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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
Yes. They never will.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
Yes. They never will.
And this is how Walmart can run food drives for their own employees and no one bats an eye. In america fuck you got mine might as well be on our money.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
I see Über as being far far less than exceptional in this regard
they run a successful and popular service and they are douchebags; they externalize a few costs to their employees and customers (and society's) modest detriment, but they're just not that bad
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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
I see Über as being far far less than exceptional in this regard
they run a successful and popular service and they are douchebags; they externalize a few costs to their employees and customers (and society's) modest detriment, but they're just not that bad
They aren't exceptional because people have a habit of not caring about ethics so long as they get the stuff they want out of it.
It's a boil in a sea of boils.
+3
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
I see Über as being far far less than exceptional in this regard
they run a successful and popular service and they are douchebags; they externalize a few costs to their employees and customers (and society's) modest detriment, but they're just not that bad
They aren't exceptional because people have a habit of not caring about ethics so long as they get the stuff they want out of it.
It's a boil in a sea of boils.
no, they're not exceptional because they're not that bad
they're a pimple in a sea of measles and smallpox at worst, and that's ignoring the stuff that people love them for
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
Edit 2: This bit from the article is just...
Ben's question came last. Ben asked whether or not the CEO of Uber supported Obamacare. I didn't know he was a reporter at the time but it was clear that he was trying to change the tenor of an otherwise enjoyable dinner.
Because God forbid any of the other "journalists" there be reminded of exactly what was going on.
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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
I see Über as being far far less than exceptional in this regard
they run a successful and popular service and they are douchebags; they externalize a few costs to their employees and customers (and society's) modest detriment, but they're just not that bad
I like the idea behind Uber and think shitty protectionism is shitty protectionism, but using drivers as cannon fodder without so much as a "by the way" is really fucking unethical. That's about as unethical as any non-physically dangerous act can be.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
Are you calling her a liar?
Edit: It was a dinner party with under 30 people. There aren't that many potential sources. There's the USA today journalist that called Ben Smith a piece of shit and now there's this lady.
Does Edward Norten need to make a movie about it before you can alter your internal narrative?
Deebaser on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
You know for a fact that what you are asking for does not exist, as the only people at that event are people who know each other or at at least very familiar of each other, and its really easy to say that people at this event would like to attend future events, whether or not that fact impacts the story.
So basically the only story you are willing to accept is the one that lines up with your predisposition, when even now multiple people at that party stepped forward and said the guy who wrote the buzzfeed article was being a goose?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
You know for a fact that what you are asking for does not exist, as the only people at that event are people who know each other or at at least very familiar of each other, and its really easy to say that people at this event would like to attend future events, whether or not that fact impacts the story.
So basically the only story you are willing to accept is the one that lines up with your predisposition, when even now multiple people at that party stepped forward and said the guy who wrote the buzzfeed article was being a goose?
I find it rather suspect that, if the case is that Smith did misrepresent what was said, why Michael apologized for his statements initially, and why this only came out now, several days after the story. It's also worth pointing out that this is the first time that the veracity of Smith's article is being challenged - Wolff's piece was purely based on Smith's conduct and supposed "breach of trust", and for which he was roundly derided.
And the point is that I am predisposed to believe the story from the person who is burning bridges over the people who are poised to benefit from their pieces, which came at suspicious intervals - again, doesn't it strike you as strange that this is only now coming out? And when the piece has lines like
The last comment that I heard was when Emil hypothesized about creating a coalition for responsible journalism.
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
Are you calling her a liar?
Edit: It was a dinner party with under 30 people. There aren't that many potential sources. There's the USA today journalist that called Ben Smith a piece of shit and now there's this lady.
Does Edward Norten need to make a movie about it before you can alter your internal narrative?
I already discussed the problem with Wolff's piece earlier, but again, Dave Weigel summed it up best:
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
You know for a fact that what you are asking for does not exist, as the only people at that event are people who know each other or at at least very familiar of each other, and its really easy to say that people at this event would like to attend future events, whether or not that fact impacts the story.
So basically the only story you are willing to accept is the one that lines up with your predisposition, when even now multiple people at that party stepped forward and said the guy who wrote the buzzfeed article was being a goose?
I find it rather suspect that, if the case is that Smith did misrepresent what was said, why Michael apologized for his statements initially, and why this only came out now, several days after the story. It's also worth pointing out that this is the first time that the veracity of Smith's article is being challenged - Wolff's piece was purely based on Smith's conduct and supposed "breach of trust", and for which he was roundly derided.
And the point is that I am predisposed to believe the story from the person who is burning bridges over the people who are poised to benefit from their pieces, which came at suspicious intervals - again, doesn't it strike you as strange that this is only now coming out? And when the piece has lines like
The last comment that I heard was when Emil hypothesized about creating a coalition for responsible journalism.
I find myself more disbelieving.
