September 26, 2019

At the U.N., Jair Bolsonaro Presents a Surreal Defense of His Amazon Policies

The Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, decried the notion that the Amazon forests are “a heritage of humankind.”

By
Jon Lee Anderson
newyorker.com
 
 
By tradition, the Brazilian President is the first leader to speak at the General Debate at the United Nations General Assembly, and on Tuesday morning it was the turn of Jair Bolsonaro, the outlandish, far-right, populist leader, who came to power last January. In what was just his second major address on the world stage—he appeared at Davos three weeks after his inauguration—Bolsonaro gave a predictably defiant defense of his country’s policies regarding the environment, especially the Amazon rain forest, sixty per cent of which lies within Brazil’s borders. For non-Brazilians, hearing Bolsonaro speak on the topic must have been a surreal experience (similar, perhaps, to hearing Donald Trump, yesterday in New York, tout himself as a champion of religious freedom). This summer, the Amazon’s forests went up in flames. But, on Tuesday, Bolsonaro asserted that the forests were “practically untouched,” and blamed a “lying and sensationalist media” for propagating fake news about their destruction. He also decried the notion that the Amazon is “a heritage of humankind.”

The period from June to December is the Amazonian dry season, and fires are a recurring phenomenon in the great South American wilderness, but the sheer number and intensity of the fires this year—there were more than seventy thousand separate blazes—was particularly alarming, seemingly adding sudden weight to the mounting evidence that a drastic cycle of climate change has definitively begun on the planet. Along with the Amazon’s firestorm, forest fires swept through the northern expanses of Russian Siberia, while unusually high summer temperatures were recorded from France to Alaska and a Category 5 hurricane struck the Bahamas. But what makes Brazil’s fires especially troubling is that most of them were man-made—set in order to clear land for cattle ranches and farming—and, moreover, that they appeared to burn with the tacit consent of the Bolsonaro government. Since taking office, Bolsonaro has gutted the agencies tasked with defending the environment, slashing their budgets and severely limiting their functions. In August, he fired Ricardo Galvão, a physicist who was the director of the country’s prestigious National Institute for Space Research, after the institute published a report that concluded that the number of forest fires in Brazil since January represented an eighty-four-per-cent increase over the number recorded in the same period in 2018.

By mid-August, as shock and indignation at Bolsonaro’s inaction spread around the world, provoking admonitions from a number of international leaders, Bolsonaro spoke of the fires with scoffing indifference. He accused N.G.O.s and “greenies”—as he calls environmental activists—of having set the fires in order to “bring attention to themselves” and to “bring problems to Brazil.” It was a typical remark from Bolsonaro, whose leadership style bears comparison to that of Donald Trump, a head of state he admires. One of Bolsonaro’s favored slogans is “Make Brazil Great Again.”
In a number of ways, though, Bolsonaro trumps Trump. Last month, in the run-up to the G-7 summit in Biarritz, France, when President Emmanuel Macron implicitly criticized Bolsonaro’s mishandling of the situation, Bolsonaro told him tersely to stay out of Brazil’s domestic issues, and followed that up by insulting his wife, setting off an unseemly tit-for-tat between the two leaders. (Some of Bolsonaro’s officials joined in. The tourism ambassador, Renzo Gracie, a former mixed-martial-arts fighter, threatened to choke Macron.) And, after Pope Francis invoked the “blind and destructive mentality” of those behind the destruction of the rain forest, Bolsonaro evidently interpreted the remark as being about him, and told journalists, “Brazil is the virgin that every foreign pervert wants to get their hands on.”

Lest there be any lingering doubts about the cartoonishness of the Bolsonaro world view, his foreign minister, Ernesto Araújo, who accompanied him to the U.N., claimed earlier this month that the fuss over the fires had been blown out of proportion by a campaign that had been “orchestrated by Brazilian groups that are systematically against the government” and “want to use any tools at their disposal to attack the government, even if this harms the country.” The remark was an allusion to environmentalists and indigenous-rights activists, whom Araújo has said are part of a Marxist plot.

 Such views are also held by a tranche of Brazil’s conservative armed forces, who have an influential role in the government. Bolsonaro, himself a former Army captain, has expressed nostalgia for the country’s right-wing military dictatorship, which ruled from 1964 to 1985, and has filled his administration with military men, naming eight former senior officers to cabinet posts. His Vice-President, Hamilton Mourão, is a retired Army general, and although Mourão is more moderate than Bolsonaro on many issues he adheres to the idea that Brazil’s sovereignty in the Amazon must be aggressively defended.

