7a67-4ee5-9938-c734000b144a)

<comment><USER43> I get a 404 past the telephone/email entry page...

<comment><USER42> You can delete it from the app, as well. [http://www.imore.com/how-to-delete- your-uber-account](http://www.imore.com/how-to-delete-your-uber-account)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Amy, many people believe your story. But based on the flags this story is getting, many don't, at least not yet.

Is there any way you can verify the authenticity of your story without losing your anonymity to the public? For example, would Susan be able to verify you as an ex-employee?

<comment><USER45> Amy, I believe your story because it is a second independent set of events that closely parallels Susan's story.

You do not need to suffer more indignity by "being outed."

Best of luck!

<comment><USER46> I also believe your story Amy, and strongly suggest you think _very_ carefully before providing any sort pf "proof" to people who demand it, and view those people with intense suspicion.

And reledi? Grow up man - give up on your "not all men" attitude - <USER2> desperately to preserve your own dignity by failing to acknowledge that our industry treats women in ways with should shame all men, and that your "Holy Grail" tech employers like Uber are at the worst end of the bell curve - <USER3> clearly run by reprehensible human beings from the top down - which filters all the way down the org chart. #deleteuber

<comment><USER47> What you think about "not all men" seems to dependent on whether you believe that the concept of original sin is immoral or not.

I don't think I should feel shame because someone I had no control over, which incidentally had the same gender/skin color/nationality/ethnicity as me, did something wrong.

<comment><USER45> I thought his mention of Holy Grail was more in line with the definition "a thing that is being earnestly pursued or sought after." [1]

I don't think his eschatology was at all a part of his argument.

<comment><USER47> I didn't mean to reference the Holy Grail, sorry for the confusion. I added a second paragraph to clarify.

I meant that how you feel about being told you should feel shameful about being a male due to how other men sometimes act probably depends on how you react to being told that you're a sinful person who needs to redeem yourself because someone else ate an apple they weren't supposed to eat.

The "you" in my post weren't directed at him either, it was just a generic you. Damn, English is hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "There is no place for ethics in this business sweetheart. We are not a charity."

OMFG

I don't know if this is real or not, but given how Uber acts publicly about everything else (breaking the laws until governments are forced to amend the laws for Uber), I'm not surprised at all if this really is the overall attitude that they have for everything.

<comment><USER49> What especially annoys me about the Uber's management is that they believe themselves to be tough and no-nonsense - but in reality their behaviour is self-destructive. In other words, they are delusional and arrogant, not practical and reality-oriented. I have worked with people like this, though they were not as extreme as Uber.

Travis Kalanick is often painted as an example of Ayn Rand's philosophy in action. [1] I don't doubt he follows his own shallow understanding of her ideas. Still, what she actually said was that it's in your rational self- interest to treat everyone you deal with fairly and trade value for value. I.e., you _need_ ethics to succeed in business.

John Allison of BB&T bank explains this principled approach better than I can [2]. He grew BB&T into a top 10 American bank, but he's the polar opposite of the stereotypical ruthless capitalist.

If you screw people over, you may gain a short-term advantage, but you will inevitably fail in the long-run. Enron, Zynga, Groupon, and countless others have proved this.

[1] [https://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis- shrugged/](https://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/)

[2] [https://youtu.be/XPSGMbqEGU0?t=3m12s](https://youtu.be/XPSGMbqEGU0?t=3m12s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> We've gotten to a point where regardless of who's in the right, the most (only?) effective way to attack a huge company is controversial allegations posted under the veil of anonymity. Regardless of what (if anything) in these allegations happened, this is costing Uber ridiculous amounts of money and all it took was an anonymous blog post.

I know I'm a horrible person to say this, but if I were an Uber competitor, these posts would be part of my marketing arsenal. If unaccountable journalism produces results, it's going to be used. If it isn't already, it will. There's too much money and not enough risk in it.

And the only way to fight against this is to not let yourself be part of outrage culture. We have evidence-based courts for dealing with these things.

</comment><comment><USER51> _> I remember how the interviewers constantly tried to trigger me and insulted my intelligence to see if I break under pressure._

What the fuck? I'd walk and never entertain an offer from a company that spent the interview insulting and provoking me. Who would be stoked to get an offer after an experience like that, much less accept it??

<comment><USER52> Famous example: [http://www.businessinsider.com/hyman-rickover-interview- tech...](http://www.businessinsider.com/hyman-rickover-interview- techniques-2014-4)

I don't know if it's actually useful when interviewing for a job with lives on the line, but I would guess that it creates an effect where the worse the interview experience is the happier you feel when you pass it.

<comment><USER53> That's quite different from what Amy alleges happened to her at the interview.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Social justice fundamentally needs an economic basis to stand on. If you want to stop sexual harassment, install a financial penalty.

* The internet was supposed to democratize this stuff. People like Balaji Srinivasan say the FDA should be replaced with Yelp for drugs. Why isn't Glassdoor more effective? Why wasn't Uber's toxic work culture public knowledge, gorgeously pinned to the top of Google's search results?

* When people like Mike interrupt meetings to tell his subordinates not to be a "whiny little bitch," presumably it makes all the quiet, thoughtful people in the room teem with unease. Ideally every instance of this adds a quantum of incentive for them to leave the company. How can that be encouraged?

* Do unions offer any protections to a group of Uber engineers who decided tomorrow to just walk out together?

<comment><USER54> > * The internet was supposed to democratize this stuff. We have people like > Balaji Srinivasan saying the FDA should be replaced with Yelp for drugs. Why > isn't Glassdoor more effective? Why wasn't Uber's toxic work culture public > knowledge, gorgeously pinned to the top of Google's search results, long > before Susan or Amy started interviewing?

"The internet" as a decision making body rewards the loudest, most obnoxious, easiest to use, quickest to strong arm someone into joining its network. Not the most just, or best for its own well being.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> It's unfortunate that the Silicon Valley work culture is being tarnished by companies like Uber. There are many companies that respect women and have HR departments that actually fulfill the purpose of being helpful Resources to Humans. I hope the anti-Uber sentiment grows so other companies can learn from this example.

I'm glad the author is sharing her story.

<comment> the-dude You have got that backwards dude: the Resources are the Humans.

<comment><USER56> The resources are the humans and the departments responsibility is to keep the company from being sued.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I have friend who is an engineering middle manager at Uber. I was having drinks with him and some of his direct reports (including 2 women), and they all told me that they've never experienced or heard of any of this behavior until recently.

Obviously that's anecdata (although it has the benefit of me knowing that it's true, as opposed to Amy's story), but I think people are jumping to conclusions here.