Seriously? To your first point, damage control is a thing, and it is frequently used to combat a bad image in the press, regardless of whether that bad image is deserved or not. Further, has Michael actually apologized? The only news articles I see are talking about the corporate non-apology apology from the CEO over Twitter. Which again, damage control.
But really, the big thing with your post is the bolded. You're willing to accept the word of Smith because he "burned bridges" more than the words of other people who "are poised to benefit from their pieces". The mental gymnastics required to square this are so far beyond me, I just can't even begin to attempt it. You are bending over backwards to rationalize your point of view, and I wonder if you even realize to what extent you're doing it.
I mean, you do understand how valued a "scoop" is to most journalists? How being the source for a major news piece is a really big deal and can make a person's career? And if a journalist has a particular audience, that reacts well to a specific message, that it is definitely in their interest to report on things supporting that message?
To try and spin the narrative that Smith's only outcome of this piece is "burnt bridges" while the other people countering his piece are going to benefit from their refutations... I just...
Well done. Bravo. You've broken for me now, as I can't even figure out how to finish responding because it's just that far gone of a point.
3DS: 0963-0539-4405
+3
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
Are you calling her a liar?
Edit: It was a dinner party with under 30 people. There aren't that many potential sources. There's the USA today journalist that called Ben Smith a piece of shit and now there's this lady.
Does Edward Norten need to make a movie about it before you can alter your internal narrative?
I already discussed the problem with Wolff's piece earlier, but again, Dave Weigel summed it up best:
As for this piece, let me reiterate: why did it take so long for this account to come out?
Re: That tweet: Ben Smith is a famous person? LOL
Re: The delay. You're sounding unhinged, bro. It's entirely likely that this person didn't want to step into internet drama immediately without very thoughtfully considering it. It's a lot less likely that this is a conspiracy to deflect away from Uber's secret plan to hire a hit squad of private investigators and journalists that an Ace Buzzfeed Investigative Reporter discovered through casual convervation.
I don't see what's hard to grasp about that, people posting refutations stand to gain access, the one who posted a negative story stands to lose, so in the scheme of things its easier to believe someone with actual risk on the line vs someone who is doing the complete opposite. Especially someone doing the opposite days later with more he said she said and no recording to back it up.
I mean neither side has a record of what was said, but I don't recall prior to today anyone saying Smith was lying, only that it was off the record and buzzfeed/gawker are tabloid journalists. Now its "Oh and they totally lied to for sure according to these people we in no way bought off with access like we claimed we'd do."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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
I think the best description of Silicon Valley that I've heard is that they're not too terribly troubled with how our society is structured - they just see the problem as that they're not on top.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
I see Über as being far far less than exceptional in this regard
they run a successful and popular service and they are douchebags; they externalize a few costs to their employees and customers (and society's) modest detriment, but they're just not that bad
I like the idea behind Uber and think shitty protectionism is shitty protectionism, but using drivers as cannon fodder without so much as a "by the way" is really fucking unethical. That's about as unethical as any non-physically dangerous act can be.
i agree that it would be better if there was a corporate and/ or regulatory structure that made sure that drivers were properly insured for commercial driving (and generally is so in the case of livery drivers, dependent on municipality ofc).
otoh this is the sort of thing that ends up being the byproduct of statute or liability from civil law precident.
sooner or later uber will lose a lawsuit trying to sever responsibility to a driver's error and then they'll require insurance.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I don't see what's hard to grasp about that, people posting refutations stand to gain access, the one who posted a negative story stands to lose, so in the scheme of things its easier to believe someone with actual risk on the line vs someone who is doing the complete opposite. Especially someone doing the opposite days later with more he said she said and no recording to back it up.
I mean neither side has a record of what was said, but I don't recall prior to today anyone saying Smith was lying, only that it was off the record and buzzfeed/gawker are tabloid journalists. Now its "Oh and they totally lied to for sure according to these people we in no way bought off with access like we claimed we'd do."
Yesterday, no one who attended was saying that he was lying. Today Campbell is. It's not some conspiracy.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I don't see what's hard to grasp about that, people posting refutations stand to gain access, the one who posted a negative story stands to lose, so in the scheme of things its easier to believe someone with actual risk on the line vs someone who is doing the complete opposite. Especially someone doing the opposite days later with more he said she said and no recording to back it up.
I mean neither side has a record of what was said, but I don't recall prior to today anyone saying Smith was lying, only that it was off the record and buzzfeed/gawker are tabloid journalists. Now its "Oh and they totally lied to for sure according to these people we in no way bought off with access like we claimed we'd do."
they've been pretty consistent in saying that the smith piece misrepresented the conversation and that the sentiments implied or asserted in the article were ones that neither uber nor emil michael shared.
You don't find that odd at all that this has been a PR nightmare all week and now finally someone is coming out and just saying "Nope lying nothing to see here?" You don't find that a little odd?
