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.

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

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.

Skepticism and comments about skepticism don't necessarily need a linear relationship. Making a pro skepticism comment is a reactionary move against people treating anonymous accusations as fact. If you see more people doing the latter when racial or gender discrimination issues are discussed then it makes sense that the former will follow.

The more serious/terrible the accusation, the more likely it seems to me that people will just take it on face value.

Reactionary contrarian skepticism is kinda the MO of hacker news comments.

These women are victims of harassment and abuse. It seems very unfair to expect them to also put their personal reputation on the line before we finally take them seriously. That's a very high bar to clear and it's the reason why so few women speak out publicly. That's why we must encourage, not discourage, anonymous disclosures, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have a strong allegiance to the American justice principles of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, right to face one's accuser in open court, cross examination, and standards of evidence. So much so that I apply it to judging controversial current events like this. Much as I might dislike putting a powerful entity like Uber into the defendant's chair with those attendant protections, These principles and others have served me extremely well in suspending belief and not being led astray by sensationa news and consequently looking hotheaded and foolish when time bears out the details of the story.

You may feel otherwise, and I cannot and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. But as I said before, I believe Ms. Fowler at this point, and take issue with Amy's claim on falsifiability grounds. "We" are under no obligation to take any particular person seriously. There are strong labor laws against the transgressions claimed, and if there are problems with enforcement or efficiency, I am all for examining our procedures, but I won't sacrifice the bedrock of fair and individualized consideration of the particular case within the storm of the prevailing dysfunction.

I understand where you're coming from; I don't think you've made enough of an effort to understand where your parent is coming from, your focus is entirely on how wrong you feel your parent is.

Of course the criminal justice system must abide by the principles of due process. Simultaneously, if someone anonymously expresses great suffering, we are of course under an ethical obligation to take them seriously, offer them our compassion, and take action based on what we can substantiate.

I reread the parent, because your point is a well-taken that I might have brushed it aside too quickly. I can specify upholding my skepticism on the grounds that only Uber employees in some certain proximity to "Amy" could deduce whether she's a real person. If not Amy herself, but 2 or 3 of them who could vouch will come forward out of anonymity and say something along the lines of "yes, 'Amy' is a real person. Her story is real. Uber management treated her terribly and HR ignored her claims", then I'll be a lot more willing to consider this credible. I disagree that anonymous, unverifiable grievances impose on otherwise ethical and rational people a positive obligation of specific personal demand for belief or compassion. But I can only speak for myself.

>>I disagree that anonymous, unverifiable grievances impose on otherwise ethical and rational people a positive obligation of specific personal demand for belief or compassion.

Amy's specific experiences may or may not be verifiable. I believe you are missing the point though. This isn't about Amy herself. If it were, she would have come out publicly, like Susan has. I suspect the reason Amy posted her story anonymously is because it is about the treatment women in general receive at Uber. That's what makes her story credible: we have heard from multiple sources so far that the atmosphere at Uber is extremely hostile to women.

Here's an example why anonymity is important: law enforcement agencies receive anonymous tips all the time. One way they decide whether to follow up on a tip is by looking at surrounding factors. For instance, if multiple anonymous tips within a short period of time suggest that Bob may be involved in child trafficking, that is in most cases sufficient to earn Bob a police raid.

Same thing with Amy's story. By itself, it is full of extraordinary claims. In light of everything we have learned about Uber's company culture though, the claims are both ordinary and credible.

Is there a chance that it was written by a rival company's astroturfers? Sure. Just like how Bob may actually have been a target of swatting[1]. But law enforcement agencies still have an obligation to investigate the anonymous tips against Bob, just like we as the public have an obligation to offer belief or compassion to stories like Amy's.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting

Wouldn't a false story that could be disproven only serve to cast doubt on Fowler's claim rather then support it? I just don't see anyone with any brains trying to create a false narrative to smear Uber.

There's many explanations why you would post a "false story" despite being "reasonable":

- "Amy" might not think she's lying at all, but a combination of misunderstandings and POV-blindness can quickly turn an "awful" story around to a banal situation

- "Amy" isn't necessarily looking to "reinforce the narrative" - it is certainly possible that they just want empathy or attention(which is practically guaranteed, see this thread). You could parallel this with the hoax hate crimes that were reported once Trump was in office - they would all hurt the otherwise legitimate point that bigotry is on the rise, yet the people still did it, quite often claiming that they were going through a rough patch and wanted some sympathy and attention.

