I didn't miss it. I just think way more information is necessary in order to understand whether or not it's a positive or negative. As originally implemented, i

I didn't miss it. I just think way more information is necessary in order to understand whether or not it's a positive or negative. As originally implemented, it doesn't appear to be in any way dishonest. My understanding of the article is that the service fee wasn't originally optional. It was a static 10%, required, service fee. No information is given about how much of that fee goes to workers, meaning it's entirely possible that all of it does. It doesn't go to _the_ worker who delivered your groceries, it goes into a common pool that is distributed across all workers. If 10% is enough to break the barrier into a living wage then this could be a positive change. Workers no longer have to fear having a "bad night" where they have 5 runs to get a single $10 items vs a "good night" where they have 3 runs to get $200 worth of groceries. They made it optional and mutable when their workers protested.