Hell the financial section yesterday ran an article about how Uber needs to do something about this PR nightmare/executive issue, and now this. Sorry I don't see conspiracy I see rat fucking 101.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
From a PR standpoint, even acknowledging the scandal at all was a bad move. The correct way to treat this kind of shitty tabloid journalism is to ignore it, much as you would ignore a story in the National Enquirer. Treating it as remotely legitimate will just make things worse, but that doesn't stop companies from taking the bait.
Squidget0 on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
You don't find it odd that an uber executive would lay out a bond villian style plan to hire a hit team to attack journalists (one blogger in particular) unprompted to a blogger who then went home and was able to write a whole article unencumbered by any notes or recording of the event?
You don't find it odd that an uber executive would lay out a bond villian style plan to hire a hit team to attack journalists (one blogger in particular) unprompted to a blogger who then went home and was able to write a whole article unencumbered by any notes or recording of the event?
Nope? Rich people are used to not having to deal with consequences for their actions. And it wasn't a bond villain plan, it was a pretty simple one thats been executed in politics for years. Don't like what your opponent is saying? Attack them as a person.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
You know for a fact that what you are asking for does not exist, as the only people at that event are people who know each other or at at least very familiar of each other, and its really easy to say that people at this event would like to attend future events, whether or not that fact impacts the story.
So basically the only story you are willing to accept is the one that lines up with your predisposition, when even now multiple people at that party stepped forward and said the guy who wrote the buzzfeed article was being a goose?
I find it rather suspect that, if the case is that Smith did misrepresent what was said, why Michael apologized for his statements initially, and why this only came out now, several days after the story. It's also worth pointing out that this is the first time that the veracity of Smith's article is being challenged - Wolff's piece was purely based on Smith's conduct and supposed "breach of trust", and for which he was roundly derided.
And the point is that I am predisposed to believe the story from the person who is burning bridges over the people who are poised to benefit from their pieces, which came at suspicious intervals - again, doesn't it strike you as strange that this is only now coming out? And when the piece has lines like
The last comment that I heard was when Emil hypothesized about creating a coalition for responsible journalism.
I find myself more disbelieving.
Seriously? To your first point, damage control is a thing, and it is frequently used to combat a bad image in the press, regardless of whether that bad image is deserved or not. Further, has Michael actually apologized? The only news articles I see are talking about the corporate non-apology apology from the CEO over Twitter. Which again, damage control.
Yes, he did apologize, both publicly through a corporate spokesperson, as well as directly to Lacy herself, which she recounted in her piece on the matter.
But really, the big thing with your post is the bolded. You're willing to accept the word of Smith because he "burned bridges" more than the words of other people who "are poised to benefit from their pieces". The mental gymnastics required to square this are so far beyond me, I just can't even begin to attempt it. You are bending over backwards to rationalize your point of view, and I wonder if you even realize to what extent you're doing it.
I mean, you do understand how valued a "scoop" is to most journalists? How being the source for a major news piece is a really big deal and can make a person's career? And if a journalist has a particular audience, that reacts well to a specific message, that it is definitely in their interest to report on things supporting that message?
Yes, which supports my point. One of the big issues with journalism these days is that too many journalists out there focus on access, because it makes it easier to get scoops. And in order to keep access, it's not exactly unheard of for journalists to wind up becoming stenographers in the process of currying favor.
To try and spin the narrative that Smith's only outcome of this piece is "burnt bridges" while the other people countering his piece are going to benefit from their refutations... I just...
Well done. Bravo. You've broken for me now, as I can't even figure out how to finish responding because it's just that far gone of a point.
Why? Wolff himself pointed out the point in his piece:
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.
Do you think that they were just inviting any old journo to these dinners? No, they're inviting ones that they felt would be on their side, as Campbell herself confirmed with her comment on the tone of the dinner. Do you think you get invited back?
It's the issue we have with the Village, and it's creeped into a lot of journalism, especially tech journalism.
I don't see what's hard to grasp about that, people posting refutations stand to gain access, the one who posted a negative story stands to lose, so in the scheme of things its easier to believe someone with actual risk on the line vs someone who is doing the complete opposite. Especially someone doing the opposite days later with more he said she said and no recording to back it up.
I mean neither side has a record of what was said, but I don't recall prior to today anyone saying Smith was lying, only that it was off the record and buzzfeed/gawker are tabloid journalists. Now its "Oh and they totally lied to for sure according to these people we in no way bought off with access like we claimed we'd do."
they've been pretty consistent in saying that the smith piece misrepresented the conversation and that the sentiments implied or asserted in the article were ones that neither uber nor emil michael shared.
Except that Wolff acknowledged that he was not close enough to hear the discussion, and that he could not comment on the veracity of the piece. His piece focused purely on Smith's "uncouth" behavior, for which he got roundly mocked. Campbell is the first person asserting that the story is false.
And there's an old saying - integrity is what you do when nobody's looking. That's why the argument that these views are not "shared" weighs little for me.
I don't see what's hard to grasp about that, people posting refutations stand to gain access, the one who posted a negative story stands to lose, so in the scheme of things its easier to believe someone with actual risk on the line vs someone who is doing the complete opposite. Especially someone doing the opposite days later with more he said she said and no recording to back it up.