By late August, Bolsonaro’s wisecracking rope-a-dope was not enough to halt the international fallout. Along with several major clothing brands, including the VF Corporation, which owns Timberland and the North Face, and the Swedish company H&M—both of which announced a temporary stop to purchases of Brazilian leather—Norway and Germany announced that they would suspend millions of dollars allocated for the U.N.-backed Amazon Fund, which seeks to fight deforestation and to balance conservation goals with sustainable development. Ireland and France, meanwhile, expressed doubts about ratifying a long-pending agreement between the European Union and the South American trading bloc Mercosur, which is dominated by Brazil. The spectre of economic punishment appears to have given Bolsonaro pause, because a few weeks ago, in a televised address, he expressed his “profound love” for the Amazon, and said that he was dispatching Brazilian troops to fight the fires. In response, Trump tweeted his support for Bolsonaro, whom he said he has come to know well, and who “is working very hard on the Amazon fires and in all respects doing a great job for the people of Brazil — Not easy. He and his country have the full and complete support of the USA!”

Finally, on August 28th, Bolsonaro declared a sixty-day moratorium on setting land-clearing fires in the Amazon. He also said that he thought he had come out well from his war of words with Macron, whose behavior, he said, had “awoken a feeling of patriotism” among many Brazilians. The country would develop its own strategies to deal with the Amazon. Olavo de Carvalho, an ultra-conservative philosopher and climate-change denialist who now lives in the Virginia countryside but is seen as Bolsonaro’s political guru, offered his approval. “No one knows what goes on in the Amazon,” he said. “It’s just too big to control. The only thing that works is what he is doing—sending the Army there. Legal measures, monitoring, none of that has any effect. It has to be occupied militarily. Amazonia is ours, and we have to assert national power there. End of story.”


September 21, 2019

Cartola - Disfarça e Chora

Disfarça e chora
Todo o pranto tem hora
E eu vejo seu pranto cair
No momento mais certo
Olhar, gostar só de longe
Não faz ninguém chegar perto
E o seu pranto, oh! Triste senhora
Vai molhar o deserto

September 20, 2019

Para onde foram os Tempos Modernos, Lulu?

Leo Aversa Foto: OGlobo

Leo Aversa

Eu vejo a vida melhor no futuro 

Eu vejo isso por cima de um muro 

De hipocrisia que insiste em nos rodear  

Se você passou os anos 80 com uma FM tocando ao fundo e os nomes Transamérica, Fluminense e Rádio Cidade o fazem ouvir jingles na memória, certamente vai lembrar dos primeiros versos de “Tempos Modernos”. Nada é mais eterno do que a música pop.
Ela foi lançada em 82, ainda na ditadura, quando o então presidente se orgulhava de preferir o cheiro dos cavalos ao do povo. Em tempos sinistros,Lulu viu um futuro melhor.

Eu vejo a vida mais clara e farta
Repleta de toda a satisfação
Que se tem direito do firmamento ao chão
 
O fiscal de óculos escuros, com colete da prefeitura e jeito de segurança de bordel, percorreu os corredores da Bienal examinando livros, atrás de ofensas à moral do prefeito. Procurava dois homens se beijando. A ele, não incomodam o descaso, a ignorância e a própria incompetência, só as demonstrações de afeto alheias. O prefeito sabe que a censura – ainda — é ilegal e que sua bravata teria o efeito contrário, promovendo o que queria esconder.

Mas sua intenção nunca foi proteger crianças ou adolescentes, se assim fosse cuidaria das escolas, das ruas, da cidade. Quer apenas envolver o eleitor em espuma e fumaça, na esperança que, confuso, cometa o mesmo erro duas vezes.

Eu quero crer no amor numa boa
Que isso valha pra qualquer pessoa
Que realizar a força que tem uma paixão
 
Não só o prefeito, ele é apenas mais um. Entramos numa era de trevas, onde a ignorância, a brutalidade e intolerância parecem não ter fim. É uma celebração contínua de tudo que é negativo, deletério, desumano. De onde deveriam sair propostas, planos, projetos, só se vê destruição, desmonte e terra queimada. Essa exibição patológica de armas, esse orgulho da própria grosseria, essa exaltação da boçalidade como modo exemplar de vida vão tornando o cotidiano um suplício para quem um dia respirou aliviado pelo fim da ditadura.

Eu vejo um novo começo de era
De gente fina, elegante e sincera
Com habilidade
Pra dizer mais sim do que não
 
De onde tiram essa raiva toda? E pior, de onde vem essa vontade de espalhar o ódio como se fosse uma virtude, uma qualidade a ser cultivada? Por que essa ânsia de construir muros, de incitar a discórdia, de ofender a todo aquele que não pensa igual? Por que esse desprezo pela arte, essa aversão à ciência e ao conhecimento? Será que não podem imaginar outra forma de governo que não seja fomentar a intolerância e o rancor? Quanto tempo mais vamos perder?

Hoje o tempo voa, amor
Escorre pelas mãos
Mesmo sem se sentir
Não há tempo que volte, amor
Vamos viver tudo que há pra viver
Vamos nos permitir
 
Me desculpem o desabafo, leitores, mas é que a música do Lulu me apareceu ontem, por acaso, enquanto me lembrava daqueles tempos. Talvez tenha chegado a hora de juntar a gente fina, elegante e sincera e, mais uma vez, ver por cima do muro. Quem sabe a gente não consegue trazer de volta os Tempos Modernos?

