14 ms·

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public ey

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. I'm no fan of Kalanick, but I thought he comported himself reasonably, taking the time to explain things from his perspective. He could have just said: "sorry no time". Instead he shook the driver's hand, tried to explain the logic of his moving down the luxury scale. The fact that the footage of him with two women wasn't cut out is frankly disgusting and a total invasion of his privacy. He didn't do anything wrong except flirt a bit. How tawdry of Bloomberg to show that material. What is wrong with newspapers nowadays? It seems the press decides someone's "fair game" and they just engage in the most blatant character assassination.

wopwopwop 10y ago
> This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. Why? If I were a driver, you can be sure I would be filming everyone. Does that mean I would have no credibility? Here in London I've assumed that cabs are always filming.
- beejiu 10y ago
  They would not be able to publish the video, however. That would be illegal.
  - chickenfries 10y ago
    Why?
    - oculusthrift 10y ago
      look up 2 party consent laws in California.
      - iraphael 10y ago
        that's for use of a recording in court, not sure it applies to this situation
        caffeinewriter 10y ago
        What? No. > The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989). If there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, all parties must consent to the recording.
      - TheseDays888 10y ago
        "Here in London..." Not sure referring to California laws follows here. It's for a different reason.
    - beejiu 10y ago
      In the UK specifically, it would fall under the Data Protection Act. You need to make sure that the data (video) is used fairly and lawfully and for a defined purpose. In this case, the purpose of collection is safety, not for publishing on Bloomberg.com.
- feelix 10y ago
  > And the gig has gotten harder for longtime drivers. In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile and $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. Black car drivers get paid less and their business faces far more competition from other Uber services. Considering that he did change the price from under the driver, and that is very likely what did indeed bankrupt the guy, I don't blame him from acting out in any way he can. The fact that the CEO just screams out "BULLSHIT" when he points out the price decrease which affected him and that his only response just makes me lose respect for him completely.
  - wopwopwop 10y ago
    > The fact that the CEO just screams out "BULLSHIT" He's a bro. You're clearly not a bro.
    - monksy 10y ago
      That's hardly a quantifier of being a bro.
      - wopwopwop 10y ago
        It's a qualifier, bro.
        dang 10y ago
        Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - lotp 10y ago
    He's only saying "bullshit" to the guys claim they were originally making $20/mile... Sounds like from info you posted that both the $20 and the $2.75 per mile claim are completely wrong. Kamel: “We started with $20.” Kalanick: “Bullshit.” Kamel: “We started with $20. How much is the mile now, $2.75?”
timthelion 10y ago
> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, To me this is a very classist oppinion. Normal people are filmed as they take the bus, ride the subway, go on the elevator, walk through the graveyard (seriously), go shopping, so why should a rich person who can afford a cab be granted an exclusive right to privacy which the rest of us don't have? If we promote this case due to the expectation of privacy that only serves to create this devide between rich and poor in which only the rich can afford privacy rather than a precident in which everyone deserves it.
- Cookingboy 10y ago
  "Normal people are filmed as they take the bus, ride the subway, go on the elevator, walk through the graveyard (seriously), go shopping, so why should a rich person who can afford a cab be granted an exclusive right to privacy which the rest of us don't have?" What are you talking about? Normal, non-rich people totally have the same expectation of privacy when they take a cab. Would YOU be ok if your cab driver films you without any knowledge? A taxi/uber/lyft is a rented private car, it is not the same as public transportation.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - knorby 10y ago
    A lot of TNC drivers have cameras pointed into the car, some (but not all) with signs indicating the passenger is being filmed. It is even more standard in real taxis. The expectation of privacy is more that such footage in any of the mentioned circumstances would never be released unless it captured someone committing a crime or something similar.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    > What are you talking about? Normal, non-rich people totally have the same expectation of privacy when they take a cab. "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
  - 10y ago
chickenfries 10y ago
> This will probably be an unpopular opinion Well what do you know, at the time of writing this, it's the top comment! > The fact that the footage of him with two women wasn't cut out is frankly disgusting and a total invasion of his privacy. He didn't do anything wrong except flirt a bit. How tawdry of Bloomberg to show that material. It's relevant because he said things like this: “That’s kind of how I roll. I make sure every year is a hard year. If it’s easy I’m not pushing hard enough.” at a time when we're supposed to be trusting that Kalanick is fixing his company's culture... > the most blatant character assassination Where was the character assassination? They just reported on what happened in the video. The video is relevant to the public interest. Do you have a right to not be filmed in an Uber... maybe? I don't know. It's not my car, and the driver could need the film for their own protection. I think I would be okay with being filmed as long as it wasn't secret.
- pjwal 10y ago
  Obviously, he did not know he was being filmed...so it was a secret.
  - chickenfries 10y ago
    What makes you say that? The camera looks like it's in a place where you should be able to see it. Either way, I don't think a conversation I have in the back of someone else's car is private.
    - pjwal 10y ago