I mean neither side has a record of what was said, but I don't recall prior to today anyone saying Smith was lying, only that it was off the record and buzzfeed/gawker are tabloid journalists. Now its "Oh and they totally lied to for sure according to these people we in no way bought off with access like we claimed we'd do."
they've been pretty consistent in saying that the smith piece misrepresented the conversation and that the sentiments implied or asserted in the article were ones that neither uber nor emil michael shared.
Except that Wolff acknowledged that he was not close enough to hear the discussion, and that he could not comment on the veracity of the piece. His piece focused purely on Smith's "uncouth" behavior, for which he got roundly mocked. Campbell is the first person asserting that the story is false.
And there's an old saying - integrity is what you do when nobody's looking. That's why the argument that these views are not "shared" weighs little for me.
you know, i used to read ben smith's stuff when he was at politico. it was terrible and the worst kind of opportunistic. generally he went for gotcha hit pieces on left-wing politicians and false-equivalence masterpieces. you should go back and check out his oevre.
i'd like to say that it kind of shocks me that you're now all-in on this guy's journalistic integrity now that he's published one piece of gossipy clickbait that lines up with your prejudices.
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.
I don't even think AngelHedgie is against better taxi service. I think alot of people just generally regard Uber as an example of the hubris and craven bullshit that characterizes alot of these "disruptive" tech start ups. There's this attitude it seems among said companies that cause they are "doing things no one has done before" or some such, the rules shouldn't apply to them. That their very newness and disruptiveness means that the old rules don't matter anymore.
Like, the takeaway from this thread imo is that:
1) Apparently local regulations on taxis in a bunch of places are fucking terrible
2) Uber gives no shits about regulations, the law or liability at all and thinks it's not their problem and are often a fucking shitty bunch
And mostly to me it feels like many people think that because 1) is true it's ok to gloss over 2) cause sometimes the laws and regulations Uber is ignoring are bad ones.
But this misses that Uber isn't against local crony capitalism it's against anyone telling them what they can and can't do. And so I don't think the response is at all misdirected. Uber should be called a bunch of shitlords for their behaviour, regardless of whether or not local taxi regulations in some areas are crap. Just like we call out any company that does this kind of shit. This isn't misplaced outrage anymore then outrage at Walmart is misplaced because they aren't the only union-busters in the American corporate landscape.
I don't see what's hard to grasp about that, people posting refutations stand to gain access, the one who posted a negative story stands to lose, so in the scheme of things its easier to believe someone with actual risk on the line vs someone who is doing the complete opposite. Especially someone doing the opposite days later with more he said she said and no recording to back it up.
I mean neither side has a record of what was said, but I don't recall prior to today anyone saying Smith was lying, only that it was off the record and buzzfeed/gawker are tabloid journalists. Now its "Oh and they totally lied to for sure according to these people we in no way bought off with access like we claimed we'd do."
they've been pretty consistent in saying that the smith piece misrepresented the conversation and that the sentiments implied or asserted in the article were ones that neither uber nor emil michael shared.
Except that Wolff acknowledged that he was not close enough to hear the discussion, and that he could not comment on the veracity of the piece. His piece focused purely on Smith's "uncouth" behavior, for which he got roundly mocked. Campbell is the first person asserting that the story is false.
And there's an old saying - integrity is what you do when nobody's looking. That's why the argument that these views are not "shared" weighs little for me.
you know, i used to read ben smith's stuff when he was at politico. it was terrible and the worst kind of opportunistic. generally he went for gotcha hit pieces on left-wing politicians and false-equivalence masterpieces. you should go back and check out his oevre.
i'd like to say that it kind of shocks me that you're now all-in on this guy's journalistic integrity now that he's published one piece of gossipy clickbait that lines up with your prejudices.
but honestly it doesn't.
So, "kill the messenger", then. I'm not "all-in" on his integrity - I just don't see how this is the case in this one incident, for reasons that have been spelled out already. The case for him acting "inappropriately" is so weak to be non-existent, and there are bits of Campbell's argument that make no logical sense as presented, like this:
Emil then said that Sarah wouldn't like it if someone wrote false things about her or published an article that was factually wrong because we all have done things in our private lives we are not proud of.
The two parts of that statement don't logically connect...unless he also made a statement about her private life being publicly disclosed. Of course, such a statement would weaken the argument she presents substantially.
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.
I don't even think AngelHedgie is against better taxi service. I think alot of people just generally regard Uber as an example of the hubris and craven bullshit that characterizes alot of these "disruptive" tech start ups. There's this attitude it seems among said companies that cause they are "doing things no one has done before" or some such, the rules shouldn't apply to them. That their very newness and disruptiveness means that the old rules don't matter anymore.