It seems that there is some kind of problem at Uber. The scope and size of it remains to be seen.

<comment><USER58> I wouldn't be willing to admit that I had seen that, or had experienced that in front of my direct manager. Especially given what happened to those who did try to report.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Yet another example, with lots more that won't come out publicly, of just how toxic Uber's culture of growth at any cost and personal allegiances to Travis really is. The current internal investigation by insiders is a complete joke and only a class action lawsuit can start to right the wrong.

</comment><comment><USER60> How insidiously toxic. I cannot think of a better or more perfectly descriptive word than toxic (at least this is the word we use in the military for environments less bad than that).

> Therefore, it hurts me to say that despite my grit, I was not prepared to > deal with the abuse and dehumanizing treatment I received from my > supervisors and colleagues at Uber.

Nobody should expect to be so prepared. Nobody volunteers to become the equivalent of a prisoner of war.

</comment><comment><USER61> This is terrible, and one more reason to despise Uber, but I find the usage of the word "survivor" out of place in this context, at least in my understanding of its meaning.

I know this is not the main point to take home from this situation, and I also know I'll be attacked from making it, but I felt it was important nonetheless.

<comment><USER62> Her usage of "survivor" is appropriate both in terms of being alive (i.e. not committing suicide after traumatic experience) and being whole as a human being (i.e. having healed enough to function in society).

There are countless studies linking sexual harassment and intimidation to suicides, just look it up.

<comment><USER63> > just look it up.

How about citing a source if you make a claim?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I'd like to thank these brave women for coming out and speaking against these evils. I rarely use Uber but more importantly, I'm not interviewing/working for Uber ever.

p.s. I've had one opportunity in the past that I declined due to lower pay package. Current one seems good, but I'm not going forward.

#nouber

<comment><USER46> Don't "rarely" use it. Delete it. Now. Close your account, explaining to Uber why you've done so. Tweet/Facebook/Blog about having done so. Encourage all your friends, family, and coworkers to do the same - explaining exactly_ why you came to the decision.

There really is no other self respecting choice. Sitting on the fence is condoning and enabling their behaviour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> OK, Uber is off the list for my next company. This toxic masculinity, whose dick is bigger contest is no good for stable person like me. Good luck with your alpha male culture, Uber :)

Edit: Triggered Uber employee just sent his downvote. Pretty affirming. Good job, Uber :):P

</comment><comment><USER66> I assume (and have some anecdotal proof) that this type of stuff happens with regularity in other "older" industries. Go to any law office and you'll find women with horrifying stories.

Kudos to the tech community, the majority of whom, don't accept this type of reprehensible behavior.

</comment><comment><USER67> I am aware of sexism in my field but the characters in article sound like bullshit to me. It is like all the evil characters from soap operas work at Uber now.

      team members referred to a new Asian American recruit as slanty eye joe

seriously?

      "You know what heels do don't you?" he smirked while placing his hands on his behind so as to suggest that they make them look bigger. He then patted on my shoulder and squeezed it before walking away

I am rolling my eyes now.

I can accept a few person in a big company is that racist/sexist, but whole company is like that or overlooks this stuff?

edit: to clarify, "I can accept" is used as "I find it possible". I am not saying it is keep such parties at a company. English is not my main language and I worded this very poorly

</comment><comment><USER68> Let's forget about the drama for a minute and focus on running an actual business.

It seems like a lot people are about to leave Uber and that's a business opportunity!

Here's a list of Uber employees that can be recruited away with little to moderate effort: [https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrent...](https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrentCompany=\["1815218"\])

<comment><USER56> Not sure I would want to hire some of them, if they think this behavior is normal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> If I were in a meeting and anyone referred to one of my coworkers as a "bitch" I would walk out of the meeting immediately and report it to HR. There's no way to know that the men in the room when "Amy" was insulted like that didn't report it to HR but it really makes me wonder.

There are so many more me in tech than women that they really do need us to be part of the fight against this shit. It is crazy to me that this kind of behavior really exists.

</comment><comment><USER70> >Once in a group chat, team members referred to a new Asian American recruit as slanty eye joe. It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn't participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved. It was normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts when they refused to go out with them. They had private chats where guys wrote sexual fantasy stories about female colleagues and supervisors where they performed all sorts of demeaning acts on the women.

This feels so unreal, just incredible! Amy Anon, time to sue Uber and get yourself a piece of the Uber VC. What kind of cretins work at Uber?

</comment><comment><USER71> Are there any female Uber employees on HN? I wonder what they think about a) the veracity of this claim and b) why they are sticking with Uber.

<comment><USER46> What do _you_ think about "the veracity of this claim"? Is there really _any_ doubt in your mind about Uber's management and culture? Seriously?

<comment><USER71> I think it's legit. I wanted to solicit an insider's view, though I agree it may not be practical as I probably wouldn't post on HN even if I agreed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Oh, man. Uber sounds like a seriously sick, toxic environment. Get rid of Travis, get rid of everyone in a management position, fire the HR team and actually make an attempt to better the working conditions at Uber.

I'm a man, and reading this plus Susan's story shared recently makes my stomach turn. It truly is sickening. I deleted Uber off my phone, I refuse to support a company that runs like a gentlemens club operating in 1955.

The sad thing about all of this is, when women report this kind of behaviour they get told to "report it", but it seems in the case of Uber (and who knows where else) these claims come with a huge cloud of being fired hanging over your head or they're just ignored.

I think Uber needs to be investigated by an impartial third-party and to be honest, the only way this will happen is if the investors step in and do something about it.

Fuck Uber.

</comment><comment><USER73> Wow, while I expected more stories to surface, this one seems to be a whole different level. But then again, Uber seems to be a really dysfunctional company.

</comment><comment><USER74> Rock the boat, people. You are a part of your company's culture: not an observer of it, not a victim of it.

From an article I wrote a couple years ago:

"My two cents for the conversation is pretty simple: there are only two different kinds of humans in the world: Those who actively exploit women, and those who actively speak out against the exploitation of women. Keeping your mouth shut for fear of rocking the boat -- this is a form of apathy all its own." [http://ink.hackeress.com/2015/01/why-im-boat- rocker.html](http://ink.hackeress.com/2015/01/why-im-boat-rocker.html)

<comment><USER75> This can be generalized to similar spectrum in quite a few domains: those who fear of rocking the boat on one end and those who do it without good reason. Part of working in a larger organization is the politics of knowing when the right time to speak up and make change is. I kind of wish I was working at Uber right now because now is the time for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Company that has skeezy and predatory business practices has skeezy and predatory company culture. _God damn shocking_

Speaking unsarcasticly, the women who are starting to come out and reveal this are very brave.

