Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

[Uber]: Disrupting Livery Service (And Ethics)

1235779

Posts

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    also so much overwrought pearl-clutching over the "boober" comment jesus culminating with

    "So, I’m turning that advice on myself: I’ve finally deleted Uber from my phone. For one thing, I increasingly don’t feel safe as a woman taking it, frequently late at night and alone. I’ve got a good solid alternative in Lyft, and life is too precious for me to put mine at risk."

    lol.

    what a joke.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
    programjunkieApothe0sis
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Preacher wrote: »
    I see shoot the messenger "its buzzfeed/gawker" so hard in your comment. And Uber's business practice of "lets do something against the law and then try and change the law while risking the lower wage 'contractors'" cements my opinion the execs are dog shit.

    And I don't buy this "he was drunk he didn't mean it" defense. Because maybe its different for you upper class peeps, but for us lower class ones, even at social events, if you drunkenly tell someone in your office something that is "blowing off steam" that shit can still doom your career just as hard as anything else.

    I see this as so much upper class money privilege, attacking the messengers, complaining the event was off the record, and then the fall back of all kinds of assholes "I didn't mean it."

    first off, i'm not an "upper class peep" in any way but thanks!

    secondly, dinner party attribution is something that traditionally ended up in gossip rags and tabloids. you know the ones that say "KIM: IT'S OVER" in the grocery store every week. the fact that you're willing to take this sort of "journalism" as a basis for "what's going on in the world" is a sad fact of the internet era i guess. do you also follow the drudge report and motley fool?

    there's a world of difference between "drunken exec shoots his mouth off to dinner companion - dumb journalist call me an asshole why i oughta" to "uber engages in chilling campaign of doxing terror on journalism" but jesus does that line get elided by angry people on the internet

    Wqdwp8l.png
    mcdermottApothe0sisKraint
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    And his comments were supported by at least one Uber investor in Ashton Kutcher, who is an idiot, but again he's an investor in their company and would support attacking journalists.

    Besides "off the record" is bullshit. Mitt Romney's 47% comment was off the record but it damn sure shaped his policy vision for america, had it not come out we might be dealing with the Romney presidency right now.

    there's an enormous difference between laying out your plans to campaign contributors and between drunkenly venting to a dinner companion

    the article was literally centered around personally singling out particular tech execs as "assholes". the article had very little, if anything, to do with the actual operations or machinations of the companies. of course people are going to respond personally to that.

    and you know i'm not even arguing that this dude is not an asshole. i'm sure he is! but maybe assessing what uber actually does is more important than pretending that anything buzzfeed or gawker has to say amounts to "journalism"

    The article was about how an entrenched culture of misogyny at Uber, supported by the conduct of the C-tier, had effects that trickled down through the company - like the "hot female driver" promotion that was run in France, and was only pulled (quietly) when it was publicized. As Lacy points out, she doesn't feel that she can trust her safety to a company with that sort of culture.

    Furthermore, it bothers me how people are trying to just dismiss what he said as "venting". He didn't just complain about the critical press - he said that Uber would be justified in going after journalists critical of Uber personally, then outlined how he would go about doing that, and insinuated that he could pull up something specific about Lacy. That is quite a bit more than venting.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    And his comments were supported by at least one Uber investor in Ashton Kutcher, who is an idiot, but again he's an investor in their company and would support attacking journalists.

    Besides "off the record" is bullshit. Mitt Romney's 47% comment was off the record but it damn sure shaped his policy vision for america, had it not come out we might be dealing with the Romney presidency right now.

    there's an enormous difference between laying out your plans to campaign contributors and between drunkenly venting to a dinner companion

    the article was literally centered around personally singling out particular tech execs as "assholes". the article had very little, if anything, to do with the actual operations or machinations of the companies. of course people are going to respond personally to that.

    and you know i'm not even arguing that this dude is not an asshole. i'm sure he is! but maybe assessing what uber actually does is more important than pretending that anything buzzfeed or gawker has to say amounts to "journalism"

    The article was about how an entrenched culture of misogyny at Uber, supported by the conduct of the C-tier, had effects that trickled down through the company - like the "hot female driver" promotion that was run in France, and was only pulled (quietly) when it was publicized. As Lacy points out, she doesn't feel that she can trust her safety to a company with that sort of culture.

    Furthermore, it bothers me how people are trying to just dismiss what he said as "venting". He didn't just complain about the critical press - he said that Uber would be justified in going after journalists critical of Uber personally, then outlined how he would go about doing that, and insinuated that he could pull up something specific about Lacy. That is quite a bit more than venting.

    so it's been a while since i've been to france, but i was astonished at how erotic and raunchy tv spots and adverts were over there. the avions de chasse thing is probably best viewed in its own cultural context, as it was almost certainly commissioned to and executed by a french advertising firm. is it important to boycott perrier and orangina because of their icky erotic commercials they run in france? surely lacy will feel safer with good old poland springs and sunkist.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    Apothe0sis
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    And his comments were supported by at least one Uber investor in Ashton Kutcher, who is an idiot, but again he's an investor in their company and would support attacking journalists.