Vamos nos permitir

 

September 19, 2019

Two Men Kiss in a Comic Book, and a Mayor Orders a Raid



By


RIO DE JANEIRO — The team of law-enforcement agents deployed by the mayor to “defend the family” descended on the international event and scoured the grounds for their target: copies of a comic book featuring two young men kissing.
“Books like this need to be packaged in black plastic and sealed,” the mayor of Rio de Janeiro, Marcelo Crivella, said in a video posted on Twitter. The agents, he said, were ordered to seize all copies of the comic book from the city’s International Book Fair because it had “sexual content for minors.”
As it turned out, the police came up empty on Thursday in their two-hour search for kissing comic characters, though they did find “lots of books,” Col. Wolney Dias, who headed the raid, told the newspaper Folha de São Paulo.
The raid also kicked up lots of backlash for the mayor — from festival organizers, publishing houses, comedians and, finally, the Brazilian courts. On Friday, a judge barred Mr. Crivella from further seizure efforts or any attempt to withdraw the festival’s permit, a ruling that was partly overturned on Saturday.
The comic book in question, published in 2010 under the title “Avengers: The Children’s Crusade,” shows the superheroes Hulkling and Wiccan, who are boyfriends, kissing. The book, which had sold out by the time the agents arrived, tells the story of Wiccan’s efforts to control his reality-altering powers.
Festival organizers tried a bit of reality altering themselves on Friday when they took the mayor to court, winning an injunction against efforts to bar the book. The judge cited the organizers’ constitutional right to free expression, but his ruling was partly reversed on Saturday when a second judge said that gay and lesbian content for children should not be publicly displayed.
The brushback was more colorful outside court. The comedian Felipe Neto, one of Brazil’s most popular YouTube stars, said he would distribute thousands of books with gay and lesbian characters at the festival. The books, he said, would come with a red label saying they were “inappropriate for backward, retrograde and prejudiced people.”
Then, on Saturday, the publishing house Faro set up a stand at the festival under the banner “Books That Are Forbidden by Crivella” and featuring a host of volumes on issues involving gay and lesbian people. The stand became a selfie magnet, the newspaper O Globo said.
Mr. Crivella’s order also served to remind local newspapers and TV stations of other things the mayor could be doing, like fighting poverty. The local unemployment rate hit 15.3 percent in the first trimester of this year.
“Crivella, This Is What’s ‘Inappropriate,’” read the headline in the newspaper Extra, atop a photo of a homeless woman and her children sitting on cardboard on a sidewalk.
The mayor, who is also an evangelical preacher, was unbowed. In a video posted on Friday, Mr. Crivella said he was trying to protect families.
“This can’t be induced, be it in schools, in a book, or wherever,” the mayor said, apparently referring to gay and lesbian issues. “We will always continue to defend the family.”
But the mayor “forgets there are quite old Supreme Court decisions that say same-sex families also deserve protection,” said Rodrigo Azambuja of Rio’s public defenders’ office, which had joined with festival organizers in their court appeal.
“Under Brazilian law,” he said, “all families are equal.”

September 18, 2019

Opção por Aras mostra que bolsonarismo duro não está imune a fissuras

0

Fábio Zanini

"Pequeno dia", escreveu o youtuber católico Bernardo Kuster ao comentar a indicação de Augusto Aras para procurador-geral da República.

