Amazing stuff. Looks like Uber is really making the most of their data. I hope this is a easily accessible and useful.
Uber Movement
71–80 of 146 posts
Re: Uber Movement
#72Earlier 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?
You have a very poor understanding of what civil disobedience is.
As MLK wrote, "One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." [1]
That is manifestly not what Kalanick is doing. He broke laws for his own profit, has energetically avoided the penalties, demonstrates no particular interest in justice, and certainly doesn't care about the conscience of the community.
I also think the "political insiders" thing is just crocodile tears. From his behavior, Kalanick has no problem with industrial interests having outsized power; he just wants to be the one with that power.
[1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
Re: Uber Movement
#73Earlier 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?
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.
Yes, they are. They are fighting for my right to use whichever service I like to drive me from point A to point B.
Re: Uber Movement
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Try talking to some ex-Uber drivers. I don't think I've spoke with one that felt adequately informed by Uber.
There may be adequate information now, but only because enough people bought in to Uber's marketing had poor experiences, and have talked about them.
I also don't think "enough readily available information" is a good standard to judge commerce by. There's enough readily available information out there for sufficiently prepared people to not get sucked into, say, a Ponzi scheme. But that does not absolve somebody running a scam, because they are doing their best to find people not yet prepared and then energetically deceive them. My standard is more like, "Does the entity with more power use that power in a way that the entity with less power later comes to find harmful?" By that metric, I don't think Uber scores particularly well.
Re: Uber Movement
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Perhaps, but that's an argument that needs to be made. It wasn't.
Re: Uber Movement
#76And I do wonder why google maps with much more data hasn't done this...
Because that data is viewed as proprietary and useful for ads. In fact it's the reason Apple ended up making their own maps! They didn't want to share that info with Google but it was the only way Google was gonna allow for turn by turn directions in the app.
Re: Uber Movement
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Like their predatory lease program. The terms are clear as mud for the desperate
person this attracts.
http://image.et.xchangeleasing.com/lib/fe9412737265067b77/m/...
https://consumerist.com/2016/05/31/5-things-you-should-know-...
Are pay day loan patrons really making an informed decision because the interest percentage is written on the wall?
Re: Uber Movement
#78Earlier 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?
You have a very poor understanding of what civil disobedience is. As MLK wrote, "One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the…
On the contrary, Kalanick is directly appealing to the conscience of the community. Whenever regulators attempt to shut him down he appeals directly to the public: "Bill de Blasio/Shiv Sena/Telangana Taxi Association/etc wants to take away your ride!"
Many in the civil rights movement also broke laws for their own profit or other benefit; they wanted the right to work any job they were qualified for, live in any neighborhood, etc. What's wrong with that?
Does one need to be completely altruistic to oppose injustice? Victims cannot protest, only uninterested third parties?
Re: Uber Movement
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The first step in helping human welfare is determining what things are actually good for human welfare. If you can't construct a valid argument for X, that's a hint that X might not be good for human welfare.
Re: Uber Movement
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Try talking to some ex-Uber drivers. I don't think I've spoke with one that felt adequately informed by Uber. There may be adequate information now, but only because enough people bought in to Uber's marketing had poor experiences, and have talked about them. I also don't think "enough readily available information" is a good standard to judge commerce by. There's enough readily available information out there for su…
A ponzi scheme is completely different to Uber so comparing the two isn't helpful. Uber is comparable to working as an freelance/indy contractor, in fact it's almost exactly the same.
Uber has always been clear about how it works for the drivers, and not reading/understanding terms and conditions isn't an excuse for not taking responsibility for yourself.
Their early marketing quite literally spelled out that this is something you can do with your own pre-existing car to make a bit of extra cash on the side. In fact this is STILL the prevailing message you get from their website, let me quote a few lines at you;
"Got a car? Turn it into a money machine. The city is buzzing and Uber makes it easy for you to cash in on the action. Plus, you've already got everything you need to get started."
"Need something outside the 9 to 5? As an independent contractor with Uber, you’ve got freedom and flexibility to drive whenever you have time."
Somehow, and I really cannot fathom how, some people have interpreted this as "Go out and buy/lease a car, we'll give you a full time job".