I propose a new law, similar to Godwin's.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Trump approaches 1"

You can't say anything approaching positive about Trump. You will be down voted. The vehement supporters of freedom of speech doesn't support this. Well, the irony.

the daily reminder that freedom of speech does not imply that anybody has to like what you have to say

That is exactly my point ;) The irony is lost.

User starik36's comment was in a downvoted state. Which is what prompted me to write that comment. I didn't think what he said deemed a down vote because from general observation what he stated seems true.

There isn't any irony. Freedom of speech is about preventing government censorship of citizens and has absolutely nothing to do with shielding people from the social consequences of saying unpopular things. It's about being legally allowed to say unpopular things, not about stopping people from disliking what you say.

I agree. That's all I meant too. Stating the obvious - As in, if you say anything in support of this Trump fellow, you will be down voted. And this is true as exemplified by the "down votes".

FYI, down voting is speech.

Just yesterday, I got some serious flak for suggesting that changing one person in leadership wasn't enough to make them not evil. I'm sad to see just how bad this is/was, but I'm not one bit surprised.

The new CEO found out about this, publicly disclosed it then fired the people responsible. Seems like progress to me.

I think it's progress. Culture does tend to come from the top down - and just like dogs companies do have a habit of resembling their upper management.

Looks like they fired two people over this, pretty immediately at that. Uncertain if the new CEO was aware of the cover-up until (presumably) contacted for comment by a news org.

The fact that the cover-up persisted this long is bad, but on the other hand the Kalanick-era Uber probably would've gone to war with the journalists breaking the stories rather than admit fault, so there's that.

This happened last year.

But the coverup persisted until just now. Kalanick has been gone for almost half a year.

The new CEO has only been around for a month or two. I imagine it's a lot of information slowly coming forth.

The SoftBank due diligence team likely uncovered it.

No substance post, seeking the political low hanging fruit. Looks like the new crowd here loves it, giving you plenty of up votes.

The post is correct though in its analogy.

What part exactly do you disagree with?

I'm not sure if that's an accurate analogy. Few politicians would want to find themselves working in the climate Trump has found in Washington, (if anything, he has proven that a groundswell of popular support can't unseat a party establishment). Also, it simply would be inaccurate to describe Uber's actions as impotent.

Edit: allow me to replace the word "found" with "created." I was just using a figure of speech.

>Few politicians would want to find themselves working in the climate Trump has found in Washington

I can think of a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

If you think the current sitting POTUS is an innocent victim of politics, then I have a bridge to sell you. Uber has used similar PR tactics in the past to deflect/detract from their actions.

> If you think the current sitting POTUS is an innocent victim of politics, then I have a bridge to sell you. Uber has used similar PR tactics in the past to deflect/detract from their actions.

I think the point that the great great? grandparent top post was making is that whoever is in charge of dealing with the media at Uber is doing a horrible job.

Also, I am sad that we don't talk about the policies and rather focus on the personal flaws. I think there would be a chance of a compromise if we debated on policy. I mean if we talk about just personality, what makes our Honorable Governor of New Jersey eligible for office? Not a fan of 45 but really I think politics has become too polarized.