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

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: The Uber Conflation

#61

Post by zaptheimpaler »

_jal wrote: post #31

"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…

>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.

Yes this left a bad taste in my mouth. Quote from article:

"The fact of the matter is that we as an industry are responsible for Uber too. We’ve created a world that simultaneously celebrates rule-breaking and undervalues women (and minorities), full of investors and companies that are utterly ruthless when money is on the line, while cloaking said ambition in fluff about changing the world."

Soo.. its our fault for enabling this behavior, but we shouldn't punish Uber for it? Nooo. The majority of us don't create the rules/hierachy of what is valued, we can only vote with our feet and wallets and we should.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#62

Post by FussyZeus »

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…

Uber's biggest problem is the confrontational way they've expanded their business, often thumbing their nose at regulators the entire time and pissing off a lot of the local communities. Lyft is in the exact same business but you don't see headlines every other day about Lyft going to war with some city or another.

I think Uber's about to be a very expensive lesson about Karma and will hopefully show some of these VC babies that "move fast and break stuff" is a great strategy for software, and a terrible strategy for people.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#63

Post by exDM69 »

tedunangst wrote: post #6
mikeash wrote: post #2

A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law. I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able…

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.

Where I'm from (in the EU), any profits from illegal activity are confiscated upon conviction, sometimes also including "the tools" used to commit the crime.

After several Uber drivers had to pay back all their earnings, lose their car and get a fine on top, there has been significantly less drivers willing to take the risk.

Outside of some peak hours (new years, etc) where the risk of getting caught is minimal, the only ones left are the really shady drivers with their crappy cars.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#64

Post by brudgers »

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…

Maybe at the expense of consumers, but not necessarily to the detriment of citizens.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#65

Post by ghaff »

jamornh wrote: post #59
st3v3r wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. It is an issue with the idea that the rich are above the law.

If you want the rich to not be above the law then the punishment for breaking said law should not be financial in nature. Any punishment that is financial in nature will ALWAYS be less impactful to the rich than to the poor. An improvement to this would be to structure fine based on networth rather than a fixed amount. Yet even then, a millionaire paying $900,000 in fines is still not as devastating as a poor person…

A lot of the Nordics apparently have some fines based on income: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...

I can't say I really favor this but it has been done.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#66

Post by im3w1l »

mikeash wrote: post #57
orcdork wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The act of breaking parking law wouldn't be wrong. The act of harassing me would be. I believe the state would agree with me on that, and would escalate beyond simple fines before too long.

What if parking outside your garage is "not personal, just business"? Because the person has a need to park there?

Pay a fee to the victim?

Re: The Uber Conflation

#67

Post by 1123581321 »

mikeash wrote: post #57
orcdork wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The act of breaking parking law wouldn't be wrong. The act of harassing me would be. I believe the state would agree with me on that, and would escalate beyond simple fines before too long.

In any situation where illegal parking blocks an exit, it is possible to get the car towed. My experience is that the police become very prompt about repeat tow requests. I realize I'm quibbling about the analogy, but there is a big difference between blocking a garage and sitting in a curbspace for too long, and these large companies are only doing the latter.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#68

Post by ghaff »

mikeash wrote: post #57
orcdork wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The act of breaking parking law wouldn't be wrong. The act of harassing me would be. I believe the state would agree with me on that, and would escalate beyond simple fines before too long.

In general, I expect that most people would find actions that are (in their eyes) most directly tied to inconveniencing others, putting them at risk, etc. are different. I suppose all laws are theoretically about reducing actions that are viewed as harmful to individuals or society as a whole. But clearly some have a more direct linkage to others.

I doubt many people would think feeding a parking meter (which is not allowed in a lot of places) is "wrong" in any material way even though you can get fined for it. Taking a handicapped space, blocking a bus stop, or parking in front of a fire hydrant, on the other hand, would be widely considered as icky behaviors totally irrespective of any difference in fines.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#69

Post by civilian »

brudgers wrote: post #64
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…

Maybe at the expense of consumers, but not necessarily to the detriment of citizens.

What's the difference? Please elaborate. As I see it, there are only a few citizens who benefitted-- those involved in the ownership of taxi companies & medallions.

Re: The Uber Conflation

#70

Post by Zak »

brudgers wrote: post #64
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…

Maybe at the expense of consumers, but not necessarily to the detriment of citizens.

Anecdote, not data, but my experiences using Uber have been universally better than using taxis and the same is true for everyone I know who has moderate recent experience with both in the US.

There may still be arguments to make that it's detrimental, or at least not beneficial for other reasons, or there may be data that contradicts my anecdote (if so, please link it), but I'm glad Uber exists and probably opposed to any regulation that makes it difficult or impossible for it to operate in a given place.

Post reply on HN