    Besides "off the record" is bullshit. Mitt Romney's 47% comment was off the record but it damn sure shaped his policy vision for america, had it not come out we might be dealing with the Romney presidency right now.

    there's an enormous difference between laying out your plans to campaign contributors and between drunkenly venting to a dinner companion

    the article was literally centered around personally singling out particular tech execs as "assholes". the article had very little, if anything, to do with the actual operations or machinations of the companies. of course people are going to respond personally to that.

    and you know i'm not even arguing that this dude is not an asshole. i'm sure he is! but maybe assessing what uber actually does is more important than pretending that anything buzzfeed or gawker has to say amounts to "journalism"

    The article was about how an entrenched culture of misogyny at Uber, supported by the conduct of the C-tier, had effects that trickled down through the company - like the "hot female driver" promotion that was run in France, and was only pulled (quietly) when it was publicized. As Lacy points out, she doesn't feel that she can trust her safety to a company with that sort of culture.

    Furthermore, it bothers me how people are trying to just dismiss what he said as "venting". He didn't just complain about the critical press - he said that Uber would be justified in going after journalists critical of Uber personally, then outlined how he would go about doing that, and insinuated that he could pull up something specific about Lacy. That is quite a bit more than venting.

    so it's been a while since i've been to france, but i was astonished at how erotic and raunchy tv spots and adverts were over there. the avions de chasse thing is probably best viewed in its own cultural context, as it was almost certainly commissioned to and executed by a french advertising firm. is it important to boycott perrier and orangina because of their icky erotic commercials they run in france? surely lacy will feel safer with good old poland springs and sunkist.

    The perrier commercial where the woman gives the bottle a hand job is one of my favorite lol france ads.

    Yeah, I suspect uber would never dream of running that promotion in America, and France in general is a flirty and raunchy culture that probably wasn't super offended by it like people over here seem to be.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Waitaminute, their "culture of misogyny" is based off an ad campaign run in France?

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
    Apothe0sis
  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Waitaminute, their "culture of misogyny" is based off an ad campaign run in France?

    No. It's based off the fact that the current blue-tribe narrative requires a culture of misogyny in tech companies.

    Maybe Uber is more misogynistic than other tech companies. I wouldn't know. I know that Buzzfeed and similar sites would dig until they found evidence that a culture of misogyny existed, because that's what they already know is true.

    The model of modern journalism (and Buzzfeed certainly isn't unique in this) isn't "x happened, we now need to report on it", it's "We need to report on x, so go find something similar." Maybe that's an ad in france, maybe that's a drunken rant at a party, whatever, doesn't matter. You start with the narrative and then you search until you can prove it's true, which you eventually will because the world is a big place where lots of things happen. Then you have your story, which proves what you and your readers really knew all along, that your tribe is right about everything and the other tribe is terrible.

    Squidget0 on
    Arch wrote: »
    the lynch mob is a feature, not a bug in the democratic system
    Irond WillmcdermottDeebaserprogramjunkieabotkinDaedalusLeitnerHacksawan_altApothe0sis
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Seek and ye shall find.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Waitaminute, their "culture of misogyny" is based off an ad campaign run in France?

    No, that was jus the straw that broke Lacy's metaphorical back. She pointed out in her piece that they have issues with prioritizing the safety of women with their service (It's been documented that they have accused women who have claimed to have been assaulted by Uber drivers of lying), and that the CEO has made openly sexist remarks.

    As for why the Avions concept was problematic, this piece by a former Lyft driver explains why:
    Another thing that bothered me about driving was passengers’ overall attitude towards the system. As a New Yorker, I’d never really thought about how I treated drivers when I took a taxi; I was always reasonably polite and tipped generously, but usually just talked to my friends or played on my phone. Now, I noticed how uncomfortable the dynamic could be, how rarely my passengers treated me as though I were an actual human being. I was regularly casually insulted or talked through, and although I joke about it often, I was very surprised to learn how awkward it was to have complete strangers making out furiously in the back of your own car (I spent that entire ride silently repenting for my drunken twenties).

    ...