      Because I find it incredibly hard to believe that he would engage like this if he believed there was a possibility of the conversation being made public. Sure, I could be wrong, but I am of the camp that the driver will find legal repercussions to this.
      - zepto 10y ago
        You mean he only behaves this was when he thinks there are no witnesses?
kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
Also, while it's perfectly okay for the driver to tell Travis what his concerns or pain points are, it's rather rich of him to assume that he has any context to tell Travis what business decisions make sense. As if Uber won't have charged higher prices if they could get away with it. The CEOs being disconnected with the masses is bad, but so is the masses assuming that somehow THEY know just the right thing the CEO should have done without being privy to any of the data that a CEO has access to. It's not too different from the arrogance you see on HN.
- pjwal 10y ago
  Right, the driver didn't even know what the current Uber Black fair was...falsely claiming it was $2.75. Anyone would get annoyed when someone was telling you that you were essentially doing your job wrong but didn't even know the basic facts. In this case, these facts have a direct impact on the driver, which makes it all the more inane that he doesn't know them.
  - Phlarp 10y ago
    You seem really intent on defending Kalanick here so I will only post this as a reply to one of the several similar comments you've made regarding this: > Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X fares you'll lose money. You can't force contractors to take lower fare rides and then still claim the high ground of "we didn't lower your fares to X"
    - pjwal 10y ago
      That's fair enough and I see that point. My intent is not to defend Kalanick, but I do instinctually defend free markets. I think Uber and its drivers found itself in a situation with falling demand amidst rising competition.
unityByFreedom 10y ago
I don't think releasing the video was right. Regarding Uber black, another HN user points out, > Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X fares you'll lose money. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13758023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13758023
- wopwopwop 10y ago
  > Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. That seems like semantics to me. The pay was lowered.
  - vpndonttrackme 10y ago
    Why are you both unaware that the rate itself was in fact lowered. Straight from the article: > In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile or $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. Nip arguments in the bud, not at the leaf.
    - wopwopwop 10y ago
      > Nip arguments in the bud, not at the leaf. I like that attitude.
    - nstj 10y ago
      But there's no indication that this has anything to do with how much the driver receives. This number is how much Uber receives.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  If the consumers are voting with their wallets that they want more Uber X rides and less Uber Black rides, well, that's what should happen. To bring supply back in line with demand, some drivers who used to drive Uber Black should either leave or downgrade, and if they won't do it willingly, then some drivers going bankrupt is a way how the market forces "driver supply" to go in the direction where it apparently needs to go.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lr4444lr 10y ago
Immoral perhaps, but not necessarily illegal. Does anyone know where this took place? I wasn't 100% certain from the article. Many U.S. states have a single-party consent wiretapping law, which permits this kind of surreptitious recording.
TheseDays888 10y ago
> What is wrong with newspapers nowadays? It seems the press decides someone's "fair game" and they just engage in the most blatant character assassination. You're peering through time with rose-colored glasses. American history is littered with instances using the press to smear and undermine the oppositions, whoever it may be. The Founding Fathers, a number of them with close ties or financial stakes in printing press businesses, used it regularly to peddle an agenda. Appearance and opinion have long mattered. Because they are really the only things we have on which to judge. Everyone has their own personal view and influencing that is the goal. Not truth. Never in the history of the nation has actual truth-seeking been the goal of the powers that be in politics or media. Ideas like we're now in a "post-truth" world are bizarre. It's nearly a truism of the species to use a pedestal to smear enemies and endear to us our fans.
sjtgraham 10y ago
I agree. I felt the article painted a far worse picture than the video justified. You have to love a camera, the only unimpeachable witness there is. IMO the most incriminating thing in this video Travis did is that cornball shimmying in the back seat.
strathmeyer 10y ago
Gee how are you going to catch anyone doing something immoral if you warn them before they do it? Not sure what you are trying to say about bayesian priors, but when you say untrue things it ruins your credibility. Not sure why people are upvoting you. Yeah, bad people hate it when you talk about the things you do. Fortunately, like the PewDiePie incident, famous people can't ruin others just because they are upset they reveal the things they do.
matt4077 10y ago
Kalanick's opinions and behaviour are obviously of interest to the public right now. There are quite a few anecdotes that, taken together, paint the picture of a thoroughly chauvinistic CEO with a bit of social darwinism thrown in for good measure. His comments here further that impression: he throws around jingoism in his awkward attempt to impress his companions ("every year is hard for Uber...") and is either uninformed or dishonest with regards to the driver's complaints. The "footage of him with two women" could not be cut out because it is the entirety of this video. It's necessary both to prove the identity as well as adding context and body language. The women aren't identifiable and him being out & about with two women could have been observed by anybody, and was probably observed by the people at whatever Super Bowl event he was visiting. It's also hard to judge this without remembering that Uber employees had, for years, full access to any customer's ride data, and often used it for fun & stalking. They boasted about their ability to algorithmically tag "rides of glory", set out to punish a journalist by digging up private information about her, and collect data about user's positions not directly required for their actual service. I fail to see how this is character assassination. It's a primary source – the video itself carries the meaning, and if that is damaging to his reputation, then the flaws are his and not something made up by any journalists. Likewise, I ain't reducing anyone's "bayesian priors" because the driver's credibility is completely irrelevant. He's not making any relevant statements of fact beyond those visible in the video.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  It's amazing that someone who tried to deceive poor people into taking subprime loans in pursuit of his monopolistic dumping scheme, chooses to scream "personal responsibility" at a bankrupted immigrant. And the first thing people do is debate the ethics of recording him.