No mundo virtual da direita, em que Kuster é representante destacado, poucas coisas são mais sintomáticas do que fazer troça com "grande dia", o grito de guerra dos bolsonaristas quando alguma coisa bem conservadora é anunciada pelo presidente.
Outros membros do gueto foram além. Italo Lorenzon, do site Terça Livre, fez uma analogia com a facada que quase matou o presidente. Disse que Bolsonaro resolveu comemorar um ano do atentado cometendo um "suicídio político". "Eu espero, sinceramente, que esse Aras esteja na coleira", declarou.
Já o professor olavista Rafael Nogueira demonstrou incompreensão e deixou claro que a opção de grande parcela dos conservadores era outra. "Tendo Bonifácio para escolher, por que Aras? Não entendo", afirmou, em referência ao subprocurador Bonifácio de Andrada, católico da linha conservadora.
Não é comum expoentes do bolsonarismo duro, aquele que resiste à queda de popularidade do presidente, mostrarem desconforto tão abertamente com as escolhas de seu líder.
Algo próximo esboçou-se na indicação de Eduardo Bolsonaro para a embaixada em Washington (EUA), mas o impacto agora foi incomparavelmente maior. A ponto de o presidente vir a público pedir um voto de confiança a seus comandados digitais.
Do que o governo menos precisa agora é uma nova camada de direitismo se descolando de seu discurso. Oito meses depois da posse, a estratégia de sobrevivência política do ocupante do Planalto é clara: primeiro, vilanizar a esquerda e desprezar as pontes com o centro.
Depois, fazer uma cisão na direita. Aquela mais crítica não aguenta o estilo do presidente, mas permanece ligada de alguma forma ao governo por políticas setoriais, do liberalismo de Paulo Guedes à agenda pró-desmate de Ricardo Salles, passando, claro, pelo lavajatismo ainda identificado com Sergio Moro.
Daqui a três anos, aposta Bolsonaro, o espantalho da esquerda pode funcionar de novo e trazer de volta parte dos que se descolaram, levando-o à reeleição.
Resta a direita bajuladora, e essa é a mais incomodada com a opção por Aras, pois aprendeu com o próprio capitão a rejeitar qualquer um que tenha usado uma camisa vermelha na vida. Ela não entende como alguém que confraternizou com petistas pode ter sido escolhido para um cargo tão importante.
Se perder apoio dentro de seu público cativo, Bolsonaro corre riscos, e alternativas no antipetismo podem começar a parecer mais palatáveis, seja João Doria, Wilson Witzel ou o próprio Moro.
A vantagem para o presidente é que ele sabe a importância de influenciar o debate nas redes e agiu rapidamente, numa estratégia de contenção de danos que se mostrou bem-sucedida.
Algumas horas depois do choque com o anúncio do presidente, grande parte do seu séquito já se mostrava mais calma e disposta a dar um voto de confiança sobre a escolha. 
"Vamos acompanhar atentos as decisões de Augusto Aras e torcer para que ele seja um homem de palavra", disse Davy Fonseca, do site bolsonarista Conexão Política.
Como costuma acontecer, ajudou muito na calibragem do discurso a tese de que se a esquerda fala "a", a direita tem o dever de dizer "b". Tuítes críticos a Aras de parlamentares como Marcelo Freixo (PSOL) e Erika Kokay (PT) caíram como um álibi perfeito.
"Não concordo 100% nem comigo mesmo, por isso, posso discordar do presidente @jairbolsonaro e o continuar apoiando. Uma certeza: não vou jogar o jogo da esquerda", escreveu o jornalista e teólogo Daniel Lopez. ​

Por ora, o estremecimento parece ter sido contornado, mas mostrou que o bolsonarismo não é à prova de fissuras. Outros testes virão, e o próximo pode envolver outro ídolo deste público, um ex-juiz de Curitiba.

September 2, 2019

Bruno Mars - Perm

Put your phone down, let's get it
Forget your Instagram and your Twitter
Got me like whoa, wait a minute
You need to take a minute
Loosen them shoulders up
Pour it up, let's workThrow some perm on your attitude