Like, the takeaway from this thread imo is that:
1) Apparently local regulations on taxis in a bunch of places are fucking terrible
2) Uber gives no shits about regulations, the law or liability at all and thinks it's not their problem and are often a fucking shitty bunch
And mostly to me it feels like many people think that because 1) is true it's ok to gloss over 2) cause sometimes the laws and regulations Uber is ignoring are bad ones.
But this misses that Uber isn't against local crony capitalism it's against anyone telling them what they can and can't do. And so I don't think the response is at all misdirected. Uber should be called a bunch of shitlords for their behaviour, regardless of whether or not local taxi regulations in some areas are crap. Just like we call out any company that does this kind of shit. This isn't misplaced outrage anymore then outrage at Walmart is misplaced because they aren't the only union-busters in the American corporate landscape.
And that's really the key point. Just because there are other bad actors doesn't excuse the bad behavior of any one actor. I don't have a problem with app-based livery systems (and I refuse to call them "rideshare" programs, because that's not what they are) - but I do have a problem with the argument that they are somehow something different just because you hail them with an app instead of a phone call. Are there bad regulations that protect incumbents? Yes. But Uber wants to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme, where there is no regulation on them. I don't see that as being any better, especially in the long run.
I don't see what's hard to grasp about that, people posting refutations stand to gain access, the one who posted a negative story stands to lose, so in the scheme of things its easier to believe someone with actual risk on the line vs someone who is doing the complete opposite. Especially someone doing the opposite days later with more he said she said and no recording to back it up.
I mean neither side has a record of what was said, but I don't recall prior to today anyone saying Smith was lying, only that it was off the record and buzzfeed/gawker are tabloid journalists. Now its "Oh and they totally lied to for sure according to these people we in no way bought off with access like we claimed we'd do."
they've been pretty consistent in saying that the smith piece misrepresented the conversation and that the sentiments implied or asserted in the article were ones that neither uber nor emil michael shared.
Except that Wolff acknowledged that he was not close enough to hear the discussion, and that he could not comment on the veracity of the piece. His piece focused purely on Smith's "uncouth" behavior, for which he got roundly mocked. Campbell is the first person asserting that the story is false.
And there's an old saying - integrity is what you do when nobody's looking. That's why the argument that these views are not "shared" weighs little for me.
you know, i used to read ben smith's stuff when he was at politico. it was terrible and the worst kind of opportunistic. generally he went for gotcha hit pieces on left-wing politicians and false-equivalence masterpieces. you should go back and check out his oevre.
i'd like to say that it kind of shocks me that you're now all-in on this guy's journalistic integrity now that he's published one piece of gossipy clickbait that lines up with your prejudices.
but honestly it doesn't.
So, "kill the messenger", then. I'm not "all-in" on his integrity - I just don't see how this is the case in this one incident, for reasons that have been spelled out already. The case for him acting "inappropriately" is so weak to be non-existent,
it's not "kill the messenger". it is "i do not believe this guy's version of events, as he has previously shown himself to be unreliable and willing to bend the truth of a story to a particular internet audience". he was shit when he did this shit for the conservatives reading politico and he's shit now that he's doing it for his pearl-clutching buzzfeed audience
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.
I don't even think AngelHedgie is against better taxi service. I think alot of people just generally regard Uber as an example of the hubris and craven bullshit that characterizes alot of these "disruptive" tech start ups. There's this attitude it seems among said companies that cause they are "doing things no one has done before" or some such, the rules shouldn't apply to them. That their very newness and disruptiveness means that the old rules don't matter anymore.
Like, the takeaway from this thread imo is that:
1) Apparently local regulations on taxis in a bunch of places are fucking terrible
2) Uber gives no shits about regulations, the law or liability at all and thinks it's not their problem and are often a fucking shitty bunch
And mostly to me it feels like many people think that because 1) is true it's ok to gloss over 2) cause sometimes the laws and regulations Uber is ignoring are bad ones.
But this misses that Uber isn't against local crony capitalism it's against anyone telling them what they can and can't do. And so I don't think the response is at all misdirected. Uber should be called a bunch of shitlords for their behaviour, regardless of whether or not local taxi regulations in some areas are crap. Just like we call out any company that does this kind of shit. This isn't misplaced outrage anymore then outrage at Walmart is misplaced because they aren't the only union-busters in the American corporate landscape.
And that's really the key point. Just because there are other bad actors doesn't excuse the bad behavior of any one actor. I don't have a problem with app-based livery systems (and I refuse to call them "rideshare" programs, because that's not what they are) - but I do have a problem with the argument that they are somehow something different just because you hail them with an app instead of a phone call. Are there bad regulations that protect incumbents? Yes. But Uber wants to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme, where there is no regulation on them. I don't see that as being any better, especially in the long run.
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
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.
I don't even think AngelHedgie is against better taxi service. I think alot of people just generally regard Uber as an example of the hubris and craven bullshit that characterizes alot of these "disruptive" tech start ups. There's this attitude it seems among said companies that cause they are "doing things no one has done before" or some such, the rules shouldn't apply to them. That their very newness and disruptiveness means that the old rules don't matter anymore.
