|
Condiv posted:Umm no, there's plenty of licensing and certification that's an investment. For example, your bachelors degree is definitely an investment. So is a drivers license (you invest time and effort to learn to drive, and the reward is greater opportunities all around). I cannot sell either of those to the highest bidder though, nor are either of them made artificially scarce Riptor fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jul 23, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So are these people lying? Do you realize that none of the article s you posted actually refuted my point. Half of them didn't even posit an experience, and instead engaged in speculative opining. As I posted above, I'm not saying Uber drivers are less racist, but that the very service could let them aboid the racist drivers. Anyway, you still haven't actually answered my question, and instead had to trawl google. What do your black friends say? I mean do you even have any black friends?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
It's a good thing we're bringing Wordpress Blogs into this, otherwise we'd be finished!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:My random theory is that its probably not so much there's less overall racist, but that the service itself makes it possible to match up non-racist drivers with minority client far more easily. Yes that's a good point. Uber's hiring policies mean there's a lot more people available than a normal car service, and the dispatcher is a non-discriminatory algorithm, so that means that while each driver is as likely to be racist to you between uber and regular car services, uber has a larger pool of drivers, and therefore you have more chances to get a non-racist driver That's in theory though, and there are recently published stories about minorities getting treated badly by uber drivers like the stuff Trabisnikof posted. quote:Then why are you arguing a point in an issue you have no experience with? I don't go into the French thread and argue that you should embrace our healthcare system do I? 1. I'm not french, I'm an expat 2. I don't need to have ridden UberX to argue that them ignoring regulations is a really bad thing. 3. Uber has a branch here. Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Anyway, you still haven't actually answered my question, and instead had to trawl google. What do your black friends say? I mean do you even have any black friends? Like I said earlier, Uber doesn't service my neighborhood so we haven't had much experience here. Do you think Uber should have to follow the laws of the communities they operate in even if the law is "unfair"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Like I said earlier, Uber doesn't service my neighborhood so we haven't had much experience here. I've made my stance fairly clear. I believe that having a taxi service that actually services minorities and has a degree of accountability that makes the experience not a poo poo show, due to cab's monopolies is more important than any fairness in regulatory capturing. You will disagree, but I think my point isn't outrageous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I've made my stance fairly clear. I believe that having a taxi service that actually services minorities and has a degree of accountability that makes the experience not a poo poo show, due to cab's monopolies is more important than any fairness in regulatory capturing. You didn't answer my question, do you think Uber should follow the law if they deem it "unfair"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I've made my stance fairly clear. I believe that having a taxi service that actually services minorities and has a degree of accountability that makes the experience not a poo poo show, due to cab's monopolies is more important than any fairness in regulatory capturing. Uber doesn't have to ignore regulations to treat minorities fairly. Uber would not disappear because of regulation, it'd just have to do normal carservice company stuff like actually cover risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You didn't answer my question, do you think Uber should follow the law if they deem it "unfair"? Yes, if the law is actually unfair. Jesus, I feel like we're arguing the civil rights movement again, and you're telling me it's wrong to break the rules even if it's to sit at a lunch counter
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Yes, if the law is actually unfair. Jesus, I feel like we're arguing the civil rights movement again, and you're telling me it's wrong to break the rules even if it's to sit at a lunch counter Holy poo poo, so Uber illegally operating at SFO airport is the new Montgomery Bus Boycott in your mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Hell, one of them wasn't even talking about Uber, it was talking about existing black car services. (The others do such accurate things as posit that Uber is classist because poor black people don't own smartphones which, as I posted in this thread, is incorrect and in of itself a classist statement.) The difference between Uber and a taxi is that the traditional excuses drivers use to avoid taking black passengers ("they never pay me" and "they're going to assault me") don't really hold up when the passenger has to have a credit card in order to use the service and thus has shown ability to pay and is traceable. Which means that a driver can't be casually or implicitly racist but has to be explicitly racist ("I won't take him because he's black"). Cabbies, on the other hand, make those excuses all the time. Similarly, if a cabbie pulls up, asks me where I'm going, then pulls away when I tell them, they're probably going to get away with it. An Uber driver who does that gets complained about to Uber when they cancel the fare (because now there's a record of who they were, that they initially said yes and then said no when they got to me) and suddenly he isn't driving any more. It isn't a magic bullet that fixes all problems, but it's still a huge improvement. Trabisnikof posted:Like I said earlier, Uber doesn't service my neighborhood so we haven't had much experience here. Yes. They should follow applicable laws. But since the laws regarding taxicabs usually don't actually apply to services like Uber, their not following those laws isn't really an issue to me. (The best solution is the one DC took, which regulated Uber-type services separately from taxis.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You didn't answer my question, do you think Uber should follow the law if they deem it "unfair"? I think it is pretty clear at this point that Uber/Lyft both think the answer is "no" and define just about everything which could possibly cost them one cent of lost profit as "unfair".