Facebook não conseguiu evitar fake news no Brasil, apontam análises internas

Celular com o ícone de curtir posts, símbolo do Facebook

Deepa Seetharaman
  Jeff Horwitz




No ano passado, os executivos do Facebook elogiaram publicamente os esforços da empresa antes da eleição presidencial brasileira, como prova de seu progresso no combate à difusão de desinformações por meio de suas plataformas.
Mas, dentro do Facebook, o quadro era mais complicado.
Análises internas constataram que o gigante da mídia social não foi capaz de expor e evitar comportamentos suspeitos ou desinformação em larga escala, depois do assassinato da vereadora Marielle Franco em março de 2018, de acordo com documentos revisados pelo The Wall Street Journal.
O Facebook continuou a depender de terceiros, entre os quais a mídia, para identificar questões que afetavam a eleição de outubro daquele ano, porque ainda não havia desenvolvido instrumentos para "detecção proativa" de certos problemas, mostram os documentos.
O Facebook demorou quatro meses para desmantelar uma rede de contas que espalhavam desinformações sobre Marielle depois de seu homicídio, um evento que polarizou ainda mais o Brasil nos meses que antecederam a eleição presidencial ferozmente disputada.
E a empresa também descobriu que uma organização de direita que apoiava o candidato vencedor, Jair Bolsonaro, estava encorajando seus seguidores no Facebook a usar um app externo que permitia que a organização postasse em nome deles mensagens em favor do candidato, duas vezes por dia.
O Facebook não estava informado sobre essa atividade antes de ser alertado por jornalistas e não foi capaz de determinar até que ponto ela era comum, os documentos demonstram.
Os documentos, compartilhados amplamente entre os empregados do Facebook, mostram uma empresa que continuava a enfrentar problemas para lidar com a manipulação de seus serviços por interessados em difundir desinformação política, em anos de eleição.
Também destacaram os preparativos do Facebook para a eleição americana de 2020, quatro anos depois de a empresa ser severamente criticada por permitir o uso de sua plataforma para difundir desinformação e alterar a discussão política no curso de uma campanha aquecida.
Dirigentes do Facebook descreveram a revisão sobre o Brasil como uma avaliação interna inicial de sua campanha para reprimir a desinformação.
Nathaniel Gleicher, diretor de política de segurança na computação do Facebook, disse que as defesas da empresa haviam sido consideravelmente reforçadas desde que o relatório foi escrito, em agosto de 2018.
"Estou muito confiante na equipe que temos em operação", disse Gleicher em entrevista. "Creio que estejamos em situação melhor hoje para identificar e bloquear essas coisas, muito mais do que em qualquer momento do passado."
Nos últimos anos, o Facebook vem sofrendo ataques de autoridades regulatórias e governamentais em diversos países, por violações de privacidade e por permitir que retórica hostil e mensagens políticas divisivas poluam o processo democrático.
No Brasil, os meios de difusão de boatos políticos na mídia social, no ano passado, incluíam o Facebook e o WhatsApp, um serviço de mensagens criptografadas controlado pela companhia de Menlo Park (Califórnia).
Em resposta, o Facebook pediu desculpas no mundo inteiro, contratou milhares de pessoas e investiu mais e mais recursos na segurança de sua plataforma.
Gleicher disse que o Facebook encontrou e desmontou mais de 40 campanhas de influência em todo o mundo no primeiro semestre de 2019, ante apenas algumas no primeiro semestre de 2018 e "cerca de duas dúzias" no segundo semestre do ano passado.
Ele disse que o Facebook contratou dezenas de pessoas como parte de sua equipe central de investigadores que buscam campanhas de influência, entre os quais antigos policiais e procuradores públicos, e agentes de serviços de informações, assim como ex-repórteres investigativos.
A empresa menciona esses investimentos em resposta a apelos por uma ordem judicial de cisão do gigante de mídia social, afirmando que uma empresa menor teria dificuldade para mobilizar os recursos necessários para combater a desinformação.
O Facebook retrata seus esforços eleitorais de modo otimista, enfatizando seu progresso, embora reconheça que ainda restam problemas.
Em um evento no ano passado, dirigentes da empresa disseram que ela havia detectado uma alta súbita na retórica hostil, bem como reportagens afirmando falsamente que a eleição brasileira seria adiada, e que todo esse conteúdo foi removido em questão de horas. O Facebook ficou "deliciado" com o tempo de reação, disse um executivo da empresa na época.
A apresentação interna preparada em 2018 mostra como as campanhas de desinformação estão evoluindo, criando novos desafios para o Facebook em muitos de seus maiores mercados. Na metade do ano passado, o Brasil era o quarto maior mercado mundial da plataforma em termos de usuários mensais ativos.
A revisão se concentra nas consequências do assassinato de Marielle, uma líder política local que costumava criticar a polícia.
Quase imediatamente depois de seu homicídio, rumores e desinformações sobre sua morte começaram a circular no Facebook e WhatsApp, entre os quais o de que ela havia "sido executada por seus próprios amigos a fim de incriminar a polícia", de acordo com um post incluído na apresentação da empresa.
Uma das deficiências reconhecidas no relatório foi a de que a rede social não se provou capaz de implementar suas regras que proíbem comportamento não autêntico coordenado, o que o Facebook define como qualquer tentativa sincronizada de manipular a discussão pública para fins estratégicos.
Algumas das páginas que a empresa encontrou espalhando desinformações sobre Marielle eram administradas por contas falsas, e os sistemas do Facebook não detectaram o fato com antecedência.
Um outro conjunto de problemas envolvia um terceiro app chamado Voxer, que fazia posts em nome de usuários que o autorizassem a isso. A atividade foi denunciada inicialmente ao Facebook por repórteres brasileiros.
O Voxer, que parece estar desativado e não ter relações com uma empresa homônima de San Francisco, promovia um recurso chamado Voxer Sharer, que descrevia como "ferramenta para compartilhamento em massa", de acordo com versões arquivadas do site.
No ano passado, o app permitia que um usuário vinculasse suas contas de Facebook e Twitter e compartilhasse conteúdo automaticamente.
O Movimento Brasil Livre (MBL), de direita, era cliente da empresa, de acordo com o Facebook, e enviou aos seus usuários ativos uma mensagem instando-os a fornecer suas credenciais de acesso ao Voxer para que a organização pudesse postar em nome deles.
"O Brasil precisa de vocês", escreveu o MBL, que apoiou Bolsonaro, aos seus usuários, afirmando que o Facebook havia reduzido o alcance das páginas políticas de direita. "Vocês podem fazer a diferença."
A atividade atraiu a atenção de jornalistas e do Facebook.
Gleicher disse que não era verdade que o Facebook tivesse reduzido o alcance das páginas de direita. Ele descreveu os posts feitos pelo Voxer como "manipulação de escala", e violação das regras do Facebook que proíbem fazer falsas afirmações para obter seguidores. O Facebook excluiu o Voxer de sua plataforma no começo de abril de 2018.
A avaliação do Facebook sobre seu desempenho em 2018 se alinha às críticas de alguns pesquisadores e ativistas brasileiros sobre a fiscalização da rede social antes das eleições.
"Sim, eles tinham uma equipe, mas era pequena demais e lenta demais", disse Nell Greenberg, diretora de campanhas da rede ativista online Avaaz.

