Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's not a crime if we do it with an app

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 640 posts

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#371

Post by steveBK123 »

b112 wrote: post #353
gruez wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. So the drivers remain on the road, driving/idling, waiting to get back into the app. The "work" is still getting done, but it doesn't count against Uber. I get leg…

A lot of jurisdictions require 4 hr minimum pay when called in to work. I wonder, would cabs be more competitive of Uber's alternative business model, if Uber had to be fairer? If so, then isn't Uber a sham? And shouldn't market forces see them go? Airbnb used to be cheap... at the start. Then people added insurance, people had to get permits, and so on, just as Hotels, and other do. Now it's not so cheap any more. O…

Re: ABNB People book on this platform thinking it’s vetted somehow.

Well in an area I vacation there was a fatal fire at a weekly rental home with unlicensed electrical work, no working smoke detectors and no license to rent the unit (requires a town inspection). Of course the renters had used an app platform that gives them the illusion that these are somehow legal vetted and safe.

Instead you can end up in a rental with safety standards well below developing world standards.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#372

Post by enragedcacti »

vtashkov wrote: post #92

Funny, whenever any leftists stay in power for a while we see such kind of situation, but somehow it only gets noticed AFTER they are no longer in power.

Do you see it as a bit of a wrinkle in your theory that the author has five citations to his own work about price fixing published during the Biden administration?

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#373

Post by maeil »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #251
ryandrake wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? It should at least be debatable, not taboo, to consider. One's investment into a criminal enterprise could arguably be contributing to or encouraging that crime. Having this nearly-impenetrable corporate veil that shields decision-makers, footsoldiers, and funders (both institutional and retail investors) from consequences of their actions seems like the extreme end of a spectrum that should be explored. But w…

> It should at least be debatable, not taboo, to consider It's not taboo, it's stupid and unworkable. You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fortune 500 commits a crime. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card, not meaningful deterrence. Massive. Fines. Everyone keeps trying to be creative about penalising corporations without levying massive fines. Just levy the fines. You don't need to lay anyone off, y…

Agreed that massive fines (or, in my view preferably, massive stock dilutions) are better. However

> You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fortune 500 commits a crime. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card, not meaningful deterrence.

This is a poor argument.

If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere to the law. It would also work as a strong counterbalance to megacorps. Both which would be incredibly positive developments.

It's similar to rules in football. "Well if you start carding players for getting angry at the ref then half the team will get a yellow card every game!". Yes, the very first game this might happen. The second and third it sure won't.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#374

Post by gruez »

bongodongobob wrote: post #361
gruez wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea is that we should have control over those laws dude Okay, what should we do to tackle long firm fraud?

Overturn citizens united and/or fully treat businesses like a person (jail, death).

>Overturn citizens united

Who are all the people lobbying to keep long firm fraud hard to prosecute?

>and fully treat businesses like a person (jail, death).

Getting stuff on credit and then defaulting on the debt isn't illegal for natural persons either.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#375

Post by maeil »

ajmurmann wrote: post #98
gmueckl wrote: post #76

This is all a result of a lack of active market regulation. The government needs to step in actively to keep a free market from collapsing into one of the natural end states. But the US has consistently been far too passive and accepts greedy companies far too readily. If a single company can sell almost 100% of an essential good, they need to atomatically lose the power to set their prices and margins independently.…

"But the US has consistently been far too passive and accepts greedy companies far too readily." All companies are greedy. That's the reason for existence. Your point that monopolies and oligopolies need to be crushed is very valid though. I wish more mergers were rejected in the first place. Regulating prices is a recipe for disaster though.

> All companies are greedy. That's the reason for existence.

Black and white oversimplification that muddies the water.

You really can't think of two companies with incredibly different levels of "greed"?

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#376

Post by vhcr »

hermannj314 wrote: post #32

This is the way our world works. If you steal a potato, you will be arrested immediately and the case will be resolved in a few weeks or months. If you illegally fix the price of potatoes and steal billions from the market, you will be allowed to operate for years in the open while a lengthy civil procedure eventually may ask you to give 1 or 2% of what you stole back in fines. Don't blame the potato theives or potat…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#377

Post by pbhjpbhj »

steveBK123 wrote: post #284
ryandrake wrote: post #17

More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a regulatory body does anything , it's often just a strongly worded letter, a warning, a threat to one day send a strongly worded letter, or, in really rare, extreme cases, a company official gets called in to say a few words in front of Congress. Nobody goes to…

Exactly - theres a lot of stuff that if an individual/small business owner did, they'd be personally onerously fined or jailed.. but corporations get a pass. Corporations also have a lot of money to pay good lobbyists & lawyers such that laws are pretty forgiving, loopholes are found & exploited, and finally they are vigorously defended if the government ever does try to crack down. Ubers behavior during its growth p…

>Imagine a small restaurant doing similar //

These are 'zero hour' contracts a popular tool in the UK for businesses you screw over poor employees.

There is some utility for workers too - some people need to be able to say 'I'm not coming in today', or 'I'm leaving right now', often due to carer responsibilities though. The power lies with the business and the workers bad circumstances are often being exploited.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#378

Post by scarface_74 »

maeil wrote: post #373
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should at least be debatable, not taboo, to consider It's not taboo, it's stupid and unworkable. You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fortune 500 commits a crime. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card, not meaningful deterrence. Massive. Fines. Everyone keeps trying to be creative about penalising corporations without levying massive fines. Just levy the fines. You don't need to lay anyone off, y…

Agreed that massive fines (or, in my view preferably, massive stock dilutions) are better. However > You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fortune 500 commits a crime. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card, not meaningful deterrence. This is a poor argument. If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere t…

> If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere to the law

So everyone in the US is going to do due diligence on all 500 companies in the S&P 500?

Also you act as if the majority of Americans care about the law or ethics? You do remember the election we just had don’t you? The support that the majority has for 1500 criminals who just got pardoned?

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#379

Post by daveguy »

pseudalopex wrote: post #52
hermannj314 wrote: post #32

This is the way our world works. If you steal a potato, you will be arrested immediately and the case will be resolved in a few weeks or months. If you illegally fix the price of potatoes and steal billions from the market, you will be allowed to operate for years in the open while a lengthy civil procedure eventually may ask you to give 1 or 2% of what you stole back in fines. Don't blame the potato theives or potat…

> Don't blame the potato theives or potato cartels, blame the politicians that built the system to work this way. Blame both.

Well, mainly blame the potato cartels and the politicians. The potato theives are the only ones the deterence system is nominally working to prevent.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#380

Post by philosopher1234 »

gruez wrote: post #350
philosopher1234 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not an expert, but the way you wrote your comment seemed to be discounting this possibility for no discernible reason

Debtor's prisons were widely considered to be cruel, which is why they were abolished basically everywhere in the developed world.

Ok? I’m not arguing about debtors prisons? I’m not sure why you’ve focused on it
Post reply on HN