I'm not American, so I'm probably missing a lot of cultural context with the last 2 quotes in [2]. With regards to 3), what's wrong with saying that you would much rather be at a fancy hotel than spending time arguing with city officials? Same for 4), I agree that it's not a good thing to say out memes in real life, but not something to the level of having to bring a PR person with you or have it quoted as proof of you being sexist in an article.

Those sources say more about your credibility than they do about Ubers. I think Uber actually relies on people like yourself, you have to understand that it's slowly harming your validity more than theirs.

To give you a comparison it's like those conspiracy theorists back in the days who claimed NSA was snooping on everyone and then later claimed the president is an Alien from planet Xenu.

This is ad hominem, anything substantial about the content of the sources?

You mean apart from their financial and personal incentives? No, not much else. I'm sorry, at some part you draw a line. My line is disparaging the clock that's not even right twice a day isn't considered ad hominem.

Same reason my source about racial discrimination isn't Stormfront, and my source about startups isn't Vox.

Also I wouldn't take what Breitbart has to say about sexist issues at face value either. I'm expecting you to be able to learn that soon enough, I mean you'd give me the same treatment if I shoved a bunch of Daily Mail articles at you. And rightly so.

I'd not give you the same treatment, I would discuss the facts (if there is any). For example, is the uber street campaign to destroy Lyft talked in the Gawker article [5] real or not ? (I have no context and no opinion on the issue, so I was genuinely interested)

Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, but here are the same stories from a bunch of other publications. My initial comment was just a quick Google search, so the originals and highest SEO'd articles win out. Feel free to accept whichever one you deem a "good enough" source:

[6]: http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-self-inflicte...

[7]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-worst...

[8]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-exec-...

[9]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ubers-boys-club-wha...

[10]: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-avions-de-chasse-promoti...

[11]: http://www.fastcompany.com/3037552/uber-cancels-sexist-hot-c...

[12]: http://www.newsweek.com/uber-taxi-e-hailing-riding-app-travi...

[13]: http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1

[14]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/opinion/we-cant-trust-uber...

[15]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/emil-michael-of-ube...

[16]: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/acting-like-jer...

[17]: http://www.alternet.org/7-evil-things-uber-did-2014-you-shou...

[18]: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-...

[19]: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-scandals-timeline-michiga...

It's trivial to verify that a source has the right story, so once verified then conversations should shift from debating the accuracy of the source to the consequences of the story itself.