Like, the takeaway from this thread imo is that:
1) Apparently local regulations on taxis in a bunch of places are fucking terrible
2) Uber gives no shits about regulations, the law or liability at all and thinks it's not their problem and are often a fucking shitty bunch
And mostly to me it feels like many people think that because 1) is true it's ok to gloss over 2) cause sometimes the laws and regulations Uber is ignoring are bad ones.
But this misses that Uber isn't against local crony capitalism it's against anyone telling them what they can and can't do. And so I don't think the response is at all misdirected. Uber should be called a bunch of shitlords for their behaviour, regardless of whether or not local taxi regulations in some areas are crap. Just like we call out any company that does this kind of shit. This isn't misplaced outrage anymore then outrage at Walmart is misplaced because they aren't the only union-busters in the American corporate landscape.
And that's really the key point. Just because there are other bad actors doesn't excuse the bad behavior of any one actor. I don't have a problem with app-based livery systems (and I refuse to call them "rideshare" programs, because that's not what they are) - but I do have a problem with the argument that they are somehow something different just because you hail them with an app instead of a phone call. Are there bad regulations that protect incumbents? Yes. But Uber wants to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme, where there is no regulation on them. I don't see that as being any better, especially in the long run.
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
To which I tend to think to the "laws" scene in A Man For All Seasons. You say that the next step after burning all the regulations would be to rebuild, but Uber has a war chest to make sure that won't happen. Why do you think they fight so hard to not be classified as a livery service?
I trust the regulation would win out in the end, war chest or no. I doubt New York City or Los Angeles is just gonna throw up their hands and say "fuck it."
Where you and I likely differ is that I'm fine either way, because frankly Libertarian Thunderdome Taxi Service beats the shit out of what we had. It's not the best outcome, but sadly it's an improvement. Sorry.
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
To which I tend to think to the "laws" scene in A Man For All Seasons. You say that the next step after burning all the regulations would be to rebuild, but Uber has a war chest to make sure that won't happen. Why do you think they fight so hard to not be classified as a livery service?
Yeah somehow I don't think the billion-dollar company is striving for fair regulations. They will try to make sure the system is such that it benefits them.
As someone who doesn't use taxis or any of this stuff the only thing I'd worry about would be the loosening of regulation somehow fucking community transit, but since this is a battle of private industries and not public, and community transit is fucked anyways I'm leaning on the "This won't effect me in a way that I'll ever notice."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.
I don't even think AngelHedgie is against better taxi service. I think alot of people just generally regard Uber as an example of the hubris and craven bullshit that characterizes alot of these "disruptive" tech start ups. There's this attitude it seems among said companies that cause they are "doing things no one has done before" or some such, the rules shouldn't apply to them. That their very newness and disruptiveness means that the old rules don't matter anymore.
Like, the takeaway from this thread imo is that:
1) Apparently local regulations on taxis in a bunch of places are fucking terrible
2) Uber gives no shits about regulations, the law or liability at all and thinks it's not their problem and are often a fucking shitty bunch
And mostly to me it feels like many people think that because 1) is true it's ok to gloss over 2) cause sometimes the laws and regulations Uber is ignoring are bad ones.
But this misses that Uber isn't against local crony capitalism it's against anyone telling them what they can and can't do. And so I don't think the response is at all misdirected. Uber should be called a bunch of shitlords for their behaviour, regardless of whether or not local taxi regulations in some areas are crap. Just like we call out any company that does this kind of shit. This isn't misplaced outrage anymore then outrage at Walmart is misplaced because they aren't the only union-busters in the American corporate landscape.
And that's really the key point. Just because there are other bad actors doesn't excuse the bad behavior of any one actor. I don't have a problem with app-based livery systems (and I refuse to call them "rideshare" programs, because that's not what they are) - but I do have a problem with the argument that they are somehow something different just because you hail them with an app instead of a phone call. Are there bad regulations that protect incumbents? Yes. But Uber wants to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme, where there is no regulation on them. I don't see that as being any better, especially in the long run.
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
Posts
Lyft hasn't been engaging in as many of the questionable practices that Uber has, though they're far from spotless.
"how society is structured" is a question for politicians, not for businesses.
businesses in silicon valley, along with every business elsewhere, seeks to exchange a product or service for money. that's what they do, and what we should expect them to do.
Is it really too much to ask that companies not act unethically? And to condemn them when they do?
Yes. They never will.
And this is how Walmart can run food drives for their own employees and no one bats an eye. In america fuck you got mine might as well be on our money.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I see Über as being far far less than exceptional in this regard
they run a successful and popular service and they are douchebags; they externalize a few costs to their employees and customers (and society's) modest detriment, but they're just not that bad
They aren't exceptional because people have a habit of not caring about ethics so long as they get the stuff they want out of it.
It's a boil in a sea of boils.