</comment><comment><USER77> We have elected the president which "will grab them by the pussy" so we should not be surprised that Uber might have culture like this.

The problem is much deeper than just Uber...

</comment><comment><USER78> I can only imagine that the bulk of the employees at Uber in that room with her were young and still intoxicated by startup success to allow Mike#2 to say things like that.

I am 12 years away from the valley, but was at half a dozen startups in 20 years prior and I can't remember ever being on a team that would have put up with a manager saying something like that to a coworker.

</comment><comment><USER79> >My paycheck is 18% less than my less qualified male colleagues.

I stopped reading after this line. Not because it cannot be true but because it reeks of agenda and made me doubt her credibility.

<comment><USER80> by "agenda" do you mean the agenda of exposing sexism at Uber? because that's what the whole post is about.

and why exactly would it make you doubt her credibility?

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> A very sad read. Uber is in deep ethical trouble recently. Postpone that IPO plan guys.

Would not it be better if HR of your company can be managed by some third party with 100% transparency?

<comment><USER46> "Recently"? They're in deep public relations trouble recently. They've been ethically reprehensible for ever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> It is very strange to me when I read these "Survivor" stories. I really can't relate to them not because I am a male and don't work in Silicon Valley but because I know I can and I have quit companies because I couldn't tolerate to work there. There is not fucking reason to keep suffering at a company for whatever reason. QUIT as soon as you feel unhappy let alone you come to a point where they "break" you. Are you kidding me? This is not North Korea. No one is forcing you to keep suffering. You are living in a goddam United State of America, and in a goddam Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER83> Uber is huge, it's recognizable, it's got interesting problems. Susan Fowler even wrote a bestselling book related to some of her work there. You get to work with a lot of smart people. That's a lot of motivation to try to stay despite bad things happening. It's easy to say in hindsight how bad it was, but I'd say most people want to try to do a good job and will expect some problems that they will just "have to deal with" with any work environment. But in the end, they realized the bad outweighed the good and they -did- quit.

<comment><USER82> She wrote: "Even though I don't work at Uber any longer, the damage that was done to me by Uber's work environment ruined my spirit."

you have stay until they kill your spirit just because Uber is a cool company?

I can imagine people keep staying there if they have to feed their hungry children and pay mortgage in a very bad economy, but not just because its a "Cool" company.

<comment><USER84> I don't know why you're getting down-voated. In American culture, people feel trapped. I wrote about this a few years back: [http://khanism.org/perspective/trapped-in-the- cubical/](http://khanism.org/perspective/trapped-in-the-cubical/)

And I also wrote about the dangers of job loyalty a few years later: [http://khanism.org/society/loyalty/](http://khanism.org/society/loyalty/)

It's like the Milgram experiments: people often don't realize they have options. They don't want to be one of those people who "keep switching jobs." My longest job on my CV is 2.5 years. Most are only 1 year. I worried a bit about job loyalty until I realized no one even read the dates on my resume. Average turnaround in our industry is 13 months.

You can get a new job. If you're afraid of jumping too much, don't have more than three a year. Surely 1/3 of those is going to be tolerable/not-horrible enough to get a nice 13 months on your CV. If you're in IT as a dev, admin or some kind of engineer, there is a ton of interesting work. I agree with you totally. There is no reason to stay in a shit job. There is plenty of interesting and challenging work in good places for both men and women in our industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> At this point, after all the allegations of abuse and bad behavior at Uber, if the CEO is not fired, the community here must hold the Uber board complicit in these shenanigans. The situation here seems similar (or maybe worse) in magnitude as that at Zenefits. The board there took swift action once the accusations came out in public and perhaps saved the company (at least in the short term). What can the HN community, made up of founders/investors/technologists do here? Push for a consumer boycott of Uber? Refuse to work for Uber? Refuse to do business with Uber?

</comment><comment><USER86> Although this post is anonymous, Given what has come out recently about Uber, I'm strongly inclined to believe what she wrote. If Uber gets into any more trouble then the board and investors will have to do something because the bad press would be directly hurting their business.

"Visibly angry, Mike#2 covered the microphone of the conference phone, he reached over to hold my hand tightly and told me to stop being a whiny little bitch."

I can't imagine that because someone performs well at their jobs they'd be entitled to treat another person in such a demeaning manner.

</comment><comment><USER87> Why aren't any of these shitbags getting named?

This type of thing should ruin the guy's career.

Fair or not I'm just going to assume Travis and anyone working for him is just like this disgusting mike#2 fellow.

<comment><USER88> innocent until proven guilty.

this means that we have to hold 2 competing ideas at the same time until due process has been given, like shrodeinger's cat only for justice:

1) the woman is a victim and the "shitbag" should be punished appropriately.

2) the woman is lying and the "shitbag" is a victim of false accusations.

until more details are known, it is possible that the accused is the victim. If this ends up being the correct situation, than having their names smeared in the public eye for crimes they did not commit is morally reprehensible.

<comment><USER87> That applies in the case of a court of law or if I were an individual in the media reporting on the alleged incident (in which case I would likely try to corroborate with other alleged victims).

It doesn't make sense in the situation (here) where someone is making the accusation. She _knows_ it happened, she was _there_ , from that perspective this guy should be getting wrecked. It would be a public service. There's no reason for her to fear that she herself is lying.

(Irrelevant to my argument but perhaps relevant to yours: I'd also argue that de-facto assuming there's a good chance the accuser in the situation is lying flies in the face of everything I've read about it being difficult for abuse victims to come forward. There's little to no gain for the accuser. The accuser is often assumed to be lying, they now have to fear reprisal from the accused and others. Making this type of thing up isn't a rational move with a useful end. Unless it is true, in which case the useful end is to take down the accused, in which case the accused should be named).

<comment><USER88> I hereby accuse you of sexually assaulting me. I know it happened. I was there, and from that perspective you should be getting wrecked. I am making my accusations anonymously on the internet so it must be true.

by your logic we should now scream your name from the mountain tops and conduct a witch hunt and destroy your reputation and livelihood simply because you have been accused.

the truth is that Women are people and people often lie. True equality means recognizing that everyone, male, female, and everywhere in between, have the capacity for lying.

<comment><USER87> Part of my point is to look at it from the accuser's perspective.