September 1, 2019

How Uber Got Lost


The once-swaggering company is losing more money and growing more slowly than ever. What happened?





  • “From the beginning,” the blog post began, “we’ve always been committed to connecting you with the safest rides on the road.”
    It was April 2014, and Uber was announcing a new $1 charge on fares called the Safe Rides Fee. The start-up described the charge as necessary to fund “an industry-leading background check process, regular motor vehicle checks, driver safety education, development of safety features in the app, and insurance.”
    But that was misleading. Uber’s margin on any given fare was mostly fixed, at around 20 to 25 percent, with the remainder going to the driver. According to employees who worked on the project, the Safe Rides Fee was devised primarily to add $1 of pure margin to each trip. Over time, court documents show, it brought in nearly half a billion dollars for the company, and after the money was collected, it was never earmarked specifically for improving safety.
    At the time, “driver safety education” consisted of little more than a short video course, and in-app safety features weren’t a priority until years later. The company was facing rising costs on insurance and background checks for drivers, but an eventual class-action lawsuit alleged that its marketing — which claimed “industry leading” checks and “the safest” rides — was untrue. Uber settled for some $30 million, a fraction of what the fee earned the company in revenue.
    “We boosted our margins saying our rides were safer,” one former employee told me last year, as I was reporting a book about Uber. “It was obscene.” (Uber and its founder, Travis Kalanick, declined to comment for this article.)
    That level of chutzpah is difficult to imagine from the chastened Uber of 2019. Two years since Mr. Kalanick’s ouster, and three months since a humdrum public offering, the company is in many ways a shadow of the juggernaut whose global presence once felt just shy of inevitable.
    As a private start-up, Uber represented pure possibility — at its peak, a $69 billion wrecking ball threatening entities as vast as the taxi industry, mass transit networks and automotive giants, all at the same time. Mr. Kalanick built the company in his brutal and triumphant image, knocking through concrete at company headquarters to install luminous glass-and-black stone staircases — an aesthetic he described as “Blade Runner meets Paris.” It was a start-up that not only booked Beyoncé to play a staff party — it paid her with $6 million in restricted stock that quickly surged in value.
    The public Uber displays little of this braggadocio, and competitors and critics are moving in. Labor activists are pushing back against the lack of worker protections for drivers, and legislation could push up the driver minimum wage in cities like New York. The hype around Uber’s autonomous cars has died down, and until they arrive — if they ever do — the company will have a hard time reducing the costs it incurs paying drivers.
    In August, Uber posted its largest-ever quarterly loss, about $5.2 billion, as its revenue growth hit a record low. In cities around the world, Uber faces well-financed competitors offering a substantially similar product. And its food delivery business — a bright spot that executives point to for growth prospects — is in danger of becoming another cash-suck. Uber and most of its basically indistinguishable competitors (it names 10 of them in a recent filing) are subsidizing customers’ meals in a bid for market share, with profitability a secondary concern.
    Investors are internalizing these challenges. Interest in shorting Uber
    stock has only grown since the I.P.O., according to share borrowing data from IHS Markit, with pessimists betting some $2 billion that the price of shares will continue to fall.
    CreditSpencer Platt/Getty Images
    Dara Khosrowshahi, who replaced Mr. Kalanick as chief executive two years ago this week, is under pressure to cut costs wherever possible — laying off hundreds of marketing employees and even replacing the helium-filled balloons workers traditionally get on their hiring anniversary with stickers. Deflation is in the air. At a recent companywide meeting, one employee asked if the engineering division would be next to face reductions, a bad sign for a tech company in which morale rests on the ability to recruit the world’s top coding talent. (Uber has instituted a hiring freeze for some specific teams in the United States.)
    In combing through documents, interviewing opponents and talking to more than 200 current and former employees while researching my book, what came up again and again was this sense of a public-private divide — that Mr. Kalanick had built a start-up that thrived on venture investment, blitzkrieg expansion tactics and an ethically questionable aggressive streak, but that the playbook made little sense for a publicly traded entity.
    Mr. Kalanick required an almost hypnotic level of obedience from his staff in order to build the company he wanted. For that, he needed workers who were more than employees — he needed true believers.