This just in: uninvited blogger playing Journalist, Ben Smith is a lying craven fucktard.
no, they're not exceptional because they're not that bad
they're a pimple in a sea of measles and smallpox at worst, and that's ignoring the stuff that people love them for
Got something from someone who isn't biased?
Edit: The issue is that she's compromised in two ways:
* Personally - she acknowledges that she is a friend of the person involved.
* Professionally - it's in her interest to be in Uber's good graces, as that means continued access.
Edit 2: This bit from the article is just...
Because God forbid any of the other "journalists" there be reminded of exactly what was going on.
I like the idea behind Uber and think shitty protectionism is shitty protectionism, but using drivers as cannon fodder without so much as a "by the way" is really fucking unethical. That's about as unethical as any non-physically dangerous act can be.
Are you calling her a liar?
Edit: It was a dinner party with under 30 people. There aren't that many potential sources. There's the USA today journalist that called Ben Smith a piece of shit and now there's this lady.
Does Edward Norten need to make a movie about it before you can alter your internal narrative?
You know for a fact that what you are asking for does not exist, as the only people at that event are people who know each other or at at least very familiar of each other, and its really easy to say that people at this event would like to attend future events, whether or not that fact impacts the story.
So basically the only story you are willing to accept is the one that lines up with your predisposition, when even now multiple people at that party stepped forward and said the guy who wrote the buzzfeed article was being a goose?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I find it rather suspect that, if the case is that Smith did misrepresent what was said, why Michael apologized for his statements initially, and why this only came out now, several days after the story. It's also worth pointing out that this is the first time that the veracity of Smith's article is being challenged - Wolff's piece was purely based on Smith's conduct and supposed "breach of trust", and for which he was roundly derided.
And the point is that I am predisposed to believe the story from the person who is burning bridges over the people who are poised to benefit from their pieces, which came at suspicious intervals - again, doesn't it strike you as strange that this is only now coming out? And when the piece has lines like
I find myself more disbelieving.
I already discussed the problem with Wolff's piece earlier, but again, Dave Weigel summed it up best:
As for this piece, let me reiterate: why did it take so long for this account to come out?
Seriously? To your first point, damage control is a thing, and it is frequently used to combat a bad image in the press, regardless of whether that bad image is deserved or not. Further, has Michael actually apologized? The only news articles I see are talking about the corporate non-apology apology from the CEO over Twitter. Which again, damage control.
But really, the big thing with your post is the bolded. You're willing to accept the word of Smith because he "burned bridges" more than the words of other people who "are poised to benefit from their pieces". The mental gymnastics required to square this are so far beyond me, I just can't even begin to attempt it. You are bending over backwards to rationalize your point of view, and I wonder if you even realize to what extent you're doing it.
I mean, you do understand how valued a "scoop" is to most journalists? How being the source for a major news piece is a really big deal and can make a person's career? And if a journalist has a particular audience, that reacts well to a specific message, that it is definitely in their interest to report on things supporting that message?
To try and spin the narrative that Smith's only outcome of this piece is "burnt bridges" while the other people countering his piece are going to benefit from their refutations... I just...
Well done. Bravo. You've broken for me now, as I can't even figure out how to finish responding because it's just that far gone of a point.
3DS: 0963-0539-4405
Re: That tweet: Ben Smith is a famous person? LOL
Re: The delay. You're sounding unhinged, bro. It's entirely likely that this person didn't want to step into internet drama immediately without very thoughtfully considering it. It's a lot less likely that this is a conspiracy to deflect away from Uber's secret plan to hire a hit squad of private investigators and journalists that an Ace Buzzfeed Investigative Reporter discovered through casual convervation.
I mean neither side has a record of what was said, but I don't recall prior to today anyone saying Smith was lying, only that it was off the record and buzzfeed/gawker are tabloid journalists. Now its "Oh and they totally lied to for sure according to these people we in no way bought off with access like we claimed we'd do."
pleasepaypreacher.net
i agree that it would be better if there was a corporate and/ or regulatory structure that made sure that drivers were properly insured for commercial driving (and generally is so in the case of livery drivers, dependent on municipality ofc).
otoh this is the sort of thing that ends up being the byproduct of statute or liability from civil law precident.
sooner or later uber will lose a lawsuit trying to sever responsibility to a driver's error and then they'll require insurance.
Yesterday, no one who attended was saying that he was lying. Today Campbell is. It's not some conspiracy.
they've been pretty consistent in saying that the smith piece misrepresented the conversation and that the sentiments implied or asserted in the article were ones that neither uber nor emil michael shared.
Hell the financial section yesterday ran an article about how Uber needs to do something about this PR nightmare/executive issue, and now this. Sorry I don't see conspiracy I see rat fucking 101.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Nope? Rich people are used to not having to deal with consequences for their actions. And it wasn't a bond villain plan, it was a pretty simple one thats been executed in politics for years. Don't like what your opponent is saying? Attack them as a person.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, he did apologize, both publicly through a corporate spokesperson, as well as directly to Lacy herself, which she recounted in her piece on the matter.