    My passengers asked me often how safe I felt as a female Lyft driver, and in an effort to keep the conversation light and pleasant (which I hoped would result in higher ratings), I lied through my teeth and told them everything was fine – that the nature of ride-sharing was so awkward and strange that people were often very pleasant and polite, and that I’d made a lot of great friends this way. I told them about how the drivers rate the passengers the same way the passengers rate the drivers, so I always knew what I was getting into and never felt like I was in danger. Truthfully, I worried about my own safety more often than not, and because it was so hard to catch a fare to begin with, I never turned down a ride no matter how inconvenient the location was, how low the passenger’s rating was or how uncomfortable the passenger made me. I simply wasn’t making enough money to be choosy, and declining or missing rides impeded my ability to earn percentage bonuses for hours spent in driver mode (Our acceptance rate had to be 90% or higher to collect bonuses, and every little bit helped). Before I signed up with Lyft, a female Uber driver had showed me all the places she’d hidden pepper spray around her car just in case she found herself assaulted. I thought spraying pepper spray inside a small vehicle sounded like a terrible idea, but I did wonder often what I’d do in that position. On only two occasions, I did have to cancel a ride due to concerns over my own safety or the safety of my car, and in both cases I was extremely lucky that the passengers in question exited my vehicle without a struggle.

    ...

    If the public were searching for clues regarding how these companies feel about the women who work for them, Uber gave the world a remarkable hint when it rolled out a daring new promotion in conjunction with an app called “Avions de Chasse.” Through their partnership with Uber, riders in Lyon, France could be paired exclusively with hot female drivers for a special ride with a twenty-minute time limit – with the tagline “Who said women don’t know how to drive?” As the English version of the app’s website explains, “‘Avions de chasse’ is the French term for ‘fighter jets,’ but also the colloquial term to designate an incredibly hot chick. Lucky you! the world’s most beautiful ‘Avions’ are waiting for you on this app. Seat back, relax and let them take you on cloud 9!” It’s unclear what exactly the Avions de Chasse app is actually for, but for unaffiliated women who are regular drivers for Uber, the implication that their job involves being an object for the male gaze is troubling.

    (TL;DR: the nature of being a cab driver includes a bit of dehumanization (It's a cultural problem with all service jobs, to be fair), which is why it's a relatively dangerous job. It's worse for women, and they're not really in a position to turn down fares. An ad campaign that pushes the idea that female drivers are supposed to be viewed as a sexual object amplifies those problems.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited November 2014
    1) Everything she just said applies to every woman who drives a car for a living period and has fuckall to do with uber or lyft.

    2) The fact that you are choosing to disregard the cultural context of the French promotional campaign because it hurts the point you are trying to make is telling. McDonalds serves beer in germany and they would get all kinds of shit doing that in america because the company means something different here and cultural norms don't like beer being served in places that offer toys in the meal box. This was uber, through a local ad agency, playing to their local market. And your judgmental attitude towards it is through your own cultural lens and is kind of a goosey thing to do.



    ----

    Like, please, focus on the points that matter. Insurance for drivers is a trainwreck apparently. A "god mode" app is horrifying if it is being abused. Local laws and modern companies need to find some common ground while shaking up entrenched and poisonous older industries.

    This particular sideshow is harming the ability to actually affect change.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    Apothe0sis
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Waitaminute, their "culture of misogyny" is based off an ad campaign run in France?

    No. It's based off the fact that the current blue-tribe narrative requires a culture of misogyny in tech companies.

    Yes, because it's not like there is a growing amount of evidence that there is a massive amount of misogyny in the tech sector. (Seriously, we could do an entire thread on that topic.)

    This is why the tribalism argument is sloppy thinking - it's an attempt to dismiss arguments by saying that the person holding them doesn't hold them honestly, but instead holds them because they are an "identifier". And thus, there is no need to address the argument itself.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    1) Everything she just said applies to every woman who drives a car for a living period and has fuckall to do with uber or lyft.

    2) The fact that you are choosing to disregard the cultural context of the French promotional campaign because it hurts the point you are trying to make is telling. McDonalds serves beer in germany and they would get all kinds of shit doing that in america because the company means something different here and cultural norms don't like beer being served in places that offer toys in the meal box. This was uber, through a local ad agency, playing to their local market. And your judgmental attitude towards it is through your own cultural lens and is kind of a goosey thing to do.



    ----

    Like, please, focus on the points that matter. Insurance for drivers is a trainwreck apparently. A "god mode" app is horrifying if it is being abused. Local laws and modern companies need to find some common ground while shaking up entrenched and poisonous older industries.

    This particular sideshow is harming the ability to actually affect change.

    Or, you know, maybe I just reject the concept of cultural relativism, especially when it comes to the objectification of women. "It's their culture" is a very weak defense, especially when not everyone there agrees that the sexual culture is healthy. And this stuff does matter, because it's this sort of crap that makes women not feel like they belong fully.