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Holy poo poo, so Uber illegally operating at SFO airport is the new Montgomery Bus Boycott in your mind. Says the guy who's apparently never talked to a single black person about this. Let's hear more speculation from the white guy on how Uber offers nothing to the black community
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
teejayh posted:Maybe Uber looks at it as a form of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is generally self-sacrificing, though. Considering the amounts of money at stake, Uber's flaunting of the law much more resembles the classic polluter's dilemma: "I make more profit from breaking the law than I lose in fines as a result of ignoring the law". I agree that, like any industry, the taxi industry has some good regulations and some bad regulations, and some level of regulatory capture. The Uber model of "just break all the loving laws in the most profitable manner possible while lobbying like mad in hopes of getting some special laws or exemptions passed just for us" isn't actually a good solution to either bad regulations or regulatory capture though, it's just a bubble company waving around enough money to get some regulatory capture of their own so they can ignore both the bad and good regulations. Uber is less lovely than the cab companies right now, but the cab companies have the potential to improve and Uber has plenty of room to get worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes. They should follow applicable laws. But since the laws regarding taxicabs usually don't actually apply to services like Uber, their not following those laws isn't really an issue to me. Should Uber have to follow the orders of local regulators, even if they apply rules in ways that make no sense to Uber's leadership? If a community makes the determination that because of some rules, Uber's model is illegal, should Uber operate illegally anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You didn't answer my question, do you think Uber should follow the law if they deem it "unfair"? Stop being dumb by making weak appeals to "the law" and stick to talking about the things über is doing that you don't think they should be doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Stop being dumb by making weak appeals to "the law" and stick to talking about the things über is doing that you don't think they should be doing. Violating the law. That's the thing I think they shouldn't be doing. There are numerous examples of where local regulators say uber can'y do X,Y, or Z and Uber says "well I don't think that's a good rule, so no". I've used the SFO Airport as an example, where Uber/Lyft have been ordered to stop operating but they refuse. Labor laws and car for-hire laws are other areas they've actively ignored. We shouldn't let companies like Uber, AirBnB, et al violate the law and regulation in the name of "innovation".
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Stop being dumb by making weak appeals to "the law" and stick to talking about the things über is doing that you don't think they should be doing. like breaking the law?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Should Uber have to follow the orders of local regulators, even if they apply rules in ways that make no sense to Uber's leadership? If a community makes the determination that because of some rules, Uber's model is illegal, should Uber operate illegally anyway? If regulators apply rules in ways that Uber thinks don't make sense/are incorrect applications of rules, they should operate in contrast to the application and then sue when the rules are applied to them incorrectly. (If they don't do it that way, they run the risk of having any lawsuit to overcome the regulation thrown out.) They should follow the orders of courts, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We shouldn't let companies like Uber, AirBnB, et al violate the law and regulation in the name of "innovation". The alternative is consumers being hosed by protectionist laws which they have no way of changing. These companies are getting away with this because many of the "regulations" in question have near zero public support. I do not see how crossing your arms and saying "BUT, THE LAW!" is a solution when the entire situation is borne out of a company deciding to upset the ineffective and maligned oligopoly. The solution seems to be establishing laws and regulations which are actually reasonable and enforceable and then coming down hard on Uber for breaking them. I like the post you had that was quoted in the OP, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
^ I honestly believe that if Uber wasn't so awful at their campaigning/lobbying they could easily get these rules changed through the same tricks everyone else uses. They've got the money and the PR campaign as evidenced in this thread, but their basic political fieldwork is awful. Kalman posted:If regulators apply rules in ways that Uber thinks don't make sense/are incorrect applications of rules, they should operate in contrast to the application and then sue when the rules are applied to them incorrectly. (If they don't do it that way, they run the risk of having any lawsuit to overcome the regulation thrown out.) But see here's the genius of Uber/lyft/AirBnB: its rarely them that are violating the law its the drivers/renters. They are the ones that get fined not Uber (http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/07/30/rideshare-drivers-cite-at-sfo-for-trespassing/). Lets look at the SFO example, where the highest regulator in California the CPUC, has ruled that Uber/Lyft can't pick up from Airports in California (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/216C7343-8740-40C3-BF60-2B57BF37F8A5/0/LettertoLoganGreenofLyft061014.pdf). Uber of course is still offering this on their website (https://www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco). Uber hasn't even applied for a permit. Of course, even the little regulation Uber/Lyft promises they comply with has been hit or miss: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/06/12/california-threatens-to-shut-down-uber-lyft-sidecar-over-airport-rides/ posted:“In the past few weeks the SFPD Airport Bureau has cited three TNC [Transportation Network Company] drivers for no proof of insurance, two for improper display of license plate, three for no registration, and two for no driver’s license,” Martin wrote. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Yeah and no one takes a "it's wrong because of the law" argument seriously because everyone knows you'd drop that argument in a second if you happened to not agree with the law. Or if you actually think "the law" is right then you're an even bigger idiot. We can also be pretty sure that you don't think local authorities should have carte blanche to regulate or legislate just anything they want. And finally there are lots of people, probably including you, who don't actually understand which existing laws apply to uber and which don't. All these things mean that appealing to "the law" is stupid and a waste of our time in this context. Though if you want to stick to it, I'm sure we can immediately find some really dumb taxi regulations to throw at you and see if you're willing to defend them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Umm no, there's plenty of licensing and certification that's an investment. For example, your bachelors degree is definitely an investment. So is a drivers license (you invest time and effort to learn to drive, and the reward is greater opportunities all around). Would you like to buy my bachelor's degree?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yeah and no one takes a "it's wrong because of the law" argument seriously because everyone knows you'd drop that argument in a second if you happened to not agree with the law. Or if you actually think "the law" is right then you're an even bigger idiot. We can also be pretty sure that you don't think local authorities should have carte blanche to regulate or legislate just anything they want. And finally there are lots of people, probably including you, who don't actually understand which existing laws apply to uber and which don't. The opposite idea that companies should only have to follow the laws they agree with is more moronic than the strawman you're making. Corporations aren't true people, people can engage in civil disobedience but if we allow cooperation to do the same we've created an end-run around all regulation. Here's what I'm talking about when I say Uber has bad political campaigning skills: http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-is-spamming-seattle-with-unwanted-phone-calls-1532889692
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
The other factor is that Uber and Lyft do not give you any information about what your tax liability will be, besides "talk to your accountant, pleb. You have one, don't you?". Unfamiliar with how a 1099 works? You're gonna get hosed up the rear end at tax time when you own $4k of taxes on $10k of earnings. When I drove for Lyft/UberX (I drove for both simultaneously), I earned around $12/hr after expenses, and of course that includes no benefits and massive liability exposure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The opposite idea that companies should only have to follow the laws they agree with is more moronic than the strawman you're making. Corporations aren't true people, people can engage in civil disobedience but if we allow cooperation to do the same we've created an end-run around all regulation. I'd okay with basically like jury nullification by society. Like the above poster said and I've said multiple times, this wouldn't be an issue if there was any support for the cab companies. Besides, you're point about corporate activism is totally bogus. Many corporations flouted Jim Crow laws as a form of protest in the past. Would you apply your logic to them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
I'm also curious how Uber could possibly facilitate racial discrimination. The driver doesn't see a picture of the rider, and denying the request after you've already arrived flags your driver account. In addition, passenger ratings mean literally nothing as you have to have like a 1.0 average over multiple rides to be "banned" from the service. I've personally never heard of it happening. There are a lot of issues with Uber but there's no way a cab is better for those worried about being discriminated against.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
^ The Driver gets your name, there have been drivers quoted in this thread discussing on reddit about how they wouldn't pick up people with ghetto names. Thundercracker posted:I'd okay with basically like jury nullification by society. Like the above poster said and I've said multiple times, this wouldn't be an issue if there was any support for the cab companies. I think the fact you keep trying to equate Uber with Civil Rights shows how little you know about either. Uber operating without even applying for permits isn't some moral high ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:ghetto names. valiant opponent of racism
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Riptor posted:valiant opponent of racism I'm sorry if my caricature of Uber drivers was offensive to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ Yeah, and if you cancel rides for no reason, your account gets flagged and you get a "you're fired" message via email.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, and if you cancel rides for no reason, your account gets flagged and you get a "you're fired" message via email. I thought you could see people's names before accepting the ride?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I thought you could see people's names before accepting the ride? I believe that changed with the latest version of the app, not sure. Regardless, it's even worse if you don't accept, since you're kicked out of the app as AFK, and acceptance rate is one of the primary criteria that determines whether you keep your job/contractorship. On the driver side, the other thing that keeps earnings down is the response radius. During busy times, it's entirely possible to be called to a fare 20 minutes away, that wants to travel two blocks - and now you need to drive back downtown or wherever again. Radbot fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Radbot posted:In addition, passenger ratings mean literally nothing as you have to have like a 1.0 average over multiple rides to be "banned" from the service. I've personally never heard of it happening. This is completely wrong: quote:What is the minimum driver rating you need to maintain to access our App? Further, every single time I've given a bad rating [always with text feedback explaining