Yes, which supports my point. One of the big issues with journalism these days is that too many journalists out there focus on access, because it makes it easier to get scoops. And in order to keep access, it's not exactly unheard of for journalists to wind up becoming stenographers in the process of currying favor.
Why? Wolff himself pointed out the point in his piece:
Do you think that they were just inviting any old journo to these dinners? No, they're inviting ones that they felt would be on their side, as Campbell herself confirmed with her comment on the tone of the dinner. Do you think you get invited back?
It's the issue we have with the Village, and it's creeped into a lot of journalism, especially tech journalism.
Except that Wolff acknowledged that he was not close enough to hear the discussion, and that he could not comment on the veracity of the piece. His piece focused purely on Smith's "uncouth" behavior, for which he got roundly mocked. Campbell is the first person asserting that the story is false.
And there's an old saying - integrity is what you do when nobody's looking. That's why the argument that these views are not "shared" weighs little for me.
you know, i used to read ben smith's stuff when he was at politico. it was terrible and the worst kind of opportunistic. generally he went for gotcha hit pieces on left-wing politicians and false-equivalence masterpieces. you should go back and check out his oevre.
i'd like to say that it kind of shocks me that you're now all-in on this guy's journalistic integrity now that he's published one piece of gossipy clickbait that lines up with your prejudices.
but honestly it doesn't.
I don't even think AngelHedgie is against better taxi service. I think alot of people just generally regard Uber as an example of the hubris and craven bullshit that characterizes alot of these "disruptive" tech start ups. There's this attitude it seems among said companies that cause they are "doing things no one has done before" or some such, the rules shouldn't apply to them. That their very newness and disruptiveness means that the old rules don't matter anymore.
Like, the takeaway from this thread imo is that:
1) Apparently local regulations on taxis in a bunch of places are fucking terrible
2) Uber gives no shits about regulations, the law or liability at all and thinks it's not their problem and are often a fucking shitty bunch
And mostly to me it feels like many people think that because 1) is true it's ok to gloss over 2) cause sometimes the laws and regulations Uber is ignoring are bad ones.
But this misses that Uber isn't against local crony capitalism it's against anyone telling them what they can and can't do. And so I don't think the response is at all misdirected. Uber should be called a bunch of shitlords for their behaviour, regardless of whether or not local taxi regulations in some areas are crap. Just like we call out any company that does this kind of shit. This isn't misplaced outrage anymore then outrage at Walmart is misplaced because they aren't the only union-busters in the American corporate landscape.
So, "kill the messenger", then. I'm not "all-in" on his integrity - I just don't see how this is the case in this one incident, for reasons that have been spelled out already. The case for him acting "inappropriately" is so weak to be non-existent, and there are bits of Campbell's argument that make no logical sense as presented, like this:
The two parts of that statement don't logically connect...unless he also made a statement about her private life being publicly disclosed. Of course, such a statement would weaken the argument she presents substantially.
And that's really the key point. Just because there are other bad actors doesn't excuse the bad behavior of any one actor. I don't have a problem with app-based livery systems (and I refuse to call them "rideshare" programs, because that's not what they are) - but I do have a problem with the argument that they are somehow something different just because you hail them with an app instead of a phone call. Are there bad regulations that protect incumbents? Yes. But Uber wants to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme, where there is no regulation on them. I don't see that as being any better, especially in the long run.
it's not "kill the messenger". it is "i do not believe this guy's version of events, as he has previously shown himself to be unreliable and willing to bend the truth of a story to a particular internet audience". he was shit when he did this shit for the conservatives reading politico and he's shit now that he's doing it for his pearl-clutching buzzfeed audience
Whereas I'd honestly say that the current state of taxi/livery in many major metros was such that "burn all the regulation to the ground" was a reasonable first step. I don't see any half measures as being effective at addressing the current entrenched interests.
It's one of the few times my views line up with crazy libertarians, stopped clocks and all. And even then it's a limited level of agreement, because of course to me the next step is to build back up with sane, reasonable regulation.
I just don't know that it's possible from the status quo, so frankly good on them.
To which I tend to think to the "laws" scene in A Man For All Seasons. You say that the next step after burning all the regulations would be to rebuild, but Uber has a war chest to make sure that won't happen. Why do you think they fight so hard to not be classified as a livery service?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Where you and I likely differ is that I'm fine either way, because frankly Libertarian Thunderdome Taxi Service beats the shit out of what we had. It's not the best outcome, but sadly it's an improvement. Sorry.
Yeah somehow I don't think the billion-dollar company is striving for fair regulations. They will try to make sure the system is such that it benefits them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sure, but that's not what Uber is doing. They are just saying "whatever, your rules don't apply to us". Even where the rules aren't shitty. And not actually changing any of the rules either.
According to an attendee, the comment made the audience gasp. An audience of GS employees.
That's sort of impressive, when you think about it. [/url]