  - HeavenBanned 10y ago
    >And the first thing "astroturfers" do is debate the ethics of recording him.
  - justinclift 10y ago
    Out of curiosity, what's his involvement with "monopolistic dumping scheme"? Looking through his Wikipedia (ok, not a fantastic reference source ;) ) entry, there doesn't seem to be any mention of involvement (employment/directorships/etc) with financial institutions. ?
mempko 10y ago
Driver was Rude? Let's frame this a little. Guy lost 90k because of Kalanick's king like powers to change the business on a whim. In east St. Louis they would kill you if you lost someone $100. 90k? Kalanick is lucky he is in polite company.
dnautics 10y ago
> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral. It's definitely illegal. It's not immoral to film it necessarily, it is maybe immoral to release it without permission. But at some point you have to admit that it becomes "public interest" to leak information, even if it transgresses those moral standards. As an extreme example, if you had managed to covertly film Kim Jong Un, giving insight into the inner workings of the hermit kingdom, would it be immoral to make it public?
acchow 10y ago
"I lost $97,000 because of you." This is exactly how entrepreneurship works - you take risks, sometimes enormous risks with huge capital investments, and it doesn't pan out. Sometimes it does work out and you reap great rewards for a long time. The driver signed up for this and the gamble didn't work out... now he's blaming Uber?
- coralreef 10y ago
  I agree that you don't really have a right to complain when willfully you join a platform you don't control. But driving for Uber isn't entrepreneurship. You don't control your marketing, brand, you don't acquire your own customers, no control over price or business model, etc. Drivers are really just cogs in the service, provide a car, drive the routes, get paid.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    driving for Uber is definitely entrepreneurship (source: Uh, I did Uber and Lyft for a year and a half, and did quite well, too). And it's also totally okay to complain about shitty contracting relationships. For example, the entrepreneurs of company X contracts a company Y to make some hardware, and the job is totally botched, but they can't do anything because a lawsuit is not worth the time/money.... I don't think it's unreasonable for X to bitch about Y since that provides a useful signal to others to not make the same mistake. Not identifying with Uber drivers as entrepreneurs is a very classist attitude.
  - acchow 10y ago
    I mean entrepreneurship assuming he lost $96,000 by buying a few cars and timesharing them out to other drivers... which is starting our own small business... You can't "lose" $96,000 by being a driver...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
LargeCompanies 10y ago
The CEO of Uber is a public figure and has as much right to privacy as he gave Sarah Lacy whom he let Uber stalk her and family for a negative article. He is a ruthless, greedy, ignoramus, misogynistic pig who needs his ass handed to him and Uber to crumble before his eyes!
- LargeCompanies 10y ago
  So those downvoting me think there is nothing wrong with having a reporter stalked, allowing your female employees to be treated like dogs... stealing your competitors IP... snubbing your nose at the law to put robot cars on the road that could kill people all for the sake of winning .. this and other horrible behavior is perfectly fine and that's why your downvoting me?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mylinh 10y ago
This will probably be unpopular as well. I think Travis overreacted and lacked empathy with the driver, but the driver didn't seem to understand that TK doesn't control market forces, and doesn't "have the business model in his hand". Uber was doing well with Black Cars, but the company did the right thing by undercutting its own market so that it could survive and grow. There's also nothing wrong with "giving every person a ride", rather than limiting Uber to just black cars for the riches. Uber adapted to market forces, the driver didn't, and then he blamed the company for his problems. Maybe teaching economics in primary school could solve this problem.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 10y ago
There's a different standard for public figures. A relative of mine was a chief of a fire department. During a nasty contract battle, he had people picketing his home -- a miserable experience for his family at the time. But... he was a public figure and the protestors were on a public sidewalk. When you're a public figure that carefully nurtures a bad-boy, asshole image and attitude of privacy bordering on contempt, you shouldn't expect kid gloves.
mintplant 10y ago
> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. Sorry, why should we care about the driver's "credibility" here? Are you alleging the video has been doctored?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nikdaheratik 10y ago
Every taxi I've taken in the last 5-6 years has built in cameras that film both the back seat and the passenger before pickup. There notices but I don't believe you can assume privacy from the driver when it's not a limo with the screen up or something similar. There are legitimate reasons why this is done in a taxi: preventing people running away from payment, engaging in harassment or other bad behavior, or claiming you refused to pick them up for reason X when you had a good reason to not pick them up. From what I know of Uber, these reasons all apply to their drivers as well.

