3 ms·
There we go, there's the person actually defending them. Nope, I'm not too quick; Uber's a scummy company and this is a blatant invasion of privacy.
by trowawee 10y ago
There we go, there's the person actually defending them. Nope, I'm not too quick; Uber's a scummy company and this is a blatant invasion of privacy.
- wingerlang 10y agoNo I'm just saying it can be a case of e.g. "don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity".
- fosco 10y agoif you see a person who is dying of thirst you do not jack the price of $1 dollar a bottle to $2 just because you know they are thirsty. this business practice is unbelievable that it is even legal.
- wingerlang 10y agoAll I said was that they claim NOT to do this within the article.
- fosco 10y agoweird, thats what I'm reading from the article in the link in parent. --> "Chen says users will pay up to 9.9 times in surge if their battery is critical just so they’re not stranded wherever they are (of course, assuming that your driver doesn’t cancel on you after your phone’s dead.)"
- wingerlang 10y agoIt is possible this has happened naturally, say after some big festival or event where 1000s of people call uber at the same time. Or surveys perhaps. This is what I am talking about > Chen promises that Uber does not use this information to pry you to pay surge, which sounds like a relief if that’s to be believed. Because this quote is directly saying they don't do it. While your quote doesn't.