So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the other case _didn 't_ name the person. It seems like from the accuser's perspective, a witch-hunt and the destruction of my reputation would be great. So... why not do it? It seems like the most effective path would be to absolutely destroy the other person (corroboration, witnesses, detailed accounts) before they can play defense and start smearing you.

You've spoken to and demonstrated why we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet, which is well and good and correct. But what you haven't answered is why someone making serious accusations of this nature wouldn't name the person who has done this to them?

I don't think equality has anything to do with my point? It's more a game theoretic question.

<comment><USER88> because if the courts find her accusations to be false (even if they are true), than she would than open herself up to defamation and lible charges from the accused.

From a game theory perspective, it doesn't make sense to break the accused anonymity outside of official court procedings if she doesn't need to because of the huge liability it unnecessarily opens up if her accusations are deemed false.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> That's the tipping point for me. I don't care about being ruthless in business, but you don't pull shit like this. No more Uber for me, although I enjoy using their service.

</comment><comment><USER90> Everyone needs to #deleteuber.

<comment><USER90> Until and unless they have clear internal changes that allow female and minority engineers to work in a positive, equal pay for equal work environment.

<comment><USER90> And just to add an endorsement, Accenture is a highly evolved technology firm. If you're looking to work somewhere that treats everyone equally and would never tolerate a Mike #2, give them a shot. I am not an employee, but have done several contract stints internally and they are simply the best workplace I've ever been around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> There's really no reason not to name Mike #2. If this is real, he already knows who you are.

<comment><USER92> There's enough information given in the story that virtually anybody who worked at Uber can name the people involved. Public naming and shaming is understandably desired, but unnecessary. It invites legal action.

<comment><USER93> I wouldn't call it "unnecessary." Eventually Mike will quit or get fired, then repeat this behavior at another company.

<comment><USER94> This plus 1000. Look what happened with Amit Singhal.

[http://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal- google...](http://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google-uber)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> I think it's about time Uber was slapped with a class action lawsuit by all of it's former employees who have faced similar workplace abuse. Uber may smear the reputation of one of two women who try to sue them and bury their case, but if they all come together and file a class action lawsuit then their case cannot be just thrown out or buried and Uber certainly cannot manage to smear the reputation of all the plaintiffs in the group. The #ubersurvivors have a very strong chance of getting justice that way. And when the case is so strong, with all victims coming together as one, they will even receive legal support from top lawyers, who will also want to take their case since it's stronger and winnable now, and if not for justice, they'll do it with the incentive of a cut from the compensation or the glory of suing a billion dollar company. The good thing about class action lawsuits is that it leaves no room for the judge or jury to believe that a dozen people are lying and cannot just ignore the plaintiffs' allegation and proofs (chats, emails, alibis). So, I hope the #ubersurvivors seriously consider coming together, teaming up and getting the justice they rightfully deserve.

</comment><comment><USER54> I've said this elsewhere in comments, but people really need to let it sink in that HR is not there to help them, they are there to help the company.

It is never in their interest to say "You're right, let's go get that guy!" They are institutionally there to deflect and play things down and prevent law suits.

If you are abused, harassed, or mistreated, see a lawyer, not your company's HR team, who are only going to be advising their own lawyers later.

</comment><comment><USER96> If this is true, then it's horrifying. I didn't agree with the crowd and delete Uber earlier for the protest stuff, but if this is true, then bye-bye Uber.

</comment><comment><USER97> I've had co-workers, upon a woman passing by in the cafeteria, say things like "would you do her?"

I told them "shut the fuck up. You debase yourself by saying shit like that." Look them in the eye, say it with the confidence of the truth you know it is. If HR wants to debate me on cursing my co-workers, I'd be happy to oblige. What are they going to say? Don't tell your coworkers it's wrong to demean women?

</comment><comment><USER98> > Chauvinistic, racist and homophobic attitudes were far too normal at Uber

There should be a $10 fine every-time the wonderful word 'chauvinism' is misused. The law should nevertheless have an exception if the term is appropriately prefixed: 'male chauvinism' even if it hardly makes any sense (1).

For those who are curious, the term comes from a soldier named Nicolas Chauvin who lived around the turn of the 18th/19th century. The guy was exaggeratedly nationalistic and subject to mockeries in the pop culture. A 'chauvinistic' person is a person that pushes the boundaries of jingoism and patriotism to the extreme and ends being grotesque.

1:While tolerable, the term 'male chauvinism' makes no sense since a 'chauvinistic' attitude is supposed to contain a great deal of bad faith and demagoguery, and I'm afraid a lot of 'chauvinistic males' are actually sincere in their beliefs.

Apparently the misuse started in the 70s, not only in english but in german too (would love to hear a german speaking person weight on this). It's not too late, we can save this word, we can prevent it from being the new 'bistro'!

</comment><comment><USER99> Someone should build an app that can help in compiling such cases by automatically recording audio/vid anytime it hears a voice(s) we teach/specify (HR conversations, managers etc...) After some time I am sure the case solidifies with proofs.

Sometimes you don't have the opportunity to pull your phone and open a recording app. It needs to be like siri and friends where once it recognizes a voice it starts recording.

<comment><USER100> Except for the whole thing where it's illegal to record someone without their explicit consent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> "Travis is well known to protect high performing team leaders no matter how abusive they are towards their employees."

Time for this Travis dude to resign, right?

</comment><comment><USER102> Noob auestion: why "Mike#2" instead of simply "Mike"?

<comment><USER103> To me, this detail seems like it was planted in the story to identify him specifically to the people who would "know" the signal. No idea how accurate that could be, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> Very sad that I expected more stories like Susan's to come out.

<comment><USER105> I know you refer to the fact these stories happened; yes, very sad indeed.

But I'm happy all these stories are coming out. Definitely glad these women have had the courage to share them, hopefully enough public pressure can be built up to steer in the direction of change.

<comment><USER104> Good point, yes! I definitely prefer their stories to be shared than hidden.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I know this is politics and maybe distracting from the main conversation but...

The United States voters just decided similar behavior is not disqualifying for the office of President. So how can we possibly convince other men this kind of behavior is not conducive to attaining the money, power, and influence they may desire?

<comment><USER106> I think this differs from the election in that we, Silicon Valley, have tacitly assumed that "things are different here", that 2017 San Francisco is different than 2017 Louisiana.

That may be the case, but we still have a long way to go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> > It was normal for me to get to work at 7 in the morning and leave late at > night with only a thirty minute break in between.

Yep, sounds like a bad place to work.

Just a reminder that you can change jobs after 6 months in the valley, there is really no need to put up with that or wait for evil managers to make the place hell.