    The cult of the founder


    The most vaunted title in Silicon Valley is, has been, and ever will be “founder.” It’s less of a title than a statement. “I made this,” the founder proclaims. “I invented it out of nothing. I conjured it into being.”
    If this sounds messianic, that’s because it is. Founder culture — or more accurately, founder worship — emerged as bedrock faith in Silicon Valley from several strains of quasi-religious philosophy. 1960s-era San Francisco embraced a sexual, chemical, hippie-led revolution inspired by dreams of liberated consciousness and utopian communities. This anti-establishment counterculture mixed surprisingly well with emerging ideas about the efficiency of individual greed and the gospel of creative destruction. Technologists began building services to uproot entrenched power structures and create new ways for society to function. Over the decades, the ethos informed the creation of ventures like Apple, Netscape, PayPal — and Uber.
    By 2009, when the company was founded, Silicon Valley saw a willingness to bend — and even break — the rules not as an unfortunate trait, but as a sign of a promising entrepreneur with a bright future. And people who knew Mr. Kalanick tended to remark on one thing: In every game he played, every race he entered, in anything where he was asked to compete against others, he sought nothing less than utter domination.
    Image
    CreditMichael Nagle/Bloomberg
    Early on, the start-up was called UberCab — a high-end black-car service for “ballers.” But quickly, by 2011, Mr. Kalanick recognized a moonshot-sized opportunity for a global transportation company. As he saw things, realizing this vision would require playing a game that was already dirty. The standards for fair play in the transportation industry had been crossed years ago by what he viewed as a mass of corrupt politicians, all in the pocket of Big Taxi — a “cartel,” as he frequently called his giant, yellow-and-black adversary. They were bent on blocking any challengers to the multibillion-dollar market. That meant Mr. Kalanick had to recruit dedicated followers who were willing to do whatever it took to win.
    This worldview created conditions for which Uber is still paying a price today. To run local branches around the world, Mr. Kalanick hired lieutenants who thought like him: ruthless and confident the money would never run out. He spun stories of Uber’s eventual ubiquity, providing “transportation as reliable as running water.” (Never mind, employees whispered, that water infrastructure isn’t always reliable in much of the world.) It wasn’t unheard-of for a new hire to enter Uber’s headquarters having never managed any significant enterprise, and be sent out to take over a new city.
    Mr. Kalanick trusted his employees with significant power. Each city’s general manager became a quasi-chief executive, given the autonomy to make major financial decisions. Empowering workers, Mr. Kalanick believed, was better than trying to micromanage every city. In many ways, the approach was smart: A Miami native would be better prepared to meld Uber to their own city than a transplant from San Francisco. But the drawbacks were costly. City bosses rarely had to check in with headquarters, and they began greenlighting seven-figure promotional campaigns based on little more than hunches and data from their personal spreadsheets.
    Other problems ranged from cultural — the New York office had a toxic bro culture that elicited harassment allegations and resignations — to legal. In Indonesia, Uber set up special “greenlight hubs” where drivers could quickly get inspections and other services, but the police threatened to shut them down over traffic concerns. Instead of moving the hubs, the local Uber managers decided to pay off the cops, with bribes of around 500,000 rupiah (about $30). They tended to take the money from petty cash, or forge receipts and submit them for reimbursement. The activity was the kind of corner cutting — and a possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — that allowed Uber to grow at unimaginable velocity, but with breathtaking risk. The Department of Justice is investigating the matter, as well as other activity in Malaysia, China and India, according to financial filings.
    Ethics were not a hallmark of Uber’s first decade. Once, in a meeting with staff, Mr. Kalanick was presented with a delicious new secret weapon by a handful of engineers on “workation.” (A workation was an unofficial Uber tradition: Instead of taking time off to relax, employees would volunteer to spend a period working on any kind of project they wanted.) According to two people familiar with the matter, a group of employees pitched a prototype Uber feature that would repurpose certain parts of a driver’s smartphone — specifically, the accelerometer and gyroscope — to detect notifications that came from the app of Lyft, Uber’s biggest competitor. If Uber knew that a driver worked for its rival, Uber could market itself differently to the driver to entice them away.
    In the meeting, the engineers described the project to managers, lawyers and Mr. Kalanick himself. The executives were excited but nervous. This could be a powerful new weapon in the war against Lyft. But detecting sounds in a driver’s car without permission was clearly invasive. After the presentation ended, Mr. Kalanick sat in silence. No one spoke.
    “O.K.,” he said, breaking the tension and nodding his approval. “I think this should be a thing.” He stood up and looked the engineers in the eye: “I don’t want the F.T.C. calling me about this, either.” Mr. Kalanick thanked everyone for coming, turned toward the door and dismissed the meeting.
    The feature, which would have outraged privacy hawks were it to become public, was never implemented. Other executives at the company later acknowledged the impracticality of building it, given simpler methods of tracking Uber’s competitors.
