I can see how being assholes, intimidating the press, undermining rivals via dirty tricks, and other such behavior, can maximize shareholder value.
So maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal and we should all focus on how we can play dirty tricks on our competitors, how we can intimidate the journalists who have written bad stories on us or haven't covered us. Where does the strategy to use intimation via oppo-research stop? Can we apply this to any dealings with politicians, angles, VC, policy makers? I bet it can be effective in these areas as well. Maybe a company's strategy to "force outcomes" should be a required slide in all pitch decks now?
I wonder if Uber stops at just using intimidation in less developed countries where things are rougher and governments are more pliable than in the US and Canada? If there are few limits to Uber aggressiveness and they have money, you can easily pay people in a lot of developing nations to improve outcomes in a large variety of "creative ways", and you can easily distance yourself from how those outcomes are achieved.
It does seem that Uber teaches us that this is the new normal and if we are not doing this, we are not maximizing shareholder value.
maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal
No we do not; this is the time to push back on it. Otherwise, as you say, you end up making the country more lawless and less developed by sending the thugs round to "achieve outcomes".
You can still compete by just being better. Stories like these definitely turn me off Uber, but for all the people saying "just use Lyft or Sidecar instead"... neither service is available in my country yet, let alone my city. But Uber is here.
Uber (for me, so far) has been far superior than local taxis, and it's all low hanging fruit: credit card billing, email receipts, comfortable cars, GPS tracking & ETA, friendly drivers who don't harass you, tips included in price, global business accounts, discounts & perks. Local taxis don't offer any of that, they're not even trying. Maybe Lyft & Sidecar offer that, but they're not in any of the cities I travel to globally. The world is not just San Francisco.
Make a damn good service first. I can't switch to your service if you won't even offer it to me.
Thats defeatist. We have labels for organic food, so why not have something certified asshole-free? You know, a certificate for ethical behavior or something.
I'm only glad that he really looks like the asshole he is (and so does weev btw.). At least you can still trust your gut instincts.
That kind of labelling is never going to happen. But really it has always been the wrong way round. For example, you shouldn't really need to have "dolphin friendly tuna" anymore than "kitten friendly chocolate". If a company spends millions on marketing but does horrible things it is incredibly disineguous. Having unethical practices and not telling customers is like selling vegetarian food which contains animal products.
I wouldn't count on that. In the financial market, its already happening. You can buy information from a ratings agency that assesses a companies ethical behavior. If they don't meet the investor's targets, they won't invest in that stock.
I could see that happening on a consumer level as well, all you need is that data and a smartphone.
I agree with you in that any attribute which an investor is interested in can be certified by an agency willing to do the legwork.
However what I do wonder is how actually effective something so ambiguous is? and how much it would be gamed? This is after 2007-2008 when we find out that financial institutions were able to game the risk classification of investment vehicles despite being wrapped in supposedly ambiguity-busting red-tape.
Well there are standards that can be checked against, and they go to the companies and talk to them. The good ones often already have CSR departments.
If theres something shady happening, it is often not hard to find - there are lots of environmentalists and NGOs that regularly dig up dirt. Also, a company can't just fake a reputation.
Not saying that nothing can be hidden, but its not just bits and bytes and paperwork that can be faked, its the real world.
Wow, thats horrible. The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them.
Still, there must be ways to protect such information as freedom of speech?
> "The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them."
We have many of them, and we used to have more: journalists and news organizations. The press is supposed to serve as a very wide barrier against gross abuses.
But of course, we - not just politicians, but all of us - have spent the last few decades throwing our wallets at the least journalistic news outlets and away from the ones conducting actual investigation and reporting.
We very much made the bed we are sleeping in right now.
> The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them.
We have them (or have had them -- they are hard to keep together because interest doesn't remain intense) -- formed of the people opposed to the laws.
We also have organizations -- much better-funded, and that stay together better, because the interest is more concentrated and wealthy -- that go after the careers of politicians that refuse to pass those kinds of laws.
I'm assuming you're trying to ironically parody Uber apologists, and techno-utopians in general, who argue that the supremacy of x is simply inevitable and the only thing we can do is learn to accept it (where x currently seems to include smart locks, app-driven email, bitcoin, autonomous cars, autonomous corporations, google glass and 3d printing.)
However, it may be worth mentioning that none of what you describe is really a 'new normal,' except perhaps in application. It only seems that way because we've had decades of regulation against various underhanded practices which used to be standard operating procedure. 'Intimidating the press' used to mean simply buying all the newspapers, firing everyone and having company men print whatever you wanted. Or getting some Pinkertons to beat someone half to death.
Isn't this basically Rupert Murdoch's MO, in countries around the world including the US and Australia? I'd suggest "still is" rather than "used to be".
There is very little lockin with Uber at the consumer level, so goodwill is incredibly important for the company. At some point if they keep this shit up they are going to come up snake eyes and something will go viral.
Beyond that they are more or less loading the gun for anyone who wants to make the argument that the industry needs regulation.
This is just a typical Prisoners' Dilemma scenario. An individual company can gain an advantage with dirty tricks, but everybody is worse off if all companies try it.
The optimal position (with no dirty tricks) is unstable. We stay there by punishing those who deviate. This is why the pitchforks come out in cases like this.
I'm trying to put together a panel on that topic, but it's hard to find people to represent the "asshole" side of the discussion.
Original call for speakers: "For the 2015 edition, we are looking for speakers and panelists. A touchy topic we’d like to address is "ethics in Silicon Valley – startups playing dirty can't be the new normal". If you are qualified and willing to discuss this topic on stage, get in touch"
So maybe we just have to accept that this is the new normal and we should all focus on how we can play dirty tricks on our competitors, how we can intimidate the journalists who have written bad stories on us or haven't covered us. Where does the strategy to use intimation via oppo-research stop? Can we apply this to any dealings with politicians, angles, VC, policy makers? I bet it can be effective in these areas as well. Maybe a company's strategy to "force outcomes" should be a required slide in all pitch decks now?
I wonder if Uber stops at just using intimidation in less developed countries where things are rougher and governments are more pliable than in the US and Canada? If there are few limits to Uber aggressiveness and they have money, you can easily pay people in a lot of developing nations to improve outcomes in a large variety of "creative ways", and you can easily distance yourself from how those outcomes are achieved.
It does seem that Uber teaches us that this is the new normal and if we are not doing this, we are not maximizing shareholder value.