<comment><USER107> It could take 6 months just to find a job, get through the recruiters, pass the whiteboard hazing, negotiate your package, and give notice. You're advocating starting your next job search your first day at the company.

<comment><USER84> I think you mean 1 ~ 2 months. In places like the Valley, Seattle, NYC .. the market is insane. You can pick up new jobs insanely fast.

<comment><USER107> I guess if you literally don't care what job you get, you could pick up a new one insanely fast. If you're targeting a handful of companies, or a better role than you have, I don't think the market is as rosy as you describe.

<comment><USER68> Depends on you current position and your salary.

There are really a lot of opportunities, if you have nothing outstanding it's not hard to get better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder what some of the considerations are for posting something like this under an alias v.s. attaching one's real name to a post. Obviously, one most likely wouldn't attach a real name to this kind of writing while one is working at the relevant company, but are there any other factors one might consider, aside from criticizing a current employer? Specifically, are there any possible concerns with being labelled a "problem case" and being blackballed in the tech industry as a whole?

Is the author's credibility hurt significantly by choosing to use a pseudonym, or is the power of the message not greatly impinged?

I have a huge amount of respect for anybody that has the courage to write about these kind of experiences, regardless of if a pseudonym is used or not.

</comment><comment><USER108> Cannot believe people are assuming this completely anonymous post is true. Did people just forget the whole fake news thing just a couple of months back? This whole thing can be just creative writing for all we know. But this is armchair journalism at it's finest by HN readers.

</comment><comment><USER109> Uber seems to be a slightly special case in terms of how blatant discrimination seems to be and the explicitly deceitful and in the obviously abusive responses from HR but the general problems of harassment and discrimination are not unique.

I'm aware of multiple issues at Google and issues at Docker (although not the full details of that one). HR being useless and protecting company and senior management is common although they may be less blatant about it than Uber. Google is obviously huge so many areas may be OK.

Those are just issues I'm aware of following a few women on Twitter, they are the tip of the iceberg, some issues never come out at all, others are privately shard between women and others that might be vulnerable (I'm not in that loop).

</comment><comment><USER110> what every man needs to ask himself and reflect on:

\- would i stand up to a pig in the room

\- would i stand up to a pig in the room that is way up the ladder

<comment><USER111> I think a reasonable reaction would be to stand up and slap him around for a good few seconds (10 should do the trick). Then proceed to go to HR to report the guy and threaten with a lawsuit if he's not instantly fired. There you go. As an engineer in California you should be able to find another workplace if they decide to fire you instead.

<comment><USER112> Stand up to him - sure. But slap him around? I think you may have overdosed on punch-the-nazi memes.

<comment><USER111> I just said it would be a reasonable reaction (as in, I would understand someone doing it), not that I would actually do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> Rise up people and take action. Boycott uber and let them fail. As others have said, there are plenty of other companies in the space ready to fill the void. #deleteuber

</comment><comment><USER114> I don't understand why these jobs are even worth it to anyone? How much are they making 130-160k to work 16 hour days and are abused on top of that? Fuck that.

</comment><comment><USER115> It's a sign that the election hysteria is finally fading that we are back in the thrall of these corporate kiss-and-tell scandals and intrigues. Thank god.

</comment><comment><USER116> Its appalling she went through that and shameful to see people like this Mike #2 exist in the tech world in 2017. From what I can gather he still works there.

It looks like the HR department at Uber exists purely to manage employee pay and nothing else. They are severely defanged and pander to star hires. At this point they could may be replace them all with some API and be done with it.

</comment><comment><USER117> Why do you people continue working at a second rate company like this? Horrible culture, long hours, low pay, and you're getting paid in worthless stock options. All promises and bullshit. You can be sure management will do everything they can to prevent you from cashing in those options and forcing you to stay at the company for as long as possible.

</comment><comment><USER118> Id like to see a corporate war between male dominant uber and an all female ride sharing competitor.

</comment><comment><USER119> It's 2017, why isn't there any video or audio of these things? Why hasn't this guy been outed yet?

After the first time this happened I'd be recording everything and waiting to get a huge payout when I sue (or at least a settlement for a few years salary).

</comment><comment><USER120> horrific - how can this really be happening in 2016 ?

<comment><USER121> I have great news for you! It's not. It's 201 _7_

<comment><USER122> Your parent may be referring to the events described that happened prior to 2017.

<comment><USER121> _sigh_ just trying to lighten the mood with a joke. -2 for that. Thanks HN. He did use the present tense :-P

serious comment: I think it's great these stories are getting out. Now women know what they will face at Uber. And perhaps someone will have the strength to sue them for discrimination.

<comment><USER122> Yeah, this can be a pretty serious crowd (which I actually think is a strength of HN, as humor can be so easily misinterpreted on Internet forums).

You've likely noticed how contentious and combative this topic has been in particular. A lot of people seem to be looking for any excuse to undercut another's comments. While that wasn't your intent, the lack of good faith that some people grant others can lead to unfortunate behavior. That's why I commented, by the way: to point out you may be misunderstanding your parent, not assuming you were acting in bad faith.

Anyway, I hope you have a better day :) Be well.

<comment><USER121> > That's why I commented, by the way: to point out you may be misunderstanding > your parent, not assuming you were acting in bad faith.

> Anyway, I hope you have a better day :) Be well.

Thanks, you too! =)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER123> "There is no place for ethics in this business sweetheart. We are not a charity."

You can't make this up.

<comment><USER50> For $50K a year I will make up 10 of these per day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER124> I'm not sure the author wants to be anonymous. The amount of data she shared about herself in the third paragraph is probably enough to social engineer your way to her true identity.

</comment><comment><USER125> This seems to be common in highly competitive companies. Uber has been ruthless and that has helped them grow so fast while ignoring these complaints. This cannot go on for long.

</comment><comment><USER47> Is survivor really the right word here?

The pointless hyperbole makes it easy for those who would want so (subconsciously or not) to discard the real story here, of the toxic company culture.

</comment><comment><USER126> this is awful.

</comment><comment><USER127> My friend worked for the Santa Monica office and told me some wacky stories. Sounds like Uber needs an HR overhaul.

</comment><comment><USER128> Someone puts hands on you at work, file an assault complaint with the police. Period.

</comment><comment><USER129> the number rule for men is, don't pursue women from work.

</comment><comment><USER130> I would NEVER EVER approach HR department of corporate America for anything except for maybe asking for a tissue box at my desk.

For those young enough to be thinking about approaching HR for issues as nefarious as this, well, now you know.