    But, getting to what you want to discuss, Toronto is seeking an injunction against Uber. They don't have a problem with the service, they just refuse to classify it as anything but a cab company - which is perfectly reasonable. Needless to say, Uber is throwing a tantrum, accusing the city government of standing in the way of progress.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Captain MarcusGnome-InterruptusShadowhope
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    I have to throw back to the discussion of weather surges...I hold a cdl. I drove commercially along i80 in southern wyoming for years. I grew up with a hardship driver's license and have been operating 4wd vehicles in the snow since I was 10. I own a well maintained, late model awd sedan that is uber qualifying. I also have chains and specialized tires. If I move to austin Texas and an occasional Austin snow drives 95% of their uber cars off the road, is it fair of me to charge for my unique skill and equipment?

    mcdermottElvenshae
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I don't think anyone has an issue with a weather premium, other than if the conditions are so terrible no one should be driving it can lead to people who don't have your skills hurting themselves or others because of the allure of money.

    And honestly no one is 100% in any weather condition no matter how good they are at something.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    syndalisIrond WillGnome-Interruptus
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    I have to throw back to the discussion of weather surges...I hold a cdl. I drove commercially along i80 in southern wyoming for years. I grew up with a hardship driver's license and have been operating 4wd vehicles in the snow since I was 10. I own a well maintained, late model awd sedan that is uber qualifying. I also have chains and specialized tires. If I move to austin Texas and an occasional Austin snow drives 95% of their uber cars off the road, is it fair of me to charge for my unique skill and equipment?

    Absolutely, as your own enterprise you are allowed to set the price wherever you want, just like uber. And so long as you follow the rules of the road, there is nothing wrong with this. The difference is that you have specialized hardware, a specialized license, and years of experience doing this.

    The guy who came from Southern India to start a new life who has never really driven in snow and is back on his rent probably shouldn't pick up passengers in the middle of a blizzard, but getting anywhere from 150-300 dollars to get people home when you normally only make 20-40 is essentially enticing risky behavior for financial payout... and uber won't pick up the tab if you get in a car crash on the way to the fare.

    THIS is something that needs some adjusting.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    mcdermottJuliusfugacityThorn413
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I mean I know in my part of the country several hundred idiots say they know how to drive in the snow and the second we get 1 inch on the ground they are the first moron in the ditch in their suv with snow tires on.

    Me I know my limitations and when there is snow on the ground I drive when I have to and only on plowed streets, otherwise I just stay home and go "What the fuck Western Washington WE HAD A DEAL!"

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    mcdermottMatev
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has an issue with a weather premium, other than if the conditions are so terrible no one should be driving it can lead to people who don't have your skills hurting themselves or others because of the allure of money.

    And honestly no one is 100% in any weather condition no matter how good they are at something.

    That's true of a flat dry road in June.
    You'd rather be with me in the snow than a random driver on a dry oval, trust me.

    But ignoring that, we have a system for closing the roads. Short of that, people gonna drive.

    The notion that work being risky is unworthy of pay because it might induce people to do the work isn't solid, on its own.

    At worst it's an argument for some regulation

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Again I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't get paid for taking a risk. What we are saying is that people faced with the chance of making more money for driving in perilous conditions will make bad decisions and hurt people/property.

    And it is a call for regulation, its a great call for regulation.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    mcdermottJuliusGnome-Interruptus
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    But, getting to what you want to discuss, Toronto is seeking an injunction against Uber. They don't have a problem with the service, they just refuse to classify it as anything but a cab company - which is perfectly reasonable. Needless to say, Uber is throwing a tantrum, accusing the city government of standing in the way of progress.

    i don't have an issue with this. there's some legislative and regulatory grey area between hackney licensure and livery licensure and ride-sharing. if a municipality wants to regulate that it's their right (i assume, i don't know canadian laws) and it's the right of uber to appeal or whatever (again idk canada).

    i hope for my sake that boston doesn't accede to the demands of the three dudes who own all the taxi medallions in the city and shut down uber because the boston hackney system is a violation of the public trust and public interest that will perpetuate itself forever unless actually disrupted.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    mcdermottApothe0sis
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    But, getting to what you want to discuss, Toronto is seeking an injunction against Uber. They don't have a problem with the service, they just refuse to classify it as anything but a cab company - which is perfectly reasonable. Needless to say, Uber is throwing a tantrum, accusing the city government of standing in the way of progress.

    i don't have an issue with this. there's some legislative and regulatory grey area between hackney licensure and livery licensure and ride-sharing. if a municipality wants to regulate that it's their right (i assume, i don't know canadian laws) and it's the right of uber to appeal or whatever (again idk canada).

    i hope for my sake that boston doesn't accede to the demands of the three dudes who own all the taxi medallions in the city and shut down uber because the boston hackney system is a violation of the public trust and public interest that will perpetuate itself forever unless actually disrupted.

