Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 283 posts

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#141

Post by facetube »

tptacek wrote: post #124
facetube wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intended goal of my comment was not partisan – I believe that Steve Bannon's reckless disregard for objective fact represents a threat to the United States, independent of any party allegiance.

That's a partisan point, and it's unrelated to the article, so you can expect pushback. The better rhetorical strategy is to confine your criticisms as closely as you can to the subject at hand, and to take extra care in linking other concerns to it. "Partisan" doesn't mean "wrong".

Thanks, point taken.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#142

Post by notatoad »

icebraining wrote: post #115
010a wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have disabled all pickups at JFK in true solidarity. I don't think disabling surge pricing is a show of solidarity. With Taxis striking, surge pricing would have skyrocketed. This feels more like Uber just wants to preempt an inevitable news story about how surge pricing hit 10x or something during the taxi strike, which would be bad PR. The article did say that Uber is working with its affected drivers to…

Did their workers agree to share that solidarity? Or are you saying they should have forced their workers to join the protest? Were taxi companies prohibiting drivers from picking up passengers?

This is a great point that should be made more loudly: the taxi strike was, as far as i can see, the action of the drivers and the union. No taxi company, including uber, was disallowing traffic to or from JFK.

If Uber's drivers declined to participate in the strike, that's on the drivers, not Uber.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#143

Post by anjc »

facetube wrote: post #134
anjc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What moral obligation?

To oppose those who would intentionally conceal and obscure objective fact from the public. The administration has publicly claimed a connection between these countries and the attacks of September 11th [1]. This is demonstrably false. 1: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executi...

Corporations have NO moral obligation to oppose people that you happen to oppose.

Lyft should be sued by their investors for misappropriation of funds.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#144

Post by quasarj »

tomjen3 wrote: post #90
facetube wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point does the situation become dire enough to warrant your attention?

HN is not the place to post politics. There are plenty of other sites.

What is the cutoff point? When does something become political? This post might be easy to classify, but what if it were something else, like "Trump imposes 20% tariff on all online services." Would we be allowed to discuss that?

I hate it when people try to classify things as "political" and then don't want to discuss them. It is such a slippery slope.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#145

Post by pfarnsworth »

stephancoral wrote: post #23
rashkov wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a pro-Uber case to be made here. Uber suspended surge pricing at a time when many people were trying to get to the protest at the airport, and while the airtrain was shut down which is what connects the subway system to the airport. Furthermore Uber offered to compensate its drivers who are affected by the ban, if they get stuck outside of the country. Edit: Maybe Uber mis-stepped by honoring requests…

Everything uber does is about money and they aren't afraid to flout the law / custom and "disrupt". They swooped in during a strike. They are scabs. They are obviously doing it to grab money. Their CEO is buddy buddy with Trump.

Is Elon Musk buddy-buddy with Trump as well, because they're on the same advisory board? Are you going to rant against Tesla too?

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#146

Post by rashkov »

pduszak wrote: post #120
rashkov wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a pro-Uber case to be made here. Uber suspended surge pricing at a time when many people were trying to get to the protest at the airport, and while the airtrain was shut down which is what connects the subway system to the airport. Furthermore Uber offered to compensate its drivers who are affected by the ban, if they get stuck outside of the country. Edit: Maybe Uber mis-stepped by honoring requests…

"A strikebreaker (sometimes derogatorily called a scab, blackleg, or knobstick) is a person who works despite an ongoing strike."

Things were moving so fast at the time, I guess I had my doubts that Uber was even aware of the strike, but I suppose that may be naive and that the taxi association probably contacted Uber about this.

I'm definitely coming around to the idea that Uber is simply playing both sides of this, and that it gives them too much credit to assume good intentions of them removing surge pricing.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#147

Post by ajamesm »

icebraining wrote: post #125
ajamesm wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many companies donate to super-PACs, the DNC, RNC, etc.? In this case, the mechanism of political action is constricting the labor supply instead of giving cash to politicians. It seems crazy for a company to force workers to join a protest, until you think about how they force workers to turn a profit and then donate to politicians that would happily oppress those same workers.

So two wrongs do make a right? What other abuses of worker's rights should we demand they do, for "good reasons"? Companies also collectively fire people to bolster their profits, maybe we should demand they do some mass firings for a good cause. Trump supporters, maybe?

I'm not offering a moral judgment, or making a statement about the efficacy of those tactics. I'm saying it's nothing new.

(On a related note, there are some regulations around mass layoffs: https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm

American companies will run a series of layoffs JUST below the limit to avoid the reporting mandates! Kind of like structuring deposits of $9,999 to avoid the reporting requirement at $10k. Interesting.)

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#148

Post by pfarnsworth »

Pfhreak wrote: post #2

Uber undermining the taxi strike [1] yesterday was pretty visible -- at least in my social circle here in Seattle -- and when Lyft made this announcement we all deleted our Uber accounts. Will that have a material impact on anyone's bottom line? Who knows, but I'd love to see the graphs for new account signups/account deletions. [1] Taxis were not servicing JFK in support of those who were being detained there.

I don't see why Uber needs to be beholden to a taxi strike, since they're not taxis, that holds no meaningful purpose except hurting a large number of people trying to get to and from the airport. Since when do taxis get to unilaterally dictate what the moral way to protest is?

Will taxi companies join Uber and help financially support the taxi drivers who are stuck out of the country because of Trump's ban? Are they immoral if they don't follow Uber's lead?

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#149

Post by facetube »

anjc wrote: post #143
facetube wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To oppose those who would intentionally conceal and obscure objective fact from the public. The administration has publicly claimed a connection between these countries and the attacks of September 11th [1]. This is demonstrably false. 1: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executi...

Corporations have NO moral obligation to oppose people that you happen to oppose. Lyft should be sued by their investors for misappropriation of funds.

I am not asking for opposition for the sake of opposition; I am asking for opposition because the claims of the administration are factually, demonstrably false.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#150

Post by facetube »

anjc wrote: post #139
facetube wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I believe it is well-sourced.

My point is that corporations don't start product development for even a bar of candy without extensive market segmentation and psychological profiling. This is completely run of the mill stuff in this day and age, and you can be certain that every major party in the western world does the exact same thing. OP is presenting it as if it's an unusual affront to democracy. It's extremely disingenuous or extremely ignora…

It is an unusual affront to democracy. Democracy depends upon a well-informaed public making rational decisions. It cannot and should not be gamed by for-profit "market makers" at the expense of the American taxpayer and the American people.
Post reply on HN