I don't know the background of this fight. But I did read the linked buzzfeed article.<p>The article discusses remarks Uber executive Emil Michael made. He said that Uber should consider hiring a team of opposition researchers to dig up dirt on its critics in the media — and specifically to spread details of the personal life of a female journalist who has criticized the company.<p>The executive later attempted to repudiate his remarks by saying<p><pre><code> “The remarks attributed to me at a private
dinner — borne out of frustration during an
informal debate over what I feel is
sensationalistic media coverage of the
company I am proud to work for — do not
reflect my actual views and have no relation
to the company’s views or approach. They were
wrong no matter the circumstance and
I regret them.”
</code></pre>
So apparently the words coming out of his mouth did not reflect his "actual views". Good to know.<p>Kinda reminds me of an earlier period of US history, when a US President nicknamed Tricky Dick famously said: "We can do that, but it would be wrong." History does not record whether Dick was winking when he said that.
What a profitable and rather easy job: blogging about how sexist, women objectifying misogynist a CEO is. If it's not the CEO then it's a manager. Or an employee. Or a contractor. Or a subcontractor. From US. Or from Europe. Or maybe there is not enough diversity. "Somewhere sometime a woman is a victim and if you are a man you should feel guilty because someone else did something wrong !" How many years will continue this immorally idiotic campaign ?