why] to an Uber driver I've gotten contacted by a local representative who explained what course of action they were going to take based on that feedback. The core issue, which I think the thread has somewhat lost in the details of whether or not it's a taxi or insurance on the car, is that Uber provides a fundamentally better quality of service during the day-to-day proposition of obtaining, taking, and paying for the car, which is what consumers who are looking for a service are going to focus on and why you see people who tend to be otherwise supportive of regulated systems are supporting Uber instead. Out of the probably 40-50 rides I've taken using UberX and Uber I've had two bad experiences total, both of which I was able to communicate that feedback to a person who could handle it. That experience contrasts pretty starkly to local taxis, where my bad experience rates are probably 33%+ of rides, the feedback is, as far as I can tell, going into a void (you get a business mail ticket at the airport, you fill out the ratings/complaints, and drop it in the mail), and the 'default' experience even in a good case is less comfortable. Edit: fair point. I was interpreting passenger ratings as 'ratings given by the passenger.' wodin fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Maybe you should actually read what I posted, which was about passenger ratings, not driver ratings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I'd okay with basically like jury nullification by society. Like the above poster said and I've said multiple times, this wouldn't be an issue if there was any support for the cab companies. What if a corporation decides they don't want to serve non-white people and that they disagree with the laws forcing them to serve non-white people? What if a group of people decides they disagree with anti-lynching laws? When anyone who feels strongly about it can ignore any law they don't like, people can apply that to any laws, not just the ones that you don't like. Should corporations that ignore worker safety laws get a free pass too? How about corporations that ignore antipollution laws? If a law is bad, the proper thing to do is repeal it, not to stick it to The Man by driving 90 mph in a 35mph zone because you can afford to pay off the tickets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What if a corporation decides they don't want to serve non-white people and that they disagree with the laws forcing them to serve non-white people? What if a group of people decides they disagree with anti-lynching laws? When anyone who feels strongly about it can ignore any law they don't like, people can apply that to any laws, not just the ones that you don't like. Should corporations that ignore worker safety laws get a free pass too? How about corporations that ignore antipollution laws? If a law is bad, the proper thing to do is repeal it, not to stick it to The Man by driving 90 mph in a 35mph zone because you can afford to pay off the tickets. First, many of the laws people imply Uber is breaking either don't actually apply or apply ambiguously. Second, how exactly do you think laws change? Third, "It's the law" is a terrible justification for an actual outcome. If you don't want uber picking people up at the airport you need to justify that, not say "welp, it's illegal so it's bad". The obvious underlying problem here is that some people are primed to see this as part of a larger battle between corporations and government, regulatory capture etc. and end up making brain-dead arguments as a result (inexplicable rule of law arguments from people who would never accept that argument in other contexts). The creation of a new popular service that bumps up against old regulations is a great time to re-examine those regulations. And if you think it's primarily money, not popularity which is driving some of Uber's success getting actual changes then you're deluding yourself. Especially considering the extensive relationships between existing taxi companies and local governments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Riptor posted:In Cambridge, MA the licensing board (who totally had no ties at all to the taxi industry), proposed this a few weeks ago You still haven't shown what the problem was. Boo hoo Uber didn't want to get a license? Riptor posted:I cannot sell either of those to the highest bidder though, nor are either of them made artificially scarce What does this have to do with Uber, a non street hailing service? Thundercracker posted:I'd okay with basically like jury nullification by society. Like the above poster said and I've said multiple times, this wouldn't be an issue if there was any support for the cab companies. It's interesting that you think there's "no support for cab companies". Why is that? Could it be because you're ignorant of all other car services? And why do you think having to ensure cars are insured, inspected, and driven by safe people is Jim Crow? Are license plates Jim Crow laws too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:First, many of the laws people imply Uber is breaking either don't actually apply or apply ambiguously. This is very true. Look at what happened in VA. McAuliffe gets elected partially due to the backing of cab drivers and the VA DMV sends Uber a cease and desist. Not because they were breaking the law, but because they fell into an ambiguous regulatory area. You didn't see other disruptive companies like Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc getting banned from operating in states. It's the cab drivers who have successfully completed the regulatory capture and made their regulators do their bidding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
axeil posted:This is very true. Look at what happened in VA. McAuliffe gets elected partially due to the backing of cab drivers and the VA DMV sends Uber a cease and desist. Not because they were breaking the law, but because they fell into an ambiguous regulatory area. You didn't see other disruptive companies like Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc getting banned from operating in states. It's the cab drivers who have successfully completed the regulatory capture and made their regulators do their bidding. If Netflix was "disruptive" in the same way Uber was they wouldn't bother getting the rights to movies before they put them on their service.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:26
|
|
