11 ms·

The Uber Conflation

155 points by dwaxe 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago
A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law. I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able to legally operate as a "limo service." In that particular case, I agree with the author. But I thought that in many other cities, Uber came in and started operating in clear violation of the letter of the law, not just the spirit. Is that true, or am I just misinformed?
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  You are not. Here is a list of scummy things Uber does that I put together recently for another thread.[1] All are pretty gross, many are "word but not spirit" issues, but at least a few of them are outright, flatly illegal. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13793923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13793923
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Thanks. That's quite a list. Given that, it seems like this whole article rests on false pretenses.
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      The funny thing is it's not even complete. There is definitely much more out there; I just ran out of time to compile it all. In fairness, I'm not sure I would go so far as saying the article's pretenses are false - rather, the article is assuming good faith when it probably shouldn't. I also think that it's talking mostly about Uber's core business idea being a gray area (which it is), rather than all the myriad bad things Uber does that aren't directly related to its actual business.
- nilved 10y ago
  They violate the letter of the law regularly. For example, their driverless car experiment.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  Uber is careful to violate local (civil) laws where it has popular backing, as opposed to state or federal laws that can carry criminal penalties. Think: Zenefits or Theranos versus Airbnb.
  - GCA10 10y ago
    Richard Petty, the legendary Nascar driver, once said that the secret to winning at Nascar is knowing how to "cheat neat." There's great art in knowing how to rejigger a car that must look like a Toyota Camry, but obviously is not the same Camry that you or I could buy from the local dealer for $30,000. There's a blog post for someone to write about Silicon Valley's efforts to put the Petty Principle in action. Lots of gray in the middle on this one. I'd love to see someone's comprehensive take on what's forgivable these days vs. unforgivable.
    - pryelluw 10y ago
      Smokey Yunick's 7/8 '66 Chevelle is the classic NASCAR cheat story. It's on the Wikipedia page here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick He basically scaled down a car's dimensions to make it lighter while still looking similarly to the full size version. This made NASCAR introduce jigs to measure the cars. A rule that is still very much in use.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.
  - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
    That is a loophole! If the fines incurred are less than margins, then you have a profitable strategy.
    - jaclaz 10y ago
      Margins? Profit? Both seem like not a priority for Uber. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-loss-exceeds-800-million-in-third-quarter-on-1-7-billion-in-net-revenue https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-lo... >The company is said to have lost at least $2 billion last year and is on track to pile up a loss of at least $3 billion this year. Those are rough figures that may underestimate how much money Uber is losing and don't include interest, taxes or stock-based compensation.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Yeah, I don't think that's too bad. If you know you're breaking the law and accept the fines and pay them willingly because it's worth the cost, I don't see a big problem with that. Where I start having trouble is when they try to hide their lawbreaking, or fight against enforcement. For a similar example, UPS and FedEx both rack up an unbelievable amount of parking tickets in major cities for stopping their delivery vehicles in places where they're not allowed. These companies do this deliberately, because it's cheaper to pay the tickets than to have drivers take the extra time and effort of locating a legal place to stop. Some big cities have gone so far as to set up special accommodations for these companies to pay their tickets in bulk rather than dealing with each one individually. In effect, these parking tickets work as a tax on delivery companies. Doesn't seem particularly evil. Interesting side note: USPS, as a federal agency, apparently has immunity from local laws like this, so they don't get ticketed. This gives them a substantial advantage over their non-governmental competitors in big cities.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  I think you misinterpreted this article, the author claims that Uber is not violating the spirit of the law, since the spirit of the law is to promote safety, not a government run monopoly. Given how popular Uber is, and how much people dislike the Taxi industry, it is enlightening to think about why taxi reform was never on anyone's agenda.
