I'm not the one dismissing a blatant problem based on a tiny percentage value. We've seen in various accounts that many incidents were swept under the rug because the person was a supposed "high performer". Then there is the recent email issue. This suggests that the problem is top-down in the company. When the problem is top-down, surely you deserve such treatment?

Right! The issue is management sweeping the allegations under the rug.

A lot of the hate towards Uber in these threads seems to be about the number of allegations, not that they were swept under the rug (in my opinion at least–I don't read HN religiously).

That, I think, leads us to where we are right now: a comment thread that's basically about "what's the minimum number of sexual harassments can occur before a company has a 'problem'?"

I'm not trying to pick on you, so I apologize if I come across that way.

> A lot of the hate towards Uber in these threads seems to be about the number of allegations, not that they were swept under the rug

If you have a large number of harassment incidents, it's completely relevant to question if there is a culture problem in the company (a problem which was denied outright by the parent commenter), and IMO this is what HN seems to be doing. Especially when you have accounts of Uber having a "frat" culture trickling down from the CEO and some senior executives condoning (this is probably too strong a word) such behavior.

My point is Uber isn't being treated unfairly by any means.

The rate is a red herring, it's the reaction when it was reported.

Imagine if your local PD reported that they only ignored .01% of 911 calls. Would you find that acceptable?

I don't disagree. The the parent comments focused on how often the harassment happened—not Uber's response—so it piqued my curiosity.