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

The Uber Conflation

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: The Uber Conflation

#31

Post by _jal »

"Otto having stolen intellectual property are very serious, it’s worth remembering that the entire industry is basically built on theft"

There's an interesting argument in the article, but the amount of squid-ink being squirted overwhelms it. A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit.

Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down as incompetent.

If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...)

Re: The Uber Conflation

#32

Post by spoondan »

One very serious shortcoming of this article is the claim that the theoretical spirit of taxi regulation is exclusively (or even primarily) rider safety. Regardless of how we believe it has all worked out in practice, taxi regulation has long been earnestly pushed for a multitude of reasons: traffic congestion, driver pay and rights, consumer protection (from fare abuse), road safety (independent from rider safety), and, yes, the kind of rider safety that Uber is far better at through GPS tracking and driver reputation.

There are many attitudes to have about taxi regulation. Some would argue that the market will eventually provide better solutions; even for issues like traffic congestion. Others might contend that the regulation is necessary because the market will either not find solutions or the cost of finding those solutions via the market is prohibitive. Some might take a less principled approach and consider whether the current regulations are better at solving problems or creating them. Regardless, we have to honestly consider the whole story. It's easiest to argue for Uber's approaches when you consider only the small part of the argument where Uber and its ilk clearly best the entrenched taxi system.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#33

Post by padobson »

orcdork wrote: post #18
mikeash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't think that's too bad. If you know you're breaking the law and accept the fines and pay them willingly because it's worth the cost, I don't see a big problem with that. Where I start having trouble is when they try to hide their lawbreaking, or fight against enforcement. For a similar example, UPS and FedEx both rack up an unbelievable amount of parking tickets in major cities for stopping their delivery…

You're advocating for wealth being over the law. I don't see how you can feel that this is not a big problem.

That's now what this is. They're breaking the law and willingly serving the penalty. You can argue that the penalty isn't strong enough, but then your issue is with the legislature, not the criminal.

What you're saying is tantamount to saying a thief who likes prison food is also above the law, because he actually enjoys the penalty for the laws he breaks.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#34

Post by tedunangst »

mikeash wrote: post #26
orcdork wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're advocating for wealth being over the law. I don't see how you can feel that this is not a big problem.

Let's say you're in a really big hurry for something, and you park illegally knowing that it's illegal and accepting the chance that you'll get a ticket. When you do in fact get a ticket, you pay it willingly. Is that morally wrong, in your eyes?

Are we talking about parking in a spot and not feeding the meter? Or parking in the bus zone, forcing riders to wade out into traffic to board?

Re: The Uber Conflation

#35

Post by tedunangst »

trimbo wrote: post #22
tedunangst wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.

UPS and Fedex pay New York millions in parking fines as a cost of doing business[1]. How come we don't really think of them as scofflaws, but we do with Uber? (I include myself when asking this question) [1] - http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130526/ECONOMY/305269...

That happens a lot around here too. Actually, I know (by sight) both the UPS drivers and the parking enforcement people. The UPS drivers, at least that I can see, usually try to park somewhere slightly out of the way, so they're not blocking traffic or creating a dangerous diversion. Uber drivers generally seem to act like they're the only car on the road. That's more of a driver thing than a company thing, but culture comes from the top.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#36

Post by jamornh »

_jal wrote: post #28
Karunamon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some laws are dumb. There's a distressing trend on HN recently of people citing "the law" as if it were the end of any kind of practical or moral discussion.

So those with the money to do so should be free to break them, while those who can't need to obey, and that's just right and proper?

No, but then that's an issue with the way fines and punishments for said crimes are structured, not the fault of those who takes advantage of the loophole.

There are 2 types of fines: fines that are meant to stop things from happening and fines that are there to basically make the city money. Most traffic fines seem to be structured for the latter.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#37

Post by mikeash »

tedunangst wrote: post #34
mikeash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you're in a really big hurry for something, and you park illegally knowing that it's illegal and accepting the chance that you'll get a ticket. When you do in fact get a ticket, you pay it willingly. Is that morally wrong, in your eyes?

Are we talking about parking in a spot and not feeding the meter? Or parking in the bus zone, forcing riders to wade out into traffic to board?

Does it matter when it comes to the morality of breaking the law? You might consider the latter action to be morally wrong, but it seems like it would be because of its impact on others, not because it's breaking the law.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#38

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

crabasa wrote: post #20

On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of tra…

There's civil disobedience to unjust laws and there's giving no fucks about the legal system.

Your argument is basically valid, but fails to account for Uber's consistent violations of law at several levels of government and geographic areas.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#39

Post by JoshTriplett »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #38
crabasa wrote: post #20

On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of tra…

There's civil disobedience to unjust laws and there's giving no fucks about the legal system . Your argument is basically valid, but fails to account for Uber's consistent violations of law at several levels of government and geographic areas.

"consistent" is exactly what you'd hope for when attempting to systematically demonstrate an improvement that a class of regulations prevents; "consistent" here means alignment with a clear goal, focusing on the things that achieve that goal, and treating every restriction preventing that goal in the same way.

The article suggests, and I'd agree, that the problem wasn't Uber avoiding or ignoring taxi regulations; the problem was them applying that same gleefully transgressive attitude towards other areas that had nothing to do with their goal.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#40

Post by cbhl »

tedunangst wrote: post #35
trimbo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UPS and Fedex pay New York millions in parking fines as a cost of doing business[1]. How come we don't really think of them as scofflaws, but we do with Uber? (I include myself when asking this question) [1] - http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130526/ECONOMY/305269...

That happens a lot around here too. Actually, I know (by sight) both the UPS drivers and the parking enforcement people. The UPS drivers, at least that I can see, usually try to park somewhere slightly out of the way, so they're not blocking traffic or creating a dangerous diversion. Uber drivers generally seem to act like they're the only car on the road. That's more of a driver thing than a company thing, but cultu…

I feel like this behavior comes from the riders -- people give bad ratings if they don't get picked up exactly at their door, double parking be damned.
Post reply on HN