wopwopwop 10y ago

> This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. Why? If I were a driver, you can be sure I would be filming everyone. Does that mean I would have no credibility? Here in London I've assumed that cabs are always filming.

beejiu 10y ago
They would not be able to publish the video, however. That would be illegal.
- chickenfries 10y ago
  Why?
  - oculusthrift 10y ago
    look up 2 party consent laws in California.
    - iraphael 10y ago
      that's for use of a recording in court, not sure it applies to this situation
      - caffeinewriter 10y ago
        What? No. > The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989). If there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, all parties must consent to the recording.
    - TheseDays888 10y ago
      "Here in London..." Not sure referring to California laws follows here. It's for a different reason.
  - beejiu 10y ago
    In the UK specifically, it would fall under the Data Protection Act. You need to make sure that the data (video) is used fairly and lawfully and for a defined purpose. In this case, the purpose of collection is safety, not for publishing on Bloomberg.com.
feelix 10y ago
> And the gig has gotten harder for longtime drivers. In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile and $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. Black car drivers get paid less and their business faces far more competition from other Uber services. Considering that he did change the price from under the driver, and that is very likely what did indeed bankrupt the guy, I don't blame him from acting out in any way he can. The fact that the CEO just screams out "BULLSHIT" when he points out the price decrease which affected him and that his only response just makes me lose respect for him completely.
- wopwopwop 10y ago
  > The fact that the CEO just screams out "BULLSHIT" He's a bro. You're clearly not a bro.
  - monksy 10y ago
    That's hardly a quantifier of being a bro.
    - wopwopwop 10y ago
      It's a qualifier, bro.
      - dang 10y ago
        Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- lotp 10y ago
  He's only saying "bullshit" to the guys claim they were originally making $20/mile... Sounds like from info you posted that both the $20 and the $2.75 per mile claim are completely wrong. Kamel: “We started with $20.” Kalanick: “Bullshit.” Kamel: “We started with $20. How much is the mile now, $2.75?”

timthelion 10y ago

> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, To me this is a very classist oppinion. Normal people are filmed as they take the bus, ride the subway, go on the elevator, walk through the graveyard (seriously), go shopping, so why should a rich person who can afford a cab be granted an exclusive right to privacy which the rest of us don't have? If we promote this case due to the expectation of privacy that only serves to create this devide between rich and poor in which only the rich can afford privacy rather than a precident in which everyone deserves it.

