1st: It is possible for this to be completely imaginary and not imaginary at the same time... complex numbers. Life sucks. I had a fight over the offensive nature of Game of Thrones, the book. There are a couple of sexual scenes in the book. One party deemed those seems highly offensive. I on the other hand read them closely and wondered how anyone could consider consensual sex offensive. Not just consensual, but proactive consensual. Martin managed to demonstrate explicit consent by both parties inside a paragraph with almost 0 dialog. The entire dialog was "No?" I could not manage to get the other party to comprehend how brilliant that example was. All they could see was the colloquial words for the genitalia involved.
2nd: 1st step in any of this is for someone to say "STOP!". But then I remember the sexual assault video done by Popeye. He was doing the military press will Olive Oil as the bar bell. She kept saying "DON'T"... kiss... "STOP!"
On one side, clearly Popeye should have stopped RIGHT? On the other side, it was also potentially clear to say that Olive Oil did not want him to stop. Both interpretations were left wide open. COMPLETELY OPEN. Both interpretations were correct. Both interpretation were completely correct. Had he stopped she would have wanted him to stop. Had he not stopped there is a good chance she didn't want hime to stop.
Unraveling this is not easy. Making the chain of evidence happen to a paint a company as 'evil' is actually pretty easy.
No matter what, there is an equation that makes it even harder...
Revenue > Expense. The people who keep revenue flowing into your system are granted a little more leeway than the people who aren't keeping revenue flowing into the system. Uber needs every dollar it can get flowing into its system.