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

41–50 of 143 posts

Re: The Uber Conflation

#41

Post by wrsh07 »

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's an interesting thing: in basketball, fouls are part of the game and used in the last minutes to get the ball back

In most other sports, doing that would be "breaking the rules."

Not sure how such a division arises. (Maybe if the authorities make no attempt to "close" said loophole?)

Re: The Uber Conflation

#42

Post by ariwilson »

Moreover, one of Uber’s other “scandals” — the fact that Kalanick asked Amit Singhal to step down as Senior Vice President of Engineering after not disclosing a sexual harassment claim at Google — reflected far worse on Google than Uber: if Singhal committed a fireable offense the search giant should have fired the man who rewrote their search engine; instead someone in the know dribbled out allegations that happened to damage a company they view as a threat.

It's not clear when Uber learned about these allegations of sexual harassment. I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they acted immediately after all the other cultural problems with harassment they seem to have.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#43

Post by wrsh07 »

spoondan wrote: post #32

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),…

This is a good point, but I think regardless reform is in order.

Sometimes the best way to reform a thing is to tear it down, and I think that's where Thompson's cautiously optimistic post about Brexit landed. (Perhaps this one? https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/)

Re: The Uber Conflation

#44

Post by orcdork »

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?

Sure, let's say that. Let's say I have, for all practical purposes, infinite money. And every single day I park outside your house, in a way that it blocks your parking garage. And I do that illegally, knowing it's illegal, and accepting the chance that I'll get fined, knowing that any fine has absolutely no consequence.

Is that morally wrong, in your eyes?

Uber has been consistently breaking the law (or parking into society's collective parking space, if the metaphor is lost). And your response is that they are wealthy enough right now to do it, so no big deal.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#45

Post by jimmywanger »

ariwilson wrote: post #42

Moreover, one of Uber’s other “scandals” — the fact that Kalanick asked Amit Singhal to step down as Senior Vice President of Engineering after not disclosing a sexual harassment claim at Google — reflected far worse on Google than Uber: if Singhal committed a fireable offense the search giant should have fired the man who rewrote their search engine; instead someone in the know dribbled out allegations that happened…

> Google at least pushed Amit out as soon as the allegations were substantiated.

We don't have any evidence that the allegations were substantiated. We have some internal, anonymous leaks that claim that Google found the allegations were "credible".

Re: The Uber Conflation

#46

Post by orcdork »

jamornh wrote: post #36
_jal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good to know it's up to you to pick and choose which laws inconvenience you, I mean which laws are there to make those fat cats at the city office the big bucks.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#47

Post by orcdork »

padobson wrote: post #33
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.

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.

That's great, but no. I can argue that they shouldn't break the law. The penalty is irrelevant.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#48

Post by Karunamon »

orcdork wrote: post #46
jamornh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good to know it's up to you to pick and choose which laws inconvenience you, I mean which laws are there to make those fat cats at the city office the big bucks.

Do you ever exceed the speed limit? Pass on the right? Rip your music or movies? Download torrents? Take pens from work? Park inches over the line? Throw away mail addressed to the previous resident of your house (federal felony)? Participated in an office pool? Smoke weed?

If so, kindly do not speak from the glass house about picking and choosing which laws to follow. You do it, I do it, everybody does it. Society still functions somehow.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#49

Post by st3v3r »

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…

While true, that still doesn't justify Uber's actions. Uber doesn't give a crap about those regulations, or reforming them. In fact, they want them to stay in place so they can have an unfair advantage.
Post reply on HN