> What I also hate is that Uber tries to play the PR game
What's the point of casting aspersions on Uber's motives here? I'm pretty sure everyone at Uber has lots of middle eastern coworkers. They have every reason to be utterly horrified. Is it possible that they are, in fact, actually horrified and talking about this publicly is not just a part of some cunning scheme?
I'm not a big fan of the policy precedents that TK has set, and sure, this is probably a publicity stunt, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a vocal, commendable move by someone in a position to drive change.
The only way to "stand up for what's right" is to be part of the conversation, not to shy away from it.
If TK isn't part of that group, then who takes his place?
If you had your way and nobody you approve of politically would have representation.
The answers to our problems aren't blatant partisanship, but a robust exchange of ideas. If Trump invites anyone from SV, it'd be extremely foolish to "protest" by taking yourself out of the conversation.
Conversate with whom exactly? Trump? Bannon? When have these idiots ever given any indication that they're willing to listen to someone who contradicts them? Are there any examples of them actually having listened to someone, taken their advice, and done it all with an even temper? And how exactly is TK "protesting from within" the system? What concrete steps is he likely to take over the next four years that will impact the opinions of the petulant child Americans are forced to call their president?
It's a mistake to not think of this current presidency as unprecedented in it's potential for terror. The path of civilized conduct works with people who are willing to meet you halfway by behaving in a civil manner themselves. Trump just isn't.
Also, I'm more than a little tired of SV CEOs walking around with this transparent facade of integrity and paying lip service to doing the right thign. They care about one thing, and one thing only: protecting their company at all cost, country be damned. It's no use them saying "If we don't do it, someone else will" because that isn't enough of an exoneration of their own conduct. They aren't machines designed with the single purpose of working for a company. They are humans who are expected to have a moral core.
Actually, there's pretty abundant evidence that Trump capriciously formulates his policies based on whoever he just talked to. He's exactly like a "petulant child" that way.
For example, his policy on torture has swayed back and forth based almost entirely on conversations with Mattis.
I honestly do think directly talking to Trump and explaining the real harm his policies are doing to American companies is one of the most effective things that CEOs can do.
> Collaborating with the Trump administration gives it badly needed legitimacy and credibility and facilitates the polices of hate.
Yeah, before I was worried that the Trump administration was illegitimate, but then Travis agreed to be part of their "Strategic and Policy Forum", and now I'm with Trump 100%.
Eh. Not a big fan of the american reliance on companies to be the ones to "drive change" in the first place. That they're considered 'in the best position to' is only the result of the corporatocracy anyways.
Agreed, we should take allies we can, and save the in-fighting for another day. Casting off people who are not pristine-perfect just sets you up to fail.
What's the point of casting aspersions on Uber's motives here? I'm pretty sure everyone at Uber has lots of middle eastern coworkers. They have every reason to be utterly horrified. Is it possible that they are, in fact, actually horrified and talking about this publicly is not just a part of some cunning scheme?