Cookingboy 10y ago
"Normal people are filmed as they take the bus, ride the subway, go on the elevator, walk through the graveyard (seriously), go shopping, so why should a rich person who can afford a cab be granted an exclusive right to privacy which the rest of us don't have?" What are you talking about? Normal, non-rich people totally have the same expectation of privacy when they take a cab. Would YOU be ok if your cab driver films you without any knowledge? A taxi/uber/lyft is a rented private car, it is not the same as public transportation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- knorby 10y ago
  A lot of TNC drivers have cameras pointed into the car, some (but not all) with signs indicating the passenger is being filmed. It is even more standard in real taxis. The expectation of privacy is more that such footage in any of the mentioned circumstances would never be released unless it captured someone committing a crime or something similar.
- pyrale 10y ago
  > What are you talking about? Normal, non-rich people totally have the same expectation of privacy when they take a cab. "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
- 10y ago

chickenfries 10y ago

> This will probably be an unpopular opinion Well what do you know, at the time of writing this, it's the top comment! > The fact that the footage of him with two women wasn't cut out is frankly disgusting and a total invasion of his privacy. He didn't do anything wrong except flirt a bit. How tawdry of Bloomberg to show that material. It's relevant because he said things like this: “That’s kind of how I roll. I make sure every year is a hard year. If it’s easy I’m not pushing hard enough.” at a time when we're supposed to be trusting that Kalanick is fixing his company's culture... > the most blatant character assassination Where was the character assassination? They just reported on what happened in the video. The video is relevant to the public interest. Do you have a right to not be filmed in an Uber... maybe? I don't know. It's not my car, and the driver could need the film for their own protection. I think I would be okay with being filmed as long as it wasn't secret.

pjwal 10y ago
Obviously, he did not know he was being filmed...so it was a secret.
- chickenfries 10y ago
  What makes you say that? The camera looks like it's in a place where you should be able to see it. Either way, I don't think a conversation I have in the back of someone else's car is private.
  - pjwal 10y ago
    Because I find it incredibly hard to believe that he would engage like this if he believed there was a possibility of the conversation being made public. Sure, I could be wrong, but I am of the camp that the driver will find legal repercussions to this.
    - zepto 10y ago
      You mean he only behaves this was when he thinks there are no witnesses?

kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago

Also, while it's perfectly okay for the driver to tell Travis what his concerns or pain points are, it's rather rich of him to assume that he has any context to tell Travis what business decisions make sense. As if Uber won't have charged higher prices if they could get away with it. The CEOs being disconnected with the masses is bad, but so is the masses assuming that somehow THEY know just the right thing the CEO should have done without being privy to any of the data that a CEO has access to. It's not too different from the arrogance you see on HN.

pjwal 10y ago
Right, the driver didn't even know what the current Uber Black fair was...falsely claiming it was $2.75. Anyone would get annoyed when someone was telling you that you were essentially doing your job wrong but didn't even know the basic facts. In this case, these facts have a direct impact on the driver, which makes it all the more inane that he doesn't know them.
- Phlarp 10y ago
  You seem really intent on defending Kalanick here so I will only post this as a reply to one of the several similar comments you've made regarding this: > Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X fares you'll lose money. You can't force contractors to take lower fare rides and then still claim the high ground of "we didn't lower your fares to X"
  - pjwal 10y ago
    That's fair enough and I see that point. My intent is not to defend Kalanick, but I do instinctually defend free markets. I think Uber and its drivers found itself in a situation with falling demand amidst rising competition.

