I might be with you on the others, but [3] is just media hysteria based on faulty logic. I've seen this type of story repeatedly after there's been an incident

I might be with you on the others, but [3] is just media hysteria based on faulty logic. I've seen this type of story repeatedly after there's been an incident in some city. If it's not Uber it's a hotel chain or similar. It's easy clicks for tabloid newspapers. They probably have a template for this sort of story ready to go. And there will be plenty more ammo for this sort of thing as more companies move to automated pricing models. Almost everyone who had to pay surge prices that day would not have been directly involved in the explosion (or even seen it). Are companies now supposed to compensate for any bad thing that might be happening in somebody's life? Presumably those who chose to pay surge prices did so because it was still the cheapest/best way of getting home. So even at those prices Uber was better than any alternative. EDIT: Forgot to mention, it's also possible some people might have only got home that night because of surge pricing, because it increases the number of drivers. If I had to buy a very expensive airline ticket at the last minute to see a sick relative, would the airline be exploiting me? Previous HN discussion and article on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics, which is relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855