    The simple fact is that Uber is not ridesharing now (and I don't think it ever was, to be honest.) It's simply another livery service that uses a different means to dispatch cars. There really is no need for new designations for the firm. And I think that the firm pushes for these new designations just so they can avoid being regulated. And they tend to not want to work with regulators at all. It's been pointed out that the NYC TLC was willing to work with Uber on allowing taxicabs to be hailed online, but it required time to allow processing contracts to expire and laws restricting remote requesting of cabs to be changed. But that wasn't fast enough for Uber.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    shrykeJuliusGnome-Interruptus
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    As a side effect of the Uber and its ilk of car delivery I'd like to see auto insurance changed to accommodate these services better. But haha changing insurance in america to benefit consumers? Oh man tell me another one!

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    DeebasermcdermottApothe0sis
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    I've hailed a yellow cab with uber before uberx was a thing. More than a few times the cabs would accept and cancel. Why should they come to me when they can pick up any schmo off the street with his arm in the air? Also, payments still had to run through the meter.

    Uber should be treated as a livery imo and NYC is doing the right thing by requiring the drivers to have TLC licenses. If they required similar insurance that made sure everything was above board and wasn't aimed at crucifying the drivers that would be the best case.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
    Irond WillApothe0sis
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Preacher wrote: »
    Again I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't get paid for taking a risk. What we are saying is that people faced with the chance of making more money for driving in perilous conditions will make bad decisions and hurt people/property.

    And it is a call for regulation, its a great call for regulation.

    Surges aren't exclusively for "perilous conditions". They're for periods of high demand and low supply. That could be intense weather conditions or it could be wanting a ride at 1AM on New Years Eve.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    But, getting to what you want to discuss, Toronto is seeking an injunction against Uber. They don't have a problem with the service, they just refuse to classify it as anything but a cab company - which is perfectly reasonable. Needless to say, Uber is throwing a tantrum, accusing the city government of standing in the way of progress.

    i don't have an issue with this. there's some legislative and regulatory grey area between hackney licensure and livery licensure and ride-sharing. if a municipality wants to regulate that it's their right (i assume, i don't know canadian laws) and it's the right of uber to appeal or whatever (again idk canada).

    i hope for my sake that boston doesn't accede to the demands of the three dudes who own all the taxi medallions in the city and shut down uber because the boston hackney system is a violation of the public trust and public interest that will perpetuate itself forever unless actually disrupted.

    The simple fact is that Uber is not ridesharing now (and I don't think it ever was, to be honest.) It's simply another livery service that uses a different means to dispatch cars. There really is no need for new designations for the firm. And I think that the firm pushes for these new designations just so they can avoid being regulated. And they tend to not want to work with regulators at all. It's been pointed out that the NYC TLC was willing to work with Uber on allowing taxicabs to be hailed online, but it required time to allow processing contracts to expire and laws restricting remote requesting of cabs to be changed. But that wasn't fast enough for Uber.

    you can still call a yellow cab with uber in boston

    ofc why would you do that when yellow cabs are worse in pretty much every way from any of the uber offerings?

    i don't blame them for meeting an unfilled market or for making use of a gap in the regulatory structure, nor for fighting for their interests in court. taxis (in boston) offer a shit service and are only in business because of logrolling and rent-seeking. there are plenty of times and places where republicans' recurring paean to "clumsy and bad regulation stifling innovation and the public benefit" are bullshit but this is not one of those times.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    mcdermottMrMisterFeralLoren MichaelApothe0sis
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    As a side effect of the Uber and its ilk of car delivery I'd like to see auto insurance changed to accommodate these services better. But haha changing insurance in america to benefit consumers? Oh man tell me another one!

    This is where I have to disagree somewhat. The problem isn't really that auto insurance needs to change, but that the drivers need to have it better communicated to them that they are working as a commercial driver now. That said, temporary commercial riders could be a growth opportunity here.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    JuliusGnome-Interruptusmcdermott
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Again I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't get paid for taking a risk. What we are saying is that people faced with the chance of making more money for driving in perilous conditions will make bad decisions and hurt people/property.

    And it is a call for regulation, its a great call for regulation.

    Surges aren't exclusively for "perilous conditions". They're for periods of high demand and low supply. That could be intense weather conditions or it could be wanting a ride at 1AM on New Years Eve.

    I understand that, but what Johnny was talking about and where others have an issue with some of the surges are during dangerous road conditions. I have no issue for surge pricing when its not weather keeping people from driving but a busy night, that's fine it shouldn't effect conditions too badly and paying premium for a premium service is to be expected. I have an issue when its a premium to encourage people to drive when they really shouldn't be.

    Much the same way I hate businesses that are open during bad weather because they are basically expecting employees to brave terrible conditions and that causes serious problems for all people involved (plus you know snow day god damn it!)

