10 ms·

Contrast Google's approach with Uber's. Brin shows up at the protest at SFO. Kalanick makes a self-congratulatory post on Facebook [1]. No Google execs on Tru

• alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Uber also sent scabs to break up the taxi strike in support of the refugees at JFK. Even shut off surge pricing. EDIT: Including link to news story as proof: https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-after-taxi-strike-against-trumps-refu?utm_term=.kta3nNB8ra#.cvN8mVDBJ4 https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-af...
  • nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
    Jesus that's low. It's hard to even imagine a company making a political statement like that. Fuck Uber, the new Comcast
    • skj 10y ago
      How is this "low"? I'm genuinely confused here.
  • nerfhammer 10y ago
    Shutting off surge pricing... reduces the disincentive to strike. Drivers get paid more when surge pricing is on.
    • tptacek 10y ago
      It was Uber's competition striking, right? Disabling surge pricing when they'd otherwise have it seems like a way of capitalizing on the strike. That kind of thing is generally frowned upon in the labor movement. I'm speculating, though! I don't know much about the Delete Uber thing; I'm as curious as everyone else is about it.
      • akamaka 10y ago
        Surge pricing is often derided as price gouging. Uber has turned off surge pricing in the past during unexpected events (such as the New York bombing), so as to not be seen as profiting off unfortunate events. This seems to have been done under the same principles. (Whether one agrees with the policy is not too relevant. The subject of price increases during disasters has always been a controversial one, even before Uber, and that's a debate for game theorists and ethicists.)
        • alphonsegaston 10y ago
          So by your logic, the strike in support of refugees is an unfortunate event they're trying to avoid profiting from. And they're trying not to profit from it by...breaking the strike and advertising that they're doing so?
          • akamaka 10y ago
            Like I said, it's a matter of debate as to whether raising prices during an unfortunate circumstance is ethical. Regardless of which choice Uber makes, they are open to criticism. There could have been articles right now about how Uber is profiting because of the strike by raising rates. All I'm pointing out is that their action is consistent with how they've handled previous unexpected surges which had potential for bad PR.
            • alphonsegaston 10y ago
              How ethical raising prices is under these circumstances is not what is at question. I don't know why you keep raising this. To be clear, Uber broke a strike in support of the immigrants and refugees, advertising that they were doing so. Taxis drivers stood in solidarity with the immigrants and refugees by halting service in and out of JFK. Uber sent drivers there. Surge pricing was just an implementation detail of their being scabs. If you want to argue on behalf of Uber breaking this strike, please, go ahead.
              • 10y ago
  • MarkSweep 10y ago
    Would not surge pricing encourage drivers to pick up more passengers at the airport? Therefore by disabling surge pricing, Uber drivers have less motivation to be "scabs" by picking up people at the airport?
    • alphonsegaston 10y ago
      See tptacek's comment on this thread and my response to it.
  • kingkawn 10y ago
    This era of "disruptive innovation" has been in no small part cultural cover for renewed old-school exploitation.
  • empath75 10y ago
    To be fair to Uber, whether or not those drivers went to JFK was entirely optional. I don't think the taxi companies started the strike at JFK.
  • euyyn 10y ago
    I'm genuinely confused about the taxi strike: How does not driving passengers help?
    • smackfu 10y ago
      It shows how important Muslims are to the daily working of society in NYC.
      • euyyn 10y ago
        That makes sense, although then it seems to me that it'd have been better to strike within Manhattan and keep servicing the airport.
• akhilcacharya 10y ago
  If I recall his brother, who was born in America, was there as well.
• tn13 10y ago
  > Kalanick legitimizes policies of hate by joining the group. I think that just as nonsensical as Trump's opinion of Muslims. Just because Islamic societies are always oppressive does not mean we can treat every Muslim individuals as a threat. Similarly people working with Trump do not automatically get the blame. Different people might have had different reasons to support or vote Trump. What you say is the exact same intolerance but in different direction. We can only hope that people like Peter Thiel can put sense into the moron.
  • matt4077 10y ago
    The example you give is a clear logical fallacy: Some muslims are bad -> X is a muslim -> X is bad. Trump isn't considered immoral because he happens to belong to some group of bad people, but because of words - and now actions – which are clearly immoral. To claim that it is legitimate to associate with him is a farce. There is no policy proposal that could even theoretically offset the damage he is doing. Among those he has actually proposed, I'm having trouble of finding a single issue that could reasonably be considered "not evil" – maybe the infrastructure investments that aren't going to happen, and his notable lack of homo- and transphobia. Being a muslim is different because it is vastly more complex. Even though it may seem strange for an American audience, a muslim growing up in, say, the Philippines is not going to primarily associate "islam" with "terrorism". A possible analogy in Trump-world may be his immediate family, who could, with some goodwill, be excused for their myopic world view.
