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

171–180 of 283 posts

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

#171

Post by baddox »

Larrikin wrote: post #151
benchaney wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't. Uber reducing prices means that less drivers will be available, making it harder to get a ride.

There's supposed to be zero drivers available during a strike

Zero taxi drivers, if it was a strike organized by taxi companies or taxi unions. The presence of Uber drivers, or bus drivers, or train engineers, etc. does not contradict or minimize a taxi strike. And a taxi strike does not obligate or even sugges that all other employees in the human transportation industry should strike. And lastly, Uber choosing to not strike does not imply that Uber or Uber drivers do not support the taxi strike or the cause of protesters.

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

#172

Post by pfarnsworth »

nilkn wrote: post #116
rapsey wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By pissing off half the country?

Keep in mind that the American election system is such that only 20% of Americans (or 30% of eligible voters) voted for Trump in order to get him into office. So it really does not follow that a move against Trump would anger half the country. Trump famously lost the popular vote as well, and he has one of the lowest approval ratings on entering office of any President in modern history. Finally, who's more likely to…

Using your math/logic, what percentage of Americans voted for Obama?

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

#173

Post by facetube »

anjc wrote: post #164
facetube wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is completely normal in politics and commerce. And regardless, he was elected in a fair vote. The end. If you run another election now he'll win again.

US intelligence officials have evidence of Russian disinformation and interference [1]. This is not normal.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ODNI_Stateme...

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

#174

Post by baddox »

dagw wrote: post #137
benchaney wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So protesters are entitled to hold people hostage for an arbitrary amount of time, just because they are unhappy? Give me a break.

Where the bus services out of JFK also cancelled?

If they weren't, then the people who condemn Uber for not striking should also condemn the bus drivers for not striking.

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

#175

Post by grzm »

pjc50 wrote: post #165
pfarnsworth wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

HN seems unwilling to confront this issue. People are complaining about Thiel, but Musk has been a darling for years.

HN seems unwilling to confront this issue.

Please don't throw out generalizations like this, particularly as you're a member of the HN community yourself. If you feel strongly about this particular issue, write up a blog post making your case, and submit it to HN, or have someone submit it for you.

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

#176

Post by anjc »

facetube wrote: post #168
anjc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah again, Lyft's board is appointed with obligations to the company and the shareholders. Companies can have an ethos of social responsibility, but the board isn't there with an obligation to social responsibility, or to oppose politicians. When a non-profitable company is spending company funds based on the board's personal moral code...I'd have significant issues.

The only moral code here is fact: contrary to the administration's claims, the September 11th attacks did not originate in – or have a material connection to – these countries. Citing the September 11th attacks as a reason to restrict immigration from these countries does not follow logically, and therefore must be opposed on a factual basis. The claim is not true.

What's that have to do with Lyft?

It doesn't matter how principled your opposition here is...boards have obligations, and this isn't one of them.

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

#177

Post by nerfhammer »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #9
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…

The taxi strike was part of the protest at the airport. Offering reduced pricing was a way to hurt the taxi workers who were losing money to show solitary with the protest. If Uber was trying to help, they should have said so.

Offering normal pricing means drivers get paid less, reduces opportunity cost of joining in strike. Or, drivers who participate in strike get paid $0 either way so it doesn't affect them. Uber drivers who don't participate in strike will get sent to JFK less often because of lack of extra incentive due to surge pricing.

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

#178

Post by 3JPLW »

jakeogh wrote: post #161
justinpombrio wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate asking about downvotes, but I'm really confused why this comment has been pushed to the bottom. Why?

Well, it's not a "Muslim Ban" for starters. Look up the countries with the highest Muslim populations, then cross ref to the list of countries that have a 90 day (to start) ban.

It's a Muslim ban when it affects majority-Muslim countries and has a minority exemption. That's pretty clear to me.

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

#179

Post by tptacek »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #156
tptacek wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His comment is rhetorically partisan, but you haven't come close to establishing with evidence that it's "alarmist". I'd direct your attention to Eliot Cohen's essay in The Atlantic from this morning: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-clari... Cohen is no liberal; he cofounded PNAC and served as a deputy under Rice in the Bush administration. And his take on Trump's last week is even more urgent…

> an informal, non-confirmable role, created to house someone who stood a decent chance of washing out of Senate confirmation This is a good argument. Many of these White House roles need to be confirmed; even if they are mostly advisory, because the law assumes that the President's advisors influence his decisions. If people want to say "Steve Bannon needs to be confirmed by the Senate", that's something I could pro…

I'm having a hard time understanding the argument you try to make as you confirm all the arguments your selected opponents are making. "It only lasts for 90 days" is a rebuttal, but it's an awfully weak one to hang your entire rhetorical outfit on.

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

#180

Post by benchaney »

eropple wrote: post #169
benchaney wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely morally right. Calling Uber a vulture ignores the reality that the world doesn't stop just because some protesters are unhappy.

"Some protestors are unhappy" is a really interesting way of phrasing "the federal government is embarking on a concerted attack on 1.7% of the population for reasons at best murky." Be better, please.

Come on. Trump is doing lots of bad things, but if he weren't people would still be striking. The largest protest in American history happened before he even took office. Let's not pretend that people's emotions are less of a driving factor than the facts. Get over yourself.
Post reply on HN