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Gnome-Interruptusmcdermott
  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Waitaminute, their "culture of misogyny" is based off an ad campaign run in France?

    No. It's based off the fact that the current blue-tribe narrative requires a culture of misogyny in tech companies.

    Yes, because it's not like there is a growing amount of evidence that there is a massive amount of misogyny in the tech sector. (Seriously, we could do an entire thread on that topic.)

    This is why the tribalism argument is sloppy thinking - it's an attempt to dismiss arguments by saying that the person holding them doesn't hold them honestly, but instead holds them because they are an "identifier". And thus, there is no need to address the argument itself.

    The issue isn't whether or not they earnestly believe it. I'm sure they do believe that they're hunting down bad guys. The issue is that the belief comes irrespective of the action. No matter what actions <popular new tech company> actually took, there will be articles on Buzzfeed about how they had a misogynist culture and are hurting innocents (especially women, who everyone knows are always victims of everything.)

    By way of comparison, you're walking down the street with your friend Bill O'Reilly, and he points to a group of muslims and says "They look dangerous." Now, maybe those muslims are ISIS and maybe they're doctors for the Red Cross, but Bill would say they looked dangerous either way and so he's not a reliable source. His information has told you nothing about the muslims and everything about Bill.

    So it is with you and tech companies. You'll believe anything terrible that is said about them, and Buzzfeed knows as much, so they'll make sure to keep saying terrible things regardless of what is actually happening.

    Squidget0 on
    Arch wrote: »
    the lynch mob is a feature, not a bug in the democratic system
    DaedalusJebus314programjunkieYoshuaan_altApothe0sis
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    As a side effect of the Uber and its ilk of car delivery I'd like to see auto insurance changed to accommodate these services better. But haha changing insurance in america to benefit consumers? Oh man tell me another one!

    I don't think this is something that will happen and I don't think it's desirable. Keeping personal insurance separated from commercial insurance is a good idea.

    syndalis
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    As a side effect of the Uber and its ilk of car delivery I'd like to see auto insurance changed to accommodate these services better. But haha changing insurance in america to benefit consumers? Oh man tell me another one!

    I don't think this is something that will happen and I don't think it's desirable. Keeping personal insurance separated from commercial insurance is a good idea.

    I don't think it should be on the personal side, I just think maybe a different version for commercial insurance? I admit I know next to nothing about commercial insurance.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Waitaminute, their "culture of misogyny" is based off an ad campaign run in France?

    No. It's based off the fact that the current blue-tribe narrative requires a culture of misogyny in tech companies.

    Yes, because it's not like there is a growing amount of evidence that there is a massive amount of misogyny in the tech sector. (Seriously, we could do an entire thread on that topic.)

    This is why the tribalism argument is sloppy thinking - it's an attempt to dismiss arguments by saying that the person holding them doesn't hold them honestly, but instead holds them because they are an "identifier". And thus, there is no need to address the argument itself.

    The issue isn't whether or not they earnestly believe it. I'm sure they do believe that they're hunting down bad guys. The issue is that the belief comes irrespective of the action. No matter what actions <popular new tech company> actually took, there will be articles on Buzzfeed about how they had a misogynist culture and are hurting innocents (especially women, who everyone knows are always victims of everything.)

    By way of comparison, you're walking down the street with your friend Bill O'Reilly, and he points to a group of muslims and says "They look dangerous." Now, maybe those muslims are ISIS and maybe they're doctors for the Red Cross, but Bill would say they looked dangerous either way and so he's not a reliable source. His information has told you nothing about the muslims and everything about Bill.

    So it is with you and tech companies. You'll believe anything terrible that is said about them, and Buzzfeed knows as much, so they'll make sure to keep saying terrible things regardless of what is actually happening.

    So, what you are saying is all the sexist things that these companies do don't happen? Or that you don't agree that they are sexist?

    If it's the former, then you're choosing to be willfully blind. If it's the latter, then you are welcome to your stance, but you have to actually defend your position, not just state "well, I disagree."

    And the problem with your analogy is that what is being pointed out is not individuals, but actions. Again, you have the right to say "well, I don't think that is sexist," but you have to be able to defend why you say that. You seem to be arguing that your defense can be "well, you just see sexism everywhere!", which is sloppy thinking meant to avoid arguing the point on the merits.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I see shoot the messenger "its buzzfeed/gawker" so hard in your comment. And Uber's business practice of "lets do something against the law and then try and change the law while risking the lower wage 'contractors'" cements my opinion the execs are dog shit.

    And I don't buy this "he was drunk he didn't mean it" defense. Because maybe its different for you upper class peeps, but for us lower class ones, even at social events, if you drunkenly tell someone in your office something that is "blowing off steam" that shit can still doom your career just as hard as anything else.

