7 ms·

Hopefully

toomuchtodo 10y ago
I wonder if you'd feel the same way if I hoped someone would sustain a DDoS against their API endpoints due to their egregious violations of laws around the world; because I'd be fine with that. Or is it only okay when Uber is disrupting the law and labor rights?
- grapevines 10y ago
  Labor rights were an important fight... In the 19th century. The era of digital technology and communication ought to have a new approach to Labor laws. I think it's important to remember that in the current case, we are dealing with a single company doing business as a US corporation, but in the theoretical case, we could be dealing with a peer-to-peer network where the prices-per-ride are determined in the decentralized market. Crush uber with union laws, City restrictions, taxes, and other regulations, and a successor will fill the void which cannot be brought down so easily. It's not like uber is threatening to disconnect the driver if they don't work, it is entirely an at-will engagement. Like many unions today, the intent is to cement the power of the status-quo and raise the barrier of entry for new drivers.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - athenot 10y ago
    > it is entirely an at-will engagement Yes but one side has significantly more leverage, bargaining power and resources to skew the contract in their favor than the other. We don't think a large multinational and a 1-person shop have the same bargain power and access to markets, nor do we generally consider the US and Lichtenstein to have equal powers. Yet when it comes to employment, it's bizarre than some consider an individual with maybe $10,000 in the bank is somehow on equal footing with a company with over $10,000,000,000 in the bank.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      > Yet when it comes to employment, it's bizarre than some consider an individual with maybe $10,000 in the bank is somehow on equal footing with a company with over $10,000,000,000 in the bank. I didn't see anyone here say that. Furthermore, the existence of a power imbalance does not mean that the particular set of regulations imposed on Uber by Seattle are a good idea. It is entirely possible in these kinds of situations that the power imbalance is bad but the proposed solutions are worse.
      - criddell 10y ago
        I think it's worth trying in Seattle. A few years from now Seattle can be compared to other cities and we can try to figure out what the effects of the regulations are. If nothing good comes from it, rewrite the rules and try again.
        twblalock 10y ago
        > If nothing good comes from it, rewrite the rules and try again. The problem is, that's not the way it works. Bad regulations are rarely replaced in our political system. Bad regulations often get votes or legalize rent-seeking by interest groups, such as unions, who have political clout. It is much harder to reverse bad regulations than to avoid them in the first place, and that's why it is so important to oppose them in their early stages.
        Ericson2314 10y ago
        Private sector unions typically have less clout. We'll see if this case is any different.
        criddell 10y ago
        > it is so important to oppose them in their early stages Meh. This is one city and not a particularly conservative one. If a change needs to be made in five or ten years, they will make it. There's a decent chance the regulations will have a net positive effect so run the experiment and lets see what happens.
  - dispose13432 10y ago
    >It's not like uber is threatening to disconnect the driver if they don't work, it is entirely an at-will engagement. What about "dumping"?
  - camus2 10y ago
    > Labor rights were an important fight... In the 19th century. The era of digital technology and communication ought to have a new approach to Labor laws. By "new approach" you mean quasi slavery? no. workers will always have to fight for their rights.
    - dexterdog 10y ago
      And large companies will always have to combat that by buying politicians. In the end nobody wins.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Uber didn't disrupt any labor laws or rights, they followed the existing model for taxi drivers, which were already considered contractors and not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    There are exemptions from the FLSA, including taxi cab drivers. But taxi cab companies and drivers agree to an alternate regulatory paradigm. Uber has been disruptive to law and rights because it claims its drivers are exempt from FLSA and neither uber nor contractor is not a taxi cab business.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      If there's an agreement, why are taxi drivers suing their companies, as in Chicago? Which are those rights granted in this agreement, and why aren't those even mentioned in pre-Uber stories describing the crappy situation of cab drivers, such as [1], which describe drivers having to pay to be allowed to work? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-difficult-in-best-of-times-gets-tougher.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-di...
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    Uber breaks the law in mnay countries in Europe, I guess the fines for breaking it are not expensive enough for them. Maybe we should set the fines according to company assets.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Does Uber break labour laws in European countries? Which ones? I live in an European country myself, and there was a large campaign by the taxi associations against Uber (though unsuccessful), yet I've never seen that accusation, only regarding other kinds of laws.
      - rimantas 10y ago
- smokeyj 10y ago
  A denial of service is the opposit of providing a service. You really can't tell the difference? Thats probably why you're moralizing legal code and forgetting that people voluntarily make uber successful.
  - jbmorgado 10y ago
    People also "voluntarily" made mining companies hugely successful in the 19th century. But that doesn't mean the workers, that worked there "voluntarily" didn't suffer greatly from their work.
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      They worked there voluntarily in every practical sense of the word. There was no threat of violence on behalf of any of the parties entering into contract. Which part of this equation do you feel entitled to intervene in? If these miners chose to become farmers instead, would you still say that they were "voluntarily" farmers? Or that mother nature was oppressing them by forcing them into hard labor..
      - jbmorgado 10y ago
        I'm absolutely sure people enjoy terrible working conditions and meagre wages just because they want to make their millionaire boss a multi millionaire boss... not because they alternative is to be homeless/be hungry/die of cold. I'm also absolutely sure you can be whatever you want to be. I.E. an immigrant arriving in the shores of the USA in the 19th century could just build his own cattle ranch. Boy if he accepted to work 18h a day 400m bellow the surface of the Earth, receive a ridiculously small wage for the job and die in his 30's from it, I'm absolutely sure it was because that was actually the miner's life long dream. Damn unions, destroying those nice miner's dreams of having a miserable life since the 1900's...
        smokeyj 10y ago
        Weak argument all around. You should feel bad.