    Other poorly conceived ideas were put into practice, only to be cut loose after failing spectacularly. Take Uber’s ill-fated Xchange leasing program. At one point in Uber’s history, someone had the idea that there might be thousands of potential drivers who didn’t have enough collateral or credit history to secure a car loan. But Uber could overlook that and lease the cars anyway, requiring only that the lessee work off their obligation immediately by driving for Uber. The company began leasing to high-risk individuals with poor or nonexistent credit ratings.
    It worked — sort of. Growth surged as people who were never before eligible for loans suddenly had access to vehicles. Thousands of new drivers came onto the platform, and the managers in charge were given hefty rewards. But it was the ride-hailing equivalent of a subprime mortgage. And just like 2008, the negative consequences came soon after.
    Uber noticed that accidents and traffic infractions spiked after the company began the Xchange leasing program. They later figured out that many of the new drivers were the ones responsible. The managers had created a moral hazard, driving up insurance costs and potentially triggering a public relations and legal nightmare.
    Despite all the driver growth, Uber found it was losing more than $9,000 on each Xchange leasing deal, far above the initial estimated losses of $500 per car. Adding to the misery, many drivers found their credit even more damaged — all for a gig-economy job that returned less and less as the company garnished drivers’ wages.
    Such episodes help illustrate why many drivers, an essential constituency, have little love for Uber today. And that’s before the company begins trying to replace them with autonomous cars.
    Image
    CreditScott Heins for The New York Times
    For any start-up in Silicon Valley, there is no stronger imperative than growth.
    It is the maxim by which every entrepreneur lives. From the moment a founder signs their first term sheet from investors, they’ve made a pledge to make the start-up grow, grow, grow. If your start-up isn’t growing, your start-up is dying.
    But there’s growth, there’s growth at all costs, and then there’s Uber’s version of growth at all costs. By 2015, some company insiders believed Mr. Kalanick had an obsession with global expansion that crossed a line. He had tapped Ed Baker, a former Facebook executive, to increase South American ridership. In Brazil, Mr. Baker encouraged city managers in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro to amass as many riders and drivers as possible. To limit “friction,” Uber allowed riders to sign up without requiring them to provide identity beyond an email — easily faked — or a phone number. Most Brazilians used cash far more frequently than credit cards, which meant that after a long shift, a driver could be expected to be carrying a lot of money.
    Thieves and angry taxi cartels struck. A person could access Uber with a bogus email, then play a version of “Uber roulette”: They’d hail a car, then cause mayhem. Vehicles were stolen and burned; drivers were assaulted, robbed and occasionally murdered. The company stuck with the low-friction sign-up system, even as violence increased.
    In 2016, Osvaldo Luis Modolo Filho, a 52-year-old driver in Brazil, was murdered by a teenage couple who ordered a ride using a fake name. After stabbing Mr. Filho repeatedly with a pair of blue-handled kitchen knives, the couple took off in his black S.U.V., leaving him to die in the middle of the street.
    Mr. Kalanick and other Uber executives were not totally indifferent to the dangers drivers faced in emerging markets. But they had major blind spots because of their fixation on growth, their belief in technological solutions, and a casual application of financial incentives that often inflamed existing cultural problems. Mr. Kalanick was convinced that software made Uber cars inherently safer than traditional taxis, namely because rides were recorded and trackable by GPS. He held out faith that Uber could improve driver safety with code.
    The fixes didn’t come soon enough. Mr. Kalanick’s product team eventually improved identity verification and security in the app for Brazilian customers, after intense pressure from product and marketing leaders. But not before at least 16 drivers in Brazil were murdered.
    Image
    CreditJeenah Moon for The New York Times
    Take away Uber’s unbridled bellicosity, and what do you have left?
    A cash-burning enterprise with which investors are losing patience. A chief executive on a humility offensive, with the slogan “We do the right thing — period.” Stabs at new lines of business, like e-bikes and freight, with far-off promises that they will turn the company into a profitable “transportation platform.” Meanwhile, the core business is increasingly commoditized, as customers realize that many imitators are perfectly capable of getting them from A to B.
    Mr. Kalanick deserves credit for creating a world-changing company, one that scaled vertiginously from a modest black car service in San Francisco to a global brand in hundreds of cities. Those who invested first saw staggering returns. One frequent customer, Oren Michels, cut Mr. Kalanick a check for $5,000 early on. By the end of 2017, the stake had multiplied in value some 3,300 times, worth more than $15 million.
    The issue, as a number of financial commentators have pointed out, is that the gains have been captured almost entirely by pre-I.P.O. investors in the private market. Anyone who bought shares of Uber on the day of its stock market debut is in the red. Mr. Khosrowshahi, the C.E.O., has indicated that the company could lose money through 2021.
    On the night of the I.P.O., at a party on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Mr. Khosrowshahi toasted his employees. They were holding Big Macs — a nod to the Uber Eats platform — and glasses of Champagne, and many of them were painfully aware that they personally owned a great deal of the declining stock. Mr. Khosrowshahi attempted to inspire the troops.
    “Now is our time to prove ourselves,” he said. “Five years from now, tech companies that come I.P.O. after us will stand on this very trading floor and see what we’ve accomplished.”
    Using an expletive, he added, “They’ll say ‘Holy crap. I want to be Uber.’”
    They might. The question is: which Uber?