unityByFreedom 10y ago

I don't think releasing the video was right. Regarding Uber black, another HN user points out, > Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X fares you'll lose money. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13758023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13758023

wopwopwop 10y ago
> Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. That seems like semantics to me. The pay was lowered.
- vpndonttrackme 10y ago
  Why are you both unaware that the rate itself was in fact lowered. Straight from the article: > In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile or $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. Nip arguments in the bud, not at the leaf.
  - wopwopwop 10y ago
    > Nip arguments in the bud, not at the leaf. I like that attitude.
  - nstj 10y ago
    But there's no indication that this has anything to do with how much the driver receives. This number is how much Uber receives.
PeterisP 10y ago
If the consumers are voting with their wallets that they want more Uber X rides and less Uber Black rides, well, that's what should happen. To bring supply back in line with demand, some drivers who used to drive Uber Black should either leave or downgrade, and if they won't do it willingly, then some drivers going bankrupt is a way how the market forces "driver supply" to go in the direction where it apparently needs to go.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lr4444lr 10y ago

Immoral perhaps, but not necessarily illegal. Does anyone know where this took place? I wasn't 100% certain from the article. Many U.S. states have a single-party consent wiretapping law, which permits this kind of surreptitious recording.

TheseDays888 10y ago

> What is wrong with newspapers nowadays? It seems the press decides someone's "fair game" and they just engage in the most blatant character assassination. You're peering through time with rose-colored glasses. American history is littered with instances using the press to smear and undermine the oppositions, whoever it may be. The Founding Fathers, a number of them with close ties or financial stakes in printing press businesses, used it regularly to peddle an agenda. Appearance and opinion have long mattered. Because they are really the only things we have on which to judge. Everyone has their own personal view and influencing that is the goal. Not truth. Never in the history of the nation has actual truth-seeking been the goal of the powers that be in politics or media. Ideas like we're now in a "post-truth" world are bizarre. It's nearly a truism of the species to use a pedestal to smear enemies and endear to us our fans.

sjtgraham 10y ago

I agree. I felt the article painted a far worse picture than the video justified. You have to love a camera, the only unimpeachable witness there is. IMO the most incriminating thing in this video Travis did is that cornball shimmying in the back seat.

strathmeyer 10y ago

Gee how are you going to catch anyone doing something immoral if you warn them before they do it? Not sure what you are trying to say about bayesian priors, but when you say untrue things it ruins your credibility. Not sure why people are upvoting you. Yeah, bad people hate it when you talk about the things you do. Fortunately, like the PewDiePie incident, famous people can't ruin others just because they are upset they reveal the things they do.

matt4077 10y ago

Kalanick's opinions and behaviour are obviously of interest to the public right now. There are quite a few anecdotes that, taken together, paint the picture of a thoroughly chauvinistic CEO with a bit of social darwinism thrown in for good measure. His comments here further that impression: he throws around jingoism in his awkward attempt to impress his companions ("every year is hard for Uber...") and is either uninformed or dishonest with regards to the driver's complaints. The "footage of him with two women" could not be cut out because it is the entirety of this video. It's necessary both to prove the identity as well as adding context and body language. The women aren't identifiable and him being out & about with two women could have been observed by anybody, and was probably observed by the people at whatever Super Bowl event he was visiting. It's also hard to judge this without remembering that Uber employees had, for years, full access to any customer's ride data, and often used it for fun & stalking. They boasted about their ability to algorithmically tag "rides of glory", set out to punish a journalist by digging up private information about her, and collect data about user's positions not directly required for their actual service. I fail to see how this is character assassination. It's a primary source – the video itself carries the meaning, and if that is damaging to his reputation, then the flaws are his and not something made up by any journalists. Likewise, I ain't reducing anyone's "bayesian priors" because the driver's credibility is completely irrelevant. He's not making any relevant statements of fact beyond those visible in the video.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
It's amazing that someone who tried to deceive poor people into taking subprime loans in pursuit of his monopolistic dumping scheme, chooses to scream "personal responsibility" at a bankrupted immigrant. And the first thing people do is debate the ethics of recording him.
- HeavenBanned 10y ago
  >And the first thing "astroturfers" do is debate the ethics of recording him.
- justinclift 10y ago
  Out of curiosity, what's his involvement with "monopolistic dumping scheme"? Looking through his Wikipedia (ok, not a fantastic reference source ;) ) entry, there doesn't seem to be any mention of involvement (employment/directorships/etc) with financial institutions. ?