Hopefully

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if I hoped someone would sustain a DDoS against their API endpoints due to their egregious violations of laws around the world; because I'd be fine with that. Or is it only okay when Uber is disrupting the law and labor rights?

grapevines 10y ago
Labor rights were an important fight... In the 19th century. The era of digital technology and communication ought to have a new approach to Labor laws. I think it's important to remember that in the current case, we are dealing with a single company doing business as a US corporation, but in the theoretical case, we could be dealing with a peer-to-peer network where the prices-per-ride are determined in the decentralized market. Crush uber with union laws, City restrictions, taxes, and other regulations, and a successor will fill the void which cannot be brought down so easily. It's not like uber is threatening to disconnect the driver if they don't work, it is entirely an at-will engagement. Like many unions today, the intent is to cement the power of the status-quo and raise the barrier of entry for new drivers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- athenot 10y ago
  > it is entirely an at-will engagement Yes but one side has significantly more leverage, bargaining power and resources to skew the contract in their favor than the other. We don't think a large multinational and a 1-person shop have the same bargain power and access to markets, nor do we generally consider the US and Lichtenstein to have equal powers. Yet when it comes to employment, it's bizarre than some consider an individual with maybe $10,000 in the bank is somehow on equal footing with a company with over $10,000,000,000 in the bank.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    > Yet when it comes to employment, it's bizarre than some consider an individual with maybe $10,000 in the bank is somehow on equal footing with a company with over $10,000,000,000 in the bank. I didn't see anyone here say that. Furthermore, the existence of a power imbalance does not mean that the particular set of regulations imposed on Uber by Seattle are a good idea. It is entirely possible in these kinds of situations that the power imbalance is bad but the proposed solutions are worse.
    - criddell 10y ago
      I think it's worth trying in Seattle. A few years from now Seattle can be compared to other cities and we can try to figure out what the effects of the regulations are. If nothing good comes from it, rewrite the rules and try again.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        > If nothing good comes from it, rewrite the rules and try again. The problem is, that's not the way it works. Bad regulations are rarely replaced in our political system. Bad regulations often get votes or legalize rent-seeking by interest groups, such as unions, who have political clout. It is much harder to reverse bad regulations than to avoid them in the first place, and that's why it is so important to oppose them in their early stages.
        Ericson2314 10y ago
        Private sector unions typically have less clout. We'll see if this case is any different.
        criddell 10y ago
        > it is so important to oppose them in their early stages Meh. This is one city and not a particularly conservative one. If a change needs to be made in five or ten years, they will make it. There's a decent chance the regulations will have a net positive effect so run the experiment and lets see what happens.
- dispose13432 10y ago
  >It's not like uber is threatening to disconnect the driver if they don't work, it is entirely an at-will engagement. What about "dumping"?
- camus2 10y ago
  > Labor rights were an important fight... In the 19th century. The era of digital technology and communication ought to have a new approach to Labor laws. By "new approach" you mean quasi slavery? no. workers will always have to fight for their rights.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    And large companies will always have to combat that by buying politicians. In the end nobody wins.
icebraining 10y ago
Uber didn't disrupt any labor laws or rights, they followed the existing model for taxi drivers, which were already considered contractors and not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- cmurf 10y ago
  There are exemptions from the FLSA, including taxi cab drivers. But taxi cab companies and drivers agree to an alternate regulatory paradigm. Uber has been disruptive to law and rights because it claims its drivers are exempt from FLSA and neither uber nor contractor is not a taxi cab business.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    If there's an agreement, why are taxi drivers suing their companies, as in Chicago? Which are those rights granted in this agreement, and why aren't those even mentioned in pre-Uber stories describing the crappy situation of cab drivers, such as [1], which describe drivers having to pay to be allowed to work? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-difficult-in-best-of-times-gets-tougher.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-di...
- literallycancer 10y ago
  Uber breaks the law in mnay countries in Europe, I guess the fines for breaking it are not expensive enough for them. Maybe we should set the fines according to company assets.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Does Uber break labour laws in European countries? Which ones? I live in an European country myself, and there was a large campaign by the taxi associations against Uber (though unsuccessful), yet I've never seen that accusation, only regarding other kinds of laws.
    - rimantas 10y ago
smokeyj 10y ago
A denial of service is the opposit of providing a service. You really can't tell the difference? Thats probably why you're moralizing legal code and forgetting that people voluntarily make uber successful.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  People also "voluntarily" made mining companies hugely successful in the 19th century. But that doesn't mean the workers, that worked there "voluntarily" didn't suffer greatly from their work.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    They worked there voluntarily in every practical sense of the word. There was no threat of violence on behalf of any of the parties entering into contract. Which part of this equation do you feel entitled to intervene in? If these miners chose to become farmers instead, would you still say that they were "voluntarily" farmers? Or that mother nature was oppressing them by forcing them into hard labor..
    - jbmorgado 10y ago
      I'm absolutely sure people enjoy terrible working conditions and meagre wages just because they want to make their millionaire boss a multi millionaire boss... not because they alternative is to be homeless/be hungry/die of cold. I'm also absolutely sure you can be whatever you want to be. I.E. an immigrant arriving in the shores of the USA in the 19th century could just build his own cattle ranch. Boy if he accepted to work 18h a day 400m bellow the surface of the Earth, receive a ridiculously small wage for the job and die in his 30's from it, I'm absolutely sure it was because that was actually the miner's life long dream. Damn unions, destroying those nice miner's dreams of having a miserable life since the 1900's...
      - smokeyj 10y ago
        Weak argument all around. You should feel bad.