> I wouldn't consider one of the (100?) investors Uber has to be responsible for Uber's actions
Not fully responsible, but still responsible. IMHO we are accountable for the consequences of our actions. As an extreme example, I shouldn't fund someone who uses slave labor. If I knowingly funded someone's violent, criminal act, I would go to jail.
I think the bar for criticizing an existing portfolio company should be far higher than the bar for declining to make an investment (and potentially telling the company why you're declining...not often done, but if it's due to a moral reason, probably worth it.)
Criminal activity is clearly a line which can't be crossed even for existing portfolio, but I don't think an investor is the one in a position to deal with that -- it's more for regulators.
Exiting the investment is probably the course I'd take before publicly calling out a portfolio company, for "non-criminal but terminally bad-for-brand" reasons.
Internal corporate governance (board/shareholder actions) would be before that, and extreme internal pressure before that. I'm absolutely not calling for investors to just let stupid stuff pass; I just don't blame investors for not taking action when not required, and I think there's a defined escalation path which doesn't include an open letter to a portfolio company which isn't public.
Not fully responsible, but still responsible. IMHO we are accountable for the consequences of our actions. As an extreme example, I shouldn't fund someone who uses slave labor. If I knowingly funded someone's violent, criminal act, I would go to jail.