Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me • Hacker News Board

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#121

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jan 09, 2019, 11:59 PM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #113

icebraining wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the idea is that the meta-uber app would programmatically control the actual uber app, hence the CFAA and DRM concerns.

Ah. Ok. Got it. Thanks. So, meta-uber would need to embed within itself a hacked copy of the actual uber app, or just very carefully mimic calls to Uber's backend somehow. Or meta-uber would need to somehow have the permission to run and inject data into an authentically installed instance of the Uber app (not quite sure if or how, say, the Android platform's security model would allow this.) Hmmm.

It could also use an embedded browser and load https://m.uber.com/

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#122

Post by tomrod » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 12:09 AM UTC

enjo wrote: post #106

wz1000 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify? Yes. If I had to rank the options in order of morality, they would go like this: Buy DRM free content > Abstain from consuming content > Pirate the content >>> Pay for DRMed content. Supporting DRM means supporting a world where you have to pay rent and seek permission from corporate overlords to use your own devices in the way you wish.

My moral system is very different. I see no problem (at all) with paying for DRMed content. "Supporting DRM means supporting a world where you have to pay rent and seek permission from corporate overlords to use your own devices in the way you wish" No. It means paying content creators for access to their content on my device. I'm using my device however I like, I just don't get access to the hard work of others on e…

Not disagreeing with your points here, just pointing out that artists don't always get paid that much from platforms that host them. The platforms in effect suck away the network effect benefits and then some.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#123

Post by not2b » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 3:10 AM UTC

rkachowski wrote: post #7

I think this downplays the anticipated response from Uber and the like. DMCA and CFAA are just tools used, not the entirety of the barrier to further co-op based disruption. There's nothing to stop Uber / Lyft from banning their drivers from the service completely if they are caught using the hypothetical Meta-Uber app. I understand that this example is just an illustration of the spirit of the article and doesn't re…

If they tried that, it would undermine their argument that their drivers are independent contractors. You can ban an employee from working for a competitor, but you can't ban a contractor. Many drivers drive for both Uber and Lyft; in an area with a good co-op, they'd probably start out driving for all three, and if the co-op pays them more they'd take as many rides from the co-op as they could get.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#124

Post by ionised » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:49 AM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #17

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #11

This article is a good time to plug LibreTaxi: "Free and open source alternative to Uber/Lyft connecting passengers and drivers. LibreTaxi makes ridesharing affordable by getting rid of the third party between passengers and drivers. Negotiate the price before the ride is confirmed, pay cash upon arrival. 1-minute hiring for all drivers." https://libretaxi.org/

Who has cash nowadays though?

Most people in the world.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#125

Post by dtech » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 11:34 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #85

dtech wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sci-Hub also works because it is convenient. As Netflix and Spotify have shown, convenience trumps morality and to a lesser extent pricing. Users jailbreaking their device and getting a specific app from a non-official/non-preinstalled app store is not convenient.

> As Netflix and Spotify have shown, convenience trumps morality I don't understand what you mean. Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify? It seems to me that Netflix and Spotify combine convenience and morality (or at least, legality), showing that the combination trumps free (pirated)?

> I don't understand what you mean. Is there a more moral alternative to Netflix and Spotify?

I meant more that Netflix and Spotify took a big chunk out of the pirate market. Piracy is cheaper so that can't be it, buying was more moral but people still pirated so morality can't be it.

I (and many others) believe that convenience is the important factor here. Piracy was much more convenient than the legal options 10-20 years ago. Netflix, iTunes, Spotify etc are much more convenient than piracy so users migrated to it.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#126

Post by Bartweiss » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #76

otikik wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not afraid. But I don't enjoy it either and I'd rather not do it. The same way you tell others "time to grow up" I can tell you "time to get civilized".

But you could argue that's what civilization is based on, normal people making deals with each other face to face.

I... don't think you can really argue that.

Personal transactions, based on reputation and persuasion and goods-on-hand, predate agriculture and settled habitation. In fact, they predate humanity by quite a bit. Definitions of civilization vary, but all of them that I know involve sedentary agriculture, written communication, and social stratification or organized government. Pretty much all of that represents a move away from face-to-face dealing by equals.

I can certainly believe that civilization effectively sacrifices positive human interactions and free association in the name of reliability and (sometimes) efficiency. And I'm very open to the idea that a society full of Homeowner's Associations and impossible-to-override checklists is abandoning normal human interaction for no real benefit.

But I think that's hard to address without conceding that this is part of the same process as calling the cops instead of starting a fistfight; civilization is in large part the process of adding more intermediaries to our interactions.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#127

Post by IWeldMelons » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 12:18 PM UTC

Fins wrote: post #109

IWeldMelons wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sci-Hub is Kazakhstani creation actually.

It's Putin's creation to much greater degree than Kazakhstani, Elbakyan is not Kazakh at all, she just happened to be born there.

You've never lived there I guess, in the former USSR. Elbakyan is of Armenia ethnicty, who was born in Kazakhstan (hence she is Kazakhtani, not Kazakh). And her native language is Russian, so is the native language of many Kazakh people who lives in the bigger cities of Kazakhstan.

Re: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

#128

Post by ph0rque » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

dwighttk wrote: post #31

He shows an example of a successful co-op app that worked (as long as the government was keeping Uber and Lyft out of the city that annually experiences surges of traffic of tech savvy users) but never gives an example of one of his meta apps in action... How much rent would one of those apps be allowed to seek? Or would they just be run out of benevolence?

Also, what happens if a competing co-op opens up shop in the same city?