- Even if "Amy" was lying, they may be relying on the impossibility of Uber to defend themselves. If they aggressively pursue the claims, they will receive a ton of backlash for harassing an alleged survivor.

> I just don't see anyone with any brains trying to create a false narrative to smear Uber.

The case doesn't have to be a "false narrative" - boosting a shitty situation beyond its actual levels is certainly a bonus to any Uber competitor, or anyone who dislikes Uber. It may absolutely be the case that Uber has a systemic problem; or alternatively, they have had an unfortunate clump of scandals, boosted by their unpopular business practices making it easy to believe that Uber really are monsters. At that point, it's easy to pile on any accusation, people will believe it, and it hurts Uber.

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I was careful not speak to "belief", which is unfortunately ambiguous; one could interpret "belief" of this testimonial as supporting millions in damages being awarded to the author right now on the basis of nothing else, which I hopefully have been clear about not supporting.

It surprises me that you have no compassion for an anonymous grievance, though, especially one that is (at least currently) asking for nothing else. Speaking for myself, at least, even (or especially) though there are usually two sides to every story, I pride myself on usually being able to have compassion for both sides.

I can distill it this way:

Compassion for the suffering of the unknown is one thing. To make damaging public accusations behind the veil of the unknown is something else entirely.

These are not mutually exclusive.

We can extend our hearts and offer our support to the anonymous authors of these stories, seriously investigate the questions they raise, and prosecute to our fullest abilities all wrongdoings substantiated by credible reports (e.g. Susan Fowler's blogpost), while simultaneously being careful to restrict any punishment meted out to be only based on credible evidence.

"Believe victims" means offer support instead of minimizing ("I'm sure he didn't mean it") or making counteraccusations ("what were you wearing?"). It doesn't mean "automatically, immediately punish anyone accused of anything without due process".

To give anonymous accusations of harassment and abuse the benefit of the doubt is to believe that someone is an abuser without evidence to. Given the effect that this can have on a persons life I don't believe it should be encouraged at all. It's guilty until proven innocent.

It's really not "guilty until proven innocent". Nobody has gone to prison, much less been charged with a criminal offense. The article doesn't name anyone in particular, so even if harassment accusations ruined mens' careers (which is a comically untrue assertion in the first place), that argument holds no water. Sexism is real, harassment is real, and demanding some arbitrarily high standard of evidence before you believe it is at best obtuse and at worst deliberately complicit.

I know comments on this type of articles get extremely heated, but with no intention to favor any side, I will say this: What if she provided that "awful lot of information about herself" with the intent of deceiving the audience and creating the illusion that she's this person, when in fact she's somebody else?

Maybe she aggregated attributes from multiple women at Uber and created this new person which cannot be specifically indentified. I see this as a valid strategy to conceal one's identity.

I think they've lost the benefit of the doubt after responding in an unconvincing way to Susan Fowler's allegations and the critical open letter from one of their VCs, to name just two recent examples.

People deserve the benefit of the doubt and courts are very strict on this. Companies that let such an issue fester for such a long time without convincing remediatory action probably don't deserve it in the court of public opinion.

Or that was all made up? Who is in a position to know every employee at Uber, so they can verify that this person actually existed, AND that they actually wrote it?

> Who is in a position to know . . .

Nobody is. She could be lying. She could even be providing the demographic information of a coworker who had none of these experiences. She might be a space alien for all we know.

So you just have to weigh the evidence and get comfortable with uncertainty. Is there someone who would make all this stuff up? Sure. No doubt there's someone out there who likes internet adulation enough to cook up a story. Is this an instance of that happening? Not very likely, I think, since it corroborates what we're hearing from a lot of other people about Uber's culture, and Ms. Fowler's story. I judge that there is a high likelihood this story is true or mostly true.

That's all you can do really. You're never going to get first-hand, attributed corroboration in a case like this. This is because anyone in a position to do that would be outing the anonymous whistle-blower by corroborating, especially if more than two people did. If they care about the victim, they will respect her choice to remain anonymous. So demanding more before assigning credibility is tantamount to deciding to always disbelieve anonymous accounts. That is an option available to you, but I don't think that option is the most useful for developing true beliefs about the world around me, so I don't choose it.