3 ms·
No, point 2 is not a strawman. Your argument implied that Uber would be affected by automation, but taxis would not. If you're willing to admit that both serv
by omginternets 11y ago
No, point 2 is not a strawman. Your argument implied that Uber would be affected by automation, but taxis would not.
If you're willing to admit that both services are affected by automation, then your point about Uber welcoming automation is a red herring.
Moreover, the article is a rebuttal to an argument that says "Uber = bad, because it treats the drivers unfairly". As such, evidence to the contrary invalidates that argument, even if one doesn't particularly care about driver pay.
- ThomPete 11y agoPlease point to where it implies that?
- ThomPete 11y agoUber hire drivers as freelancers but treat them as employers. - Uber drivers can't hire people to drive for them. - Uber drivers can't decide which car they want to use. - Uber drivers can't decide the price they are charging their customers. - Uber discourages tipping. - Uber doesn't pay for their healthcare. Thats not a clear case of anything. Thats the opening of an important debate because it points to some underlying issues with society and technology that needs to be debated much more seriously than simply yelling "Luddite fallacy" and what people otherwise like to brush aside any concern about the speed of technology vs. societies ability to cope with it.