<comment><USER131> I disagree with this. Most HR departments are functional and would take care of this problem. If you approach HR and they are unhelpful or place the blame on you, it's time to switch jobs, if possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> Not having been in the silicone valley culture, I'm wondering how does racism typically work in that environment, given a disproportionate percentage of the work force are asian and south asian.

</comment><comment><USER133> You hear that? Uber stock crashing in background

</comment><comment><USER134> >"There is no place for ethics in this business sweetheart."

"Oh, we are doing pet names for our coworkers now? From now on I will refer to you as 'dickhead'".

</comment><comment><USER135> Just an aside, I think it's insane that women in tech are pressured (or feel pressured) to wear heels. Is this common in California?

<comment><USER136> > Just an aside, I think it's insane that women are pressured (or feel > pressured) to wear heels. Is this common in California?

FTFY.

</comment></comment><comment><USER127> My friend worked for the Santa Monica office and told me some wacky stories as well. This place needs an HR overhaul.

</comment><comment><USER137> Jesus effing Christ, how is this company even holding together?

</comment><comment><USER138> Where is Mike #1?

</comment><comment><USER48> > tried to trigger me

Man, I _really_ wish the internet hadn't decided that "trigger" means to anger or upset someone instead of the original meaning: provoke an anxiety or panic attack, like lighting firecrackers around war veterans.

Not that what Uber is doing here to "Amy" isn't despicable. I'm just a little bothered by this relatively frivolous usage of the word "trigger" compared to the original purpose for using it: to highlight the experiences of those suffering from PTSD. PTSD can come in many forms, not just from wartime trauma. That's what "triggering" someone was about.

<comment><USER139> I think part of what made Susan Fowler's account credible to many people was that she didn't use the same terminology as university political groups (trigger, survivor, etc).

The title, "I am an Uber Survivor", and the first few paragraphs, made me immediately skeptical. After she revealed specific examples of Uber's toxic culture, I began to feel quite guilty.

<comment><USER7> >I think part of what made Susan Fowler's account credible to many people was that she didn't use the same terminology as university political groups (trigger, survivor, etc).

Yeah, you have to look at this girl's age and background. It makes sense that she's going to use that terminology. Every generation has different ways of talking about things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER140> We live in a world of fake news, but anyone who questions an anonymous blog post during a media hype-cycle surrounding Uber's sexual harassment allegations is flagged? It's important to be _more_ diligent in these times, not less.

</comment><comment><USER141> This is one of the most heavily flagged submissions I've seen in a while - <USER4> #2 with 70 points, and now is at #6 with 174 points in 40 min, while the new #2 is 124 points in 2 hours.

<comment><USER142> I'm one of the flaggers.

This is an entirely anonymous complaint with no particular reason why anyone would believe it. A lot of it read to me as too perfect. Too designed to hit all of the right buttons to generate outrage.

I won't deny that it could be true. But I'd also give that possibility under even odds. And if stories like this are true, then we'll likely have enough opportunity to learn that later to give this version undue attention.

<comment><USER143> I don't think that's an appropriate use of flag:

> _Please don 't submit comments complaining that a submission is > inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag > it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, > click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top._

The story is not spam, not off-topic, and has a good chance of being non- egregious. It's certainly true it _could_ be wrong, but that's very different.

(Maybe I'm wrong about appropriate use of flagging? I'd concede that it's fair for you to downvote it, but I suspect HN has disabled downvotes on stories for a reason, and using flagging as a pseudo-downvote seems wrong.)

<comment><USER142> My stated belief was that there are greater than even odds that it is propaganda. Propaganda is a form of spam.

Even worse, propaganda is a particularly nasty form of spam since it tries to alter your belief system such that future propaganda will seem more reasonable to you. Therefore maintaining a keen sense of what is possible propaganda is very important. A healthy brain should immediately try to verify anything that could be propaganda from _any_ ideological position, and reject out of hand anything that cannot be verified.

This will only become more important as the world continues its slide towards fake news and echo chambers.

<comment><USER144> Oh no, propaganda that might alter our belief system into respecting female employees! Better reject that out of hand...

<comment><USER142> There are always two sides to a story. Having everyone believe the woman because she is a woman is a short road to seeing the system abused. Ever seen a false accusation of sexual harassment? I have.

The more important the cause, and the more serious the claim, the more important it is to proceed carefully and not rush to conclusions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER145> I'm glad more of this stuff is coming out. As a male, I've been demeaned by a woman at one of the largest tech companies on earth. I ended up quitting, and I last I heard that woman was demoted/fire.

Our media is super powerful, and I love getting more of this out. 1984 can't happen with a free press.

</comment><comment><USER146> Another article with some fake name and pull the woman card to justify slandering....Uber probably did not meet your expectations but for sure they aren't much worse than most companies in this field.

</comment><comment><USER147> _" In essence, the HR department blackmailed me that if I make noise, I'd be fired. I was distraught by the HR department's response especially considering that most of the HR folks I dealt with were women."_

Say it over and over, say it loud, and say it to every single person entering the US workforce from day one:

 _H /R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS._

Amy's situation was grave, and kudos to her for getting out. But everyone should read these stories and burn this line into their heads permanently.

<comment> nappy-doo > H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS.

You're right, and here's the thing. It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages. It's surprising to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard. Similarly, it's surprising to me that Uber HR hasn't done the mental calculus to figure out that these women have a solid case, and just fix the problem. Or, most disturbingly, Uber HR DID do the mental calculus, determined neither woman would sue; and, therefore, made the correct choices as "best for the company."

Either way, I'm taking Lyft.

<comment><USER148> > It's surprising to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard.

Reasons to pursue sexual harassment litigation:

* You may make some money.

Reasons to not pursue sexual harassment litigation:

* You will have to devote an enormous amount of money, time, energy, health, and your emotional well-being.

* Your lawyers will take half the settlement, either in up front fees, or as a portion of the bounty.

* You will get to share, and then be brutally cross-examined about all the worst bullshit you had to endure in a courtroom.

* With so much money on the line, you will trigger a smear campaign against you, whose impact will persist long after the trial concludes.

* You want to program, instead of dealing with legal bullshit.

* You just want this nightmare to be over, instead of it being brought up over, and over again.

* You don't want to have your name permanently associated with "Sues your employers for millions of dollars". Good luck getting a job after that.

* If for whatever reason you lose, you will get to enjoy all the damage to your reputation, all the trauma and indignities that you had to re-live, the black mark on your employment record (Who would hire a liar who sues her employers?), and you'll probably be counter-sued by Uber. I hope you're independently wealthy.

