Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Privacy 2. Google doesn't have the same incentive to release data to local governments as Uber does (to improve regulatory relationships).
How so privacy? This data is anonymised, they could do the same.
Uber Movement
61–70 of 146 posts
Re: Uber Movement
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, don't get me wrong, this civil rights movement is valuable. But this is a movement that constantly says "fuck you" to the law (c.f. Rosa Parks) and fair work practices (the civil rights movement favored a "race to the bottom" between white and negro workers). Uber is engaged in civil disobedience against unjust laws that exist to protect political insiders. When did this become a bad thing?
I think part of the problem is that the parallels between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick are not as obvious to everyone as they are to you.
What I'm pointing out is not some moral parallel between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick. I'm pointing out that if djsumdog's argument is valid, it applies equally well to the civil rights movement.
This is a strong indication that his argument is invalid, nothing more.
Re: Uber Movement
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well except for the drivers that get paid less and less now. I mean we'll forget about all that once their self-driving vehicles start being deployed, right? Well until they kill people. I mean don't get me wrong, the data is valuable. But this is a company that constantly says "fuck you" to the law and fair work practices. Let's keep that in mind.
I mean, don't get me wrong, this civil rights movement is valuable. But this is a movement that constantly says "fuck you" to the law (c.f. Rosa Parks) and fair work practices (the civil rights movement favored a "race to the bottom" between white and negro workers). Uber is engaged in civil disobedience against unjust laws that exist to protect political insiders. When did this become a bad thing?
Uber isn't fighting for people's rights. Not liking taxi services or the laws that protect their business isn't equivalent by any stretch.
Re: Uber Movement
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just wealthier [1], but also younger and more urban. People who have 25 mile commutes from the suburbs--even very wealthy suburbs--are more likely to own cars and less likely to use Uber. [1] In cities with good public transit (e.g., Boston, NYC), uber can seem more like a luxury but in cities that are very car centric (e.g., Detroit, Miami), Uber is actually cheaper than owning a car for many people. I live in M…
Even in San Francisco I have forgo car in favor of Uber. Using Uber is far cheaper and convenient than having a car.
I prefer having a car - I can put my surfboard on the roof, I can put my bikes on the back. I can always have the boot / trunk full of camping and beach stuff. It's far more convenient than relying on taxis and hire cars.
Really helps when you have kids too.
The convenience of hire cars and Uber covers a limited scope.
Re: Uber Movement
#65Very interesting. I worry about a selection bias, though. Uber riders are wealthier than average, so the trips won't necessarily reflect all the commutes of those in the city. I hope this doesn't lead to just an improvement in bus routes, road construction, traffic, etc. between nicer sections of the city.
Traffic is traffic. Yes only wealthy people's routes are being data mined. However, if someone is going from P to U, you will still learn that R to T is a hot spot. Those hot spots are common to everyone.
Except the potential issue is that while R to T is the worst spot according to the data, there is a route in a poorer neighbourhood, C to F, that is far worse and more deserving of improvement than R to T. And it may be hard to know in practice whether this effect is happening or not.
Re: Uber Movement
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think part of the problem is that the parallels between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick are not as obvious to everyone as they are to you.
What I'm pointing out is not some moral parallel between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick. I'm pointing out that if djsumdog's argument is valid, it applies equally well to the civil rights movement. This is a strong indication that his argument is invalid, nothing more.
It's perfectly consistent to believe that the civil rights movement meets one's threshold for justifiable civil disobedience, while Uber's plight does not.
Re: Uber Movement
#67NYC has been asking for this, and Uber has been pushing back. It'll be interesting to see how this differs from what the city was asking for.
Re: Uber Movement
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think part of the problem is that the parallels between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick are not as obvious to everyone as they are to you.
What I'm pointing out is not some moral parallel between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick. I'm pointing out that if djsumdog's argument is valid, it applies equally well to the civil rights movement. This is a strong indication that his argument is invalid, nothing more.
> I'm pointing out that if djsumdog's argument is valid, it applies equally well to the civil rights movement.
The value of an argument is not a pure function of its syntactic structure but also the specific details of the argument. Context matters. Intent even matters.
The details, context and intent so far suggest that you care more about being right on the Internet than about human beings' welfare.
Re: Uber Movement
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well except for the drivers that get paid less and less now. I mean we'll forget about all that once their self-driving vehicles start being deployed, right? Well until they kill people. I mean don't get me wrong, the data is valuable. But this is a company that constantly says "fuck you" to the law and fair work practices. Let's keep that in mind.
I mean, don't get me wrong, this civil rights movement is valuable. But this is a movement that constantly says "fuck you" to the law (c.f. Rosa Parks) and fair work practices (the civil rights movement favored a "race to the bottom" between white and negro workers). Uber is engaged in civil disobedience against unjust laws that exist to protect political insiders. When did this become a bad thing?
The case of Rosa Parks wasn't even close to saying “fuck you” to the law, because she did immediately submit herself to the law (as did MLK and other civil rights activists that spent a lot of time in jail).
Civil disobedience not only requires submission to the law, but is most effective when the threat of punishment is existential (e.g. lengthy incarceration or death). Since Uber’s existence depends on defiance of the current laws, it is manifestly impossible that the company’s actions are in any way a form of civil disobedience.
Re: Uber Movement
#70My quess would be that Uber use it as a carrot for cities. Let Uber operate and we will give city official data and city planning tools for free.
A win win for everyone but the drivers. Sure they can quit but doesn't excuse Uber from using its negotiating power against exploiting them wherever possible.
I think there's enough readily available information on how Uber operates for want-to-be drivers to make an informed decision on whether or not they should 'work' for Uber.