    I see this as so much upper class money privilege, attacking the messengers, complaining the event was off the record, and then the fall back of all kinds of assholes "I didn't mean it."

    first off, i'm not an "upper class peep" in any way but thanks!

    secondly, dinner party attribution is something that traditionally ended up in gossip rags and tabloids. you know the ones that say "KIM: IT'S OVER" in the grocery store every week. the fact that you're willing to take this sort of "journalism" as a basis for "what's going on in the world" is a sad fact of the internet era i guess. do you also follow the drudge report and motley fool?

    there's a world of difference between "drunken exec shoots his mouth off to dinner companion - dumb journalist call me an asshole why i oughta" to "uber engages in chilling campaign of doxing terror on journalism" but jesus does that line get elided by angry people on the internet

    This is one I meant to come back to. The thing is, Will, this wasn't a dinner party, at least in the sense that you are used to. This was a form of press junket, where Uber was trying to wine and dine people who they felt could help reshape the public image of Uber, which has been getting a beating in the press. Wolff himself even admits as such:
    In an effort to argue its case with more care and professionalism, Uber has recently organized some background meetings with journalists and what are called in the PR trade, "influentials." I was invited to one such dinner last week in a private room at the Waverly Inn in New York.

    So no, "dinner party" rules don't apply, because this was a PR event.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Gnome-InterruptusshrykeIncenjucar
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    As a side effect of the Uber and its ilk of car delivery I'd like to see auto insurance changed to accommodate these services better. But haha changing insurance in america to benefit consumers? Oh man tell me another one!

    I don't think this is something that will happen and I don't think it's desirable. Keeping personal insurance separated from commercial insurance is a good idea.

    I don't think it should be on the personal side, I just think maybe a different version for commercial insurance? I admit I know next to nothing about commercial insurance.

    I'm sure ride for hire is another animal, but when I took my car for business travel I just had them change the code on my policy to cover work use, and it bumped my rate slightly. No big deal.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    As a side effect of the Uber and its ilk of car delivery I'd like to see auto insurance changed to accommodate these services better. But haha changing insurance in america to benefit consumers? Oh man tell me another one!

    I don't think this is something that will happen and I don't think it's desirable. Keeping personal insurance separated from commercial insurance is a good idea.

    I don't think it should be on the personal side, I just think maybe a different version for commercial insurance? I admit I know next to nothing about commercial insurance.

    I'm sure ride for hire is another animal, but when I took my car for business travel I just had them change the code on my policy to cover work use, and it bumped my rate slightly. No big deal.

    Business travel != commercial driving, though.

    Edit: Basically, there's a vast difference between using your own vehicle to travel to work sites, and using it as a means of work. (If we were talking aviation, you can use a private pilot's license to fly to and from work sites, but if you are flying for hire, that requires a commercial license - at least.) As such, the policies are going to be structured a lot differently.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    JuliusGnome-Interruptus
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    1) Everything she just said applies to every woman who drives a car for a living period and has fuckall to do with uber or lyft.

    2) The fact that you are choosing to disregard the cultural context of the French promotional campaign because it hurts the point you are trying to make is telling. McDonalds serves beer in germany and they would get all kinds of shit doing that in america because the company means something different here and cultural norms don't like beer being served in places that offer toys in the meal box. This was uber, through a local ad agency, playing to their local market. And your judgmental attitude towards it is through your own cultural lens and is kind of a goosey thing to do.



    ----

    Like, please, focus on the points that matter. Insurance for drivers is a trainwreck apparently. A "god mode" app is horrifying if it is being abused. Local laws and modern companies need to find some common ground while shaking up entrenched and poisonous older industries.

    This particular sideshow is harming the ability to actually affect change.

    Or, you know, maybe I just reject the concept of cultural relativism, especially when it comes to the objectification of women. "It's their culture" is a very weak defense, especially when not everyone there agrees that the sexual culture is healthy. And this stuff does matter, because it's this sort of crap that makes women not feel like they belong fully.

    But, getting to what you want to discuss, Toronto is seeking an injunction against Uber. They don't have a problem with the service, they just refuse to classify it as anything but a cab company - which is perfectly reasonable. Needless to say, Uber is throwing a tantrum, accusing the city government of standing in the way of progress.

    Hang on, how do you square rejection of cultural relativism with your decrying "cultural imperialism" in that other thread? It seems like you'd have to pick one or the other.

    Apothe0sis
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2014
    I am unfazed by the drunken suggestion by an Uber peep that they might wage a campaign of reputation-assassination on a critic, or the suggestion that such a campaign might be run duplicitously, so as to conceal the company as the true source of the attacks. As far as I can tell, literally every PR firm will do that when they're trying to manage critical press. It should absolutely be against the law--the duplicity, not the critical response--but it isn't. And so of course any corporation with two pennies to rub together, and, notably, our own government, engages in such malicious and deliberately untraceable whisper campaigns. Being scandalized that Uber might do this misplaces the outrage: what is outrageous is that everyone does this.