It's easy to suggest the nuclear option when you have no skin in the game.

<comment><USER149> I completely agree with all this, I just think it's frustrating for a lot of people when you see a terrible situation that's _supposed_ to have judicial remedies, but in practice that system just doesn't work.

<comment><USER150> This is sort of the best of all possible worlds. Any time there's a problem, everyone involved can just say "oh, she should sue" and "why doesn't she sue, there are lots of legal remedies".

And then if she spoke with a lawyer, that lawyer would point to all the problems listed above plus many more (the difficulty of proving damages, for one) and would almost certainly try to dissuade her from suing no matter how grievous her treatment, and if she did sue, she would likely lose. The legal remedies are so weak as to be non-existent, but their existence is beneficial to wrong-doers, who can hide behind them and pretend they are effective and powerful.

<comment><USER151> The difficulty in employment harassment/constructive termination cases is seldom in the quantum determination step.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER152> _This is the part that really hits me. When, in a meeting, Mike#2 says to "stop being a whiny little bitch"_

Yet Torvalds says worse all the time, and he's a geek hero. I sense a double standard here, and I'm not sure why.

<comment><USER153> Linus has made demeaning, sexist remarks to a woman to lower her self-worth and value, in a way _worse_ than (or even similar to) "whiny little bitch" ? Please provide sources, I'm genuinely interested.

<comment><USER152> You really need a link to Torvalds abusing people? Here's kernel dev Sarah Sharp [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/07/linus...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/07/linus-torvalds-defends-his-right-to-shame-linux-kernel- developers/)

<comment><USER153> Sorry, that doesn't prove what you claimed. In fact every piece of evidence appears to be him yelling at males.

(And I'm also not sympathetic to Sarah here given the clearly joking nature of Linus' reply about Greg -- notice how others took it. See also [http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137391528412980&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137391528412980&w=2)

See also one of the supposed receivers of abuse on the supposed abuse: [http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137401130111098&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137401130111098&w=2)

Here's another supposed victim on the "abuse": [http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137410815810454&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137410815810454&w=2) Notably:

" If you can point me to a single instance of Linus "abusing" someone who is not one of his trusted persons, who really should be able to deal with that, or someone who did not provoke him to go into rant mode, then I'm all on your side.")

<comment><USER152> Let me just see if I understand your position - verbal abuse is acceptable so long as both the speaker and the target identify as the same gender?

<comment><USER153> I said:

"Linus has made demeaning, sexist remarks to a woman to lower her self-worth and value, in a way worse than (or even similar to) "whiny little bitch" ? Please provide sources, I'm genuinely interested."

And you responded:

"You really need a link to Torvalds abusing people? Here's kernel dev Sarah Sharp [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/07/linus...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/07/linus...")

But you did not actually present evidence of the claim. That it comes from (a female) Sarah Sharp doesn't add anything to your position.

On the other hand, in my GP comment i include direct sources to supposed receivers of abuse that Sarah is referencing. The supposed receivers comment that they do not consider it abuse and find the language helpful and productive.

See the difference? I provided relevant evidence and your link did not address the claim.

<comment><USER152> You're asserting that some abuse is OK, praiseworthy even, and some is not, and positioning yourself to make that judgement on behalf of the community . I'm asserting that none is. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

<comment><USER153> I am not asserting that at all! I'm saying two things and two things only:

1) you did not show any evidence of abuse directed towards women, as first claimed.

2) the supposed victims of Linus' abuse claim they were not abused. Who is Sarah to decide for them that they were abused?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER154> > My paycheck is 18% less than my less qualified male colleagues.

I stopped reading here.

<comment><USER155> Why? The pay gap is real and was nearly an aside in the article. This article is about a woman being mistreated by men in tech. This comment seems to be as well.

<comment><USER156> Mistreated by men? Did you miss the part where she writes that almost everybody in HR was a woman?

<comment><USER157> Did you miss literally every other part of the article?

She wouldn't have needed to approach HR in the first place if not for the systemic abuse from males within the company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >Besides, men outnumber women in tech by a very large margin. It's on our shoulders to help women fight back. Strength in numbers is a thing, and having men who speak up on their own, and who support and reinforce women who come forward can only a be a good thing.

Yes, but the problem is that most men in tech these days are "brogrammers" who approve of this behavior and engage in it themselves. Tech is no longer the domain of shy, introverted men who just liked to play with technology, like back in the 80s. Now it's full of misogynistic frat dudes. The change started during the dot-com boom, and has only gotten worse since then.

<comment><USER158> _Yes, but the problem is that most men in tech these days are "brogrammers" who approve of this behavior and engage in it themselves._

Citation needed. I haven't yet, in a decade in the tech industry, worked with anybody who would act in this way, to the best of my knowledge.

That said, I work in London and not SV, so I can't say if the culture is different. I know for a fact that it wouldn't be tolerated for a second anywhere I've worked.

<comment><USER7> >That said, I work in London and not SV, so I can't say if the culture is different.

Yeah, that's your problem right there. I probably should have specified that this is largely a SV/USA problem. The work culture in the UK is very different from over here. Even here in the US, it's rather different by region; I don't think it's remotely as bad on the east coast.

<comment><USER159> Never seen anything like this in NYC

<comment><USER160> Nor in Boston or the Los Angeles / Orange County area.

I'm willing to believe it though. Far, far too many stories. I've also definitely seen it online in spades.

<comment><USER161> Replying to this comment, but this is in response to all the ancestors who have said they "haven't seen this in X area":

If you're a man (or white, etc) then it makes sense that you don't see this firsthand. It doesn't happen to you. Not all workplace harassment is as egregious or public as the harassment in this article. I absolutely don't believe that this problem mainly affects the US.

<comment><USER162> >I absolutely don't believe that this problem mainly affects the US.

That's fine, as long as you understand that this is just a personal belief that you hold and not a fact about the world. Since it is just your unfounded belief, it doesn't detract from, devalue, or even argue mildly against the personal experiences outlined in the comments you are responding to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER163> My opinion is that this anonymous post lacks credibility and the author is most likely LARPing. Is it really so offensive to have a skeptical view?

> It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn't > participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved. It was > normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts > when they refused to go out with them.

<comment><USER164> Odd choice for evidence of fabrication, as that quote echoes Susan Fowler's original post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER165> Yet again the nerds have become the bullies.

<comment><USER105> Except I doubt these are "the nerds". These are likely the fratboys who studied business and are continuing their hazing and misogyny as managers after college.

<comment><USER81> I am also assuming some fancy MBA jerk.

