Lyft surges to the top 10 on App Store following the “DeleteUber” campaign

Post by philh » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:32 AM UTC

tiles wrote: post #236

wyager wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however... Friends don't let friends scab. "If you don't actively participate in my exact form of political activism, you're a bad person!" This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. For some reason, it's a common leftist tactic right now to insist that if you aren't actively engaged in whatever form of extremism the speaker is advo…

> This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. I hate to pick on this quote (I appreciate and suggest people read the rest of your post) but I don't agree with this. A common rightist tactic is to suggest either 1) I was okay with X policy when Obama did something so I have no moral authority to judge it now, or 2) I'm just a liberal whiner, too young, or too weak to appreciate…

Post by hocuspocus » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:33 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #318

hueving wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you make riders that intentionally ride during off times subsidize riders that want to go home during peak times. Pretty lame solution if you ask me. The thing that I like about dynamic pricing is that it forces people to think about what they are doing in a broader context. "maybe it's selfish of me to expect a $3 ride home at 1AM on Jan 1st"

Yes, if your main concern is to protect Uber against surges, you're right. But customers also perceive this as an attempt to extract more money from them when they are in a bad position, such as during a crisis. Why not take the "insurance policy" style and average out these surges?

Post by test1235 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:37 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #271

wpietri wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand protest. Sure, one thing you can do is disrupt the specific people doing something bad. But that's pretty rare. As MLK explains, the point is to create a more general disruption so that everyone has to take notice of an issue they might otherwise ignore: "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is…

> As MLK explains, the point is to create a more general disruption so that everyone has to take notice of an issue they might otherwise ignore The problem with this approach is that unless you do it in a way that's relevant to the original issue, you're just dragging innocent people into your fight and victimizing them. Depending on how much of an asshat you are to them (like, say, stranding them for several hours a…

Post by badwulf » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:40 AM UTC

Post by Chris2048 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:45 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #293

captainmuon wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is a company, it is not organized in a union. I would never expect them to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop working. Just like a taxicab company doesn't participate in the strike, but the drivers do. This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??

This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest. By not participating, Uber naturally made enemies among a group of people with a tendency to boycott everyone they disagree with. (I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out that this was a predictable outcome.)