    I am also unsurprised that Uber offloads liability onto its drivers. Offloading liability has reached a high art in corporate America; half the point of the very-popular franchise model is to mobilize local capital, but the other half is to insulate parent companies from local liability. If something terrible happens at your local McDonalds, then odds are that your local owner is going to be on the hook and McDonalds Inc won't owe a dime. There is no way that Uber, a company worth nearly 20 billion dollars, has not yet hired a legal department specializing in that.

    So in a way, I agree with critics: if Uber, or other tech startups, are trying to feed us this line that "you absolutely don't need to worry about us doing all that gross, exploitative, boss stuff! That's for old dudes in suits; but we're young dudes in shorts and polos!" then we should absolutely respond with "bullshit." That's not how it works. It doesn't matter what you wear, the structure of the economy is such that 20 billion dollars of capital simply cannot collect in a for-profit entity without creating an incredible institutional pressure toward the gross, exploitative, boss stuff.

    But, in another way, the response seems totally misdirected to me. Of course we should pursue aggressive regulations for Uber, locking them into appropriate liability, controlling the wages they can use to attract drivers, rejecting classifications of the drivers as 'contractors' not subject to labor law, and so on and so forth. We should do this the way we do for all companies, representing as they do the voracious maw of capitalism. But we shouldn't try to destroy the Uber service. It's just better than competing services. We want people to be providing that service! The generation of such new and improved services is the whole point of the market economy. And competing companies, like taxi services, that want to murder it in the crib through strangleholds on local government are acting out of their own anti-social motives just as much as Uber is.

    MrMister on
    Squidget0FeralIrond WillshrykeGnome-InterruptusLoren MichaelprogramjunkieRMS Oceanicfugacitywandering
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Oh, destroying Uber would be totally ok with me. The concept is fine, but SV needs a "no, you don't get to shit on the law just because" smack in the nose every so often- in this case "No, you don't get to run an unlicensed taxi service".

    Change the regulations- absolutely. Sue to force them to, even. Just say "fuck you" though, no. Taxi service is not the kind of stakes you get to do that for.

    Phoenix-D on
    AngelHedgieCaptain Marcus
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Is there a competing service that is known to be more ethical than Uber?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Feral wrote: »
    Is there a competing service that is known to be more ethical than Uber?

    (Gr)Uber.

    die-hard-hans-gruber-8625437-1016-570.jpg

    Hacksaw on
    FeralElvenshaeForarmRahmani
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Is there a competing service that is known to be more ethical than Uber?

    Gruber.

    die-hard-hans-gruber-8625437-1016-570.jpg

    McLane airlines: We provide you with the takeoff, the flight and landing is up to the individual contractors.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Elvenshae
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    But, getting to what you want to discuss, Toronto is seeking an injunction against Uber. They don't have a problem with the service, they just refuse to classify it as anything but a cab company - which is perfectly reasonable. Needless to say, Uber is throwing a tantrum, accusing the city government of standing in the way of progress.

    i don't have an issue with this. there's some legislative and regulatory grey area between hackney licensure and livery licensure and ride-sharing. if a municipality wants to regulate that it's their right (i assume, i don't know canadian laws) and it's the right of uber to appeal or whatever (again idk canada).

    i hope for my sake that boston doesn't accede to the demands of the three dudes who own all the taxi medallions in the city and shut down uber because the boston hackney system is a violation of the public trust and public interest that will perpetuate itself forever unless actually disrupted.

    The simple fact is that Uber is not ridesharing now (and I don't think it ever was, to be honest.) It's simply another livery service that uses a different means to dispatch cars. There really is no need for new designations for the firm. And I think that the firm pushes for these new designations just so they can avoid being regulated. And they tend to not want to work with regulators at all. It's been pointed out that the NYC TLC was willing to work with Uber on allowing taxicabs to be hailed online, but it required time to allow processing contracts to expire and laws restricting remote requesting of cabs to be changed. But that wasn't fast enough for Uber.

    you can still call a yellow cab with uber in boston

    ofc why would you do that when yellow cabs are worse in pretty much every way from any of the uber offerings?

    i don't blame them for meeting an unfilled market or for making use of a gap in the regulatory structure, nor for fighting for their interests in court. taxis (in boston) offer a shit service and are only in business because of logrolling and rent-seeking. there are plenty of times and places where republicans' recurring paean to "clumsy and bad regulation stifling innovation and the public benefit" are bullshit but this is not one of those times.

    Uber and its ilk are fighting against crony capitalism

    obviously they'd like to have their own crony capitalist setup, but

    2ezikn6.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.