<comment><USER165> She specifically mentions confronting members of her team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER166> Is it possible that the flaggers have been mobilized by Uber to shut down criticism?

<comment><USER167> Yes, you should assume any opposing viewpoint has been bought and paid for by the opposition.

/s

</comment></comment><comment><USER168> Two comments

Future Amy's should always be prepared to start recording at a moment's notice. Think Roger Ailes

If you ignore a verbal wrong said to someone else and you don't say something, then it is like you said it yourself.

<comment><USER169> > Future Amy's should always be prepared to start recording at a moment's > notice

It's not always that simple. California is a 2-party consent state. INAL, but my understanding is that a private conversation (in a non-public place) means all parties have an expectation of privacy, which makes recording that conversation without the consent of all parties a felony.

Presumably, getting consent from your harasser to record their words and actions would be troublesome...

Again, not a lawyer, but that's what I've come to understand as a CA resident.

<comment><USER170> What are they going to do? Sue you? This stuff is hard to prosecute. And if they start prosecuting... well... then their sexual harassment behavior will be made public.

<comment><USER171> Unfortunately, as but one option, yes.

Assuming it gets to that. Your tape won't see the light of the courtroom because it'll be ruled inadmissible (fruits of the poisoned tree).

It'll be sealed by the court over the felony hearing because it contains statements that could be materially damaging to be released (that the person said them is not in question, unfortunately, more their 'expectations', right or wrong, when they said them). Won't get out that way.

Oops. They got leaked, overtly or covertly? During one of those trials? Look forward to contempt proceedings.

After the trial, look forward to defamation proceedings.

<comment><USER170> You don't leak it during the trial. You do it before any trial even happens, or before anyone even knows that you have the video. You just create your secret video, and then release it to the media.

Then they COULD come after you later, but they almost certainly won't succeed. Recording crimes or sexual harassment pretty much never gets you in trouble.

This whole court situation where sexual harassment never gets punished works both ways.

Yes, it is difficult for these people to get punished. But it is equally difficult to punish people who retaliate against harassers.

The courts aren't the point anyway. Sure you aren't going to win a court case. But uber would still fire the guy. At will employment.

It doesn't matter if the secret video is illegal evidence. Uber can still fire the guy anyway, because they can fire people for any or no reason at all. And other companies can also refuse to hire him.

Also, if the culprit is an uber exec, it is not like they could sue anyone. That would look extremely extremely bad if Uber started suing women who were harassed. There goes billions of dollars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER172> I question myself what would happen if she openly scream at his face with a nice: Why don't you go and f...

</comment><comment><USER173> It would be remarkably easy for the author to validate the authenticity of her post by adding a picture of a pay-stub with blacked out identifying information / names / amounts.

Or alternatively publish the story with a news agency as a protected source under a pseudonym.

Uber deserves what they have coming to them at the moment, but an anonymized post that fits perfectly into the Uber / sexism / hostile work place with no evidence should be treated as suspect.

</comment><comment><USER174> I don't believe HN should be front paging anonymous content without some proof of having worked at Uber.

<comment><USER175> The front pageness is a function of the credibility and interestingness of the articles posted.

HN is not journalism, it's a water cooler. There's some rules for decorum but little to no editorial function.

<comment><USER105> > The front pageness is a function of the credibility and interestingness of > the articles posted.

did you mean to say "is not"?

<comment><USER175> No, I meant "is". Though, to clarify, I meant credibility-in-the-eye-of-the- upvoter.

<comment><USER105> Oh, ok. Gotcha.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER176> Is a "ubersurvivor" hashtag really what's needed?

WARNING: this comment is not a safe place and contains my opinions.

Victim praising will do nothing to change Uber's behavior. Expecting Uber to change anything as the result of your words is a fools errand. The more likely outcome is Uber will only harden it's shell. Do you expect one of the most highly praised startups of the last decade to suddenly find religion and say, "oh we were wrong, you are all right? (and actually mean it)"?

People vote with their feet (Milton Friedman). Talk is cheap (Fat Tony). If you want to start a revolution, don't try to change others, change yourself (Jordan Peterson).

Uber is suffering for its transgressions in the form of talent loss. Susan Fowler indicated the number of female engineers at Uber significantly reduced during her time there. The nice thing about employment at will is that it works both ways. It's scary to leave a high-profile high-status job and go into the unknown; it's also a very powerful action.

<comment><USER177> For those wondering, Fat Tony is a character in The Black Swan (and not meant to be the rapper of the same name).

</comment></comment><comment><USER178> Seems to me there are 4 issues here:

1\. Racism.

Not okay. Fire him.

2\. Sexist behavior

Not okay. Warn and then fire him.

3\. Working people hard

That's okay. I was made to work hard. Long days no breaks hard deadlines. That's the world we live in.

4\. How this affected her

I'm sorry she went through this and it's not okay. How she chooses to feel and deal with this are under her control. She shouldn't have perpetuated her pain by staying in the situation.

<comment><USER179> > How she chooses to feel and deal with this are under her control. She > shouldn't have perpetuated her pain by staying in the situation.

Can you understand how hard it is for someone to leave a job after a short amount of time, knowing that every future employer will see that on your resumé?

<comment><USER178> Yes. Because I've done it. And you tell people it wasn't a good fit. And if it's uber you tell them it's because uber is a bunch of jerks.

<comment><USER179> Far easier when you're a 40-something male engineer with a large resumé than a relatively green female engineer who will already contend with some people who think she's not a culture fit, based solely on gender.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How APIs Will Evolve - <AUTHOR> http://tomtunguz.com/api-adjacencies

<comment><AUTHOR> No way in hell will I ever pay for an 'API Hub'. Unless it's something I absolutely can't live without.</comment>


A middleware proposal for App.net - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/railsjedi/api-spec/blob/master/middleware.md

<comment><AUTHOR> To clarify, I'm not affiliated with App.net in any way (aside from being a backer). Just an idea I had that I thought would be cool, and make App.net really useful to me as a user and developer.

</comment><comment><USER2> One question: What happens when a piece of middleware fails respond, becomes overloaded, goes out of business, etc?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the App.net client should just show a little warning saying "{{middleware_name}} no longer responds. [Disable] [Retry]"

<comment><USER3> I think it's possible that the above comment about the middleware had to do with the fact that afaik, most middleware implementations are chained so if one fails then the next is never called.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Out of curiousness..what support will App.net have for analytics/data? Obviously this is a more user driven platform so I'm curious what data will be supported or what the intent for this API would be besides publishing.</comment>