mempko 10y ago

Driver was Rude? Let's frame this a little. Guy lost 90k because of Kalanick's king like powers to change the business on a whim. In east St. Louis they would kill you if you lost someone $100. 90k? Kalanick is lucky he is in polite company.

dnautics 10y ago

> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral. It's definitely illegal. It's not immoral to film it necessarily, it is maybe immoral to release it without permission. But at some point you have to admit that it becomes "public interest" to leak information, even if it transgresses those moral standards. As an extreme example, if you had managed to covertly film Kim Jong Un, giving insight into the inner workings of the hermit kingdom, would it be immoral to make it public?

acchow 10y ago

"I lost $97,000 because of you." This is exactly how entrepreneurship works - you take risks, sometimes enormous risks with huge capital investments, and it doesn't pan out. Sometimes it does work out and you reap great rewards for a long time. The driver signed up for this and the gamble didn't work out... now he's blaming Uber?

coralreef 10y ago
I agree that you don't really have a right to complain when willfully you join a platform you don't control. But driving for Uber isn't entrepreneurship. You don't control your marketing, brand, you don't acquire your own customers, no control over price or business model, etc. Drivers are really just cogs in the service, provide a car, drive the routes, get paid.
- dnautics 10y ago
  driving for Uber is definitely entrepreneurship (source: Uh, I did Uber and Lyft for a year and a half, and did quite well, too). And it's also totally okay to complain about shitty contracting relationships. For example, the entrepreneurs of company X contracts a company Y to make some hardware, and the job is totally botched, but they can't do anything because a lawsuit is not worth the time/money.... I don't think it's unreasonable for X to bitch about Y since that provides a useful signal to others to not make the same mistake. Not identifying with Uber drivers as entrepreneurs is a very classist attitude.
- acchow 10y ago
  I mean entrepreneurship assuming he lost $96,000 by buying a few cars and timesharing them out to other drivers... which is starting our own small business... You can't "lose" $96,000 by being a driver...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

LargeCompanies 10y ago

The CEO of Uber is a public figure and has as much right to privacy as he gave Sarah Lacy whom he let Uber stalk her and family for a negative article. He is a ruthless, greedy, ignoramus, misogynistic pig who needs his ass handed to him and Uber to crumble before his eyes!

LargeCompanies 10y ago
So those downvoting me think there is nothing wrong with having a reporter stalked, allowing your female employees to be treated like dogs... stealing your competitors IP... snubbing your nose at the law to put robot cars on the road that could kill people all for the sake of winning .. this and other horrible behavior is perfectly fine and that's why your downvoting me?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mylinh 10y ago

This will probably be unpopular as well. I think Travis overreacted and lacked empathy with the driver, but the driver didn't seem to understand that TK doesn't control market forces, and doesn't "have the business model in his hand". Uber was doing well with Black Cars, but the company did the right thing by undercutting its own market so that it could survive and grow. There's also nothing wrong with "giving every person a ride", rather than limiting Uber to just black cars for the riches. Uber adapted to market forces, the driver didn't, and then he blamed the company for his problems. Maybe teaching economics in primary school could solve this problem.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Spooky23 10y ago

There's a different standard for public figures. A relative of mine was a chief of a fire department. During a nasty contract battle, he had people picketing his home -- a miserable experience for his family at the time. But... he was a public figure and the protestors were on a public sidewalk. When you're a public figure that carefully nurtures a bad-boy, asshole image and attitude of privacy bordering on contempt, you shouldn't expect kid gloves.

mintplant 10y ago

> Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. Sorry, why should we care about the driver's "credibility" here? Are you alleging the video has been doctored?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nikdaheratik 10y ago

Every taxi I've taken in the last 5-6 years has built in cameras that film both the back seat and the passenger before pickup. There notices but I don't believe you can assume privacy from the driver when it's not a limo with the screen up or something similar. There are legitimate reasons why this is done in a taxi: preventing people running away from payment, engaging in harassment or other bad behavior, or claiming you refused to pick them up for reason X when you had a good reason to not pick them up. From what I know of Uber, these reasons all apply to their drivers as well.