    • forgetsusername 10y ago
      >There is no policy proposal that could even theoretically offset the damage he is doing. Among those he has actually proposed, I'm having trouble of finding a single issue that could reasonably be considered "not evil" Everything Trumps's doing is so evil that the damage, after one week, is already insurmountable? This is quite the exaggeration, and it's precisely why the left isn't going to be able to move the needle with Trump voters: the left assumes everyone on the "other side" is a racist, sexist, ignoramus.
      • 10y ago
• jfoster 10y ago
  What does it mean, in the context of this comparison, that Google Ventures are significantly invested in Uber?
• rsp1984 10y ago
  People gave Google a lot of shit for their supposedly naive or hypocritical mantra of "don't be evil". Turns out it's genuine and not so naive after all. I strongly disagree. Google, like other companies, is very opportunistic and 100% calculating. Standing up for refugees and against Trump is a no-brainer move in Silicon Valley culture, especially when 1000s of others are doing the same and the majority of the media is on your side. There's only upside and no downside for Google and its employees in doing so. Sergey could have easily used his connections to get a 1:1 conversation with the president. That would have been 1000x more effective than joining a demo at SFO. He still chose the latter because he knew the effect it would have on social media. Google could use their resources and power to help with other causes and problems whose negative footprint on American society outclasses the refugee problem by orders of magnitude. But why waste any resources on that, since it's not a hot topic in the media and Google's hiring plans aren't affected? Nothing to gain there... Meanwhile they're getting close and cuddly with Trump's party to secure their political backing [1]. I'm not pro-Trump, in fact I think his refugee ban is beyond crazy, however I'm very deeply suspicious of people / organizations who tout themselves as the good guys ("don't be evil!") and then only stick their head out of their comfort zone when the cause is no-risk and it's ensured that the world is watching. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13502627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13502627
  • vthallam 10y ago
    I understand the "joining the protest is just keeping up with the silicon valley statusquo" argument. But, Sergey is an immigrant too, and i guess,for him it's personal. I am pretty sure he and Google in general are considering all the other avenues such as meeting the president, educating people. You can do both.
  • geebee 10y ago
    I'm surprised Sergey Brin's involvement in the no-hire collusion wasn't more deeply harmful to his reputation. I tend to agree with the protesters here, but I absolutely agree with you that there isn't much downside for Brin in taking this stand. I actually think that tech titans like Zuckerberg and Brin may be in a role similar to Hollywood stars in politics, but maybe even worse. Truth is, the H1B visa isn't really a visa that "allows" foreign workers to come to the US, it's a visa that allows corporate HR departments, largely in high tech, to decide who is and isn't allowed to come to the US - and the conditions under which they are allowed to stay. It's a remarkable power, an unacceptable one in my opinion. Although I'd be opposed to this kind of corporate control over the immigration system in general, I think that google showed itself very specifically unworthy of this power through its involvement in the no-poach collusion. But again, this is what I've come to expect - in fact, I'd say it's very naive to believe that handing corporations control over a big wing of th immigration system wouldn't lead to corporate mischief and an erosion of basic human rights for the workers whose lives they control. If google, Zuckerberg, and so forth lobbied fiercely for greater freedom for immigrants - freedom to choose what they study, what companies they work for (if any), freedom to move... really, just basic human freedom, then I might be more interested in this sort of stand. Otherwise, I tend to be deeply suspicious of their motives the moment they start to speak, because I know they have a political agenda that involves gaining control over the immigration system. But as it stands, I think that a lot of Silicon Valley "elites" like to wear the halo of being pro-immigrant while lobbying for a program that allows them to determine the circumstances under which would-be immigrants are allowed to come to the US and stay here. Just like the no-poach agreement, they use this to create a workforce that isn't allowed to participate freely in free labor markets, which I consider to be an essential component of basic human freedom. As you can tell, I don't care for them much anymore. And yeah, this was a personal transformation that took place over decades - there was a time I admired them.
• waynecolvin 10y ago
  How are you sure this isn't precisely evil on Google's part?