  - bobbytherobot 10y ago
    Then Uber disregarded the California Public Utilities Commission law designed purely for safety that does not promote the Taxi industry. It was actually made for the likes of Uber and Lyft to allow them to operate while providing the public with trust that the vehicles are safe, passengers with accessibility needs had access and to thwart racial discrimination. Lyft had no issues with complying, but Uber did. http://www.recode.net/2015/7/15/11614750/uber-fined-7-3-million-for-not-reporting-california-accessibility-data http://www.recode.net/2015/7/15/11614750/uber-fined-7-3-mill...
superduper36 10y ago
To me it is a clear case Uber is being systematically attacked. Most likely by Google. They fear Uber will get credit for self driving cars before them and they are horrified. So they use the full weight of their online power to bring the narrative Uber is evil. The easiest way to do that is trot out the good old "sexist" card. That gets the ball rolling and it's all downhill from there.
xenadu02 10y ago
The article makes a good point: Uber seems to have conflated pushing regulatory boundaries with pushing the boundaries of decent behavior. For a company trying so hard to overturn regulatory capture they sure did let their own house become a shambles. It's like if Edward Murrow went after McCarthy without bothering to double-check his own staff for anything that could be used against him.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
crabasa 10y ago
On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of transportation options, particularly late at night — then it is the taxi companies and captured regulators violating said spirit. I agree with this. Taxi regulations might have started with noble intentions, but quickly evolved into protecting a monopoly at the expense of consumers.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  There's civil disobedience to unjust laws and there's giving no fucks about the legal system. Your argument is basically valid, but fails to account for Uber's consistent violations of law at several levels of government and geographic areas.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    "consistent" is exactly what you'd hope for when attempting to systematically demonstrate an improvement that a class of regulations prevents; "consistent" here means alignment with a clear goal, focusing on the things that achieve that goal, and treating every restriction preventing that goal in the same way. The article suggests, and I'd agree, that the problem wasn't Uber avoiding or ignoring taxi regulations; the problem was them applying that same gleefully transgressive attitude towards other areas that had nothing to do with their goal.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  While true, that still doesn't justify Uber's actions. Uber doesn't give a crap about those regulations, or reforming them. In fact, they want them to stay in place so they can have an unfair advantage.
  - ergothus 10y ago
    Absolutely true. But just like we shouldn't forgive Uber their sins because they improved the market, nor should we condemn their market changes because of their wrongdoing. And "caring" is something almost no companies do. Even in pure capitalism, companies don't WANT competition. They don't CARE about their consumers - they just want to make as much money as they can.
mandevil 10y ago
This is one the few times I've felt actually disappointed in Thompson. He is exactly right that Google (and basically every other company in SV) is totally implicated with the same problem. But saying that Kalanick should get another chance to turn around the company? Look back to 2014: Kalanick tweeted out an apology for one of his execs threatening a (female, natch) journalist, but decided not to fire the exec in question, because "I believe that folks who make mistakes can learn from them- myself included." 2014 was his opportunity to turn around the culture. He failed, utterly and massively- and Fowler (who didn't join the company until almost a year after that tweet storm) and plenty of other women paid the price for his failure. We're now three years later and clearly the culture is even worse, and there is no evidence of improvement. Again, she didn't join the company until a year after he promised to work to show "that Uber is and will continue to be a positive member of the community. And furthermore, I will do everything in my power towards the goal of earning that trust." Where is the evidence that he should get another chance? Ultimately, it's that Kalanick is a high performer, the same excuse Uber gave Fowler.
gdulli 10y ago
> Note the easy conflation: avoiding regulators, allegedly tolerating sexual harassments, it’s all the same thing. Well, I disagree. I would say there's an equal danger of conflating their disrupting regulations with innovation or progress. There's some relation, but it's not equivalent. Treating them the same is only good for Uber. Or maybe it's that "innovation" and "progress" are mistaken to be only good things.
brilliantcode 10y ago
If Uber was trading on wall street it would be shorted to oblivion. When this unicorn implodes, it's going to change the valuation dynamics. Downvotes not going to fix Uber.
- civilian 10y ago
  You're getting downvotes for claiming absolute knowledge of a very complex issue. :P
JoshTriplett 10y ago
The most critical quote from the article: "Kalanick’s mistake was in not clearly defining, communicating, and enforcing accountability on actions that pushed the line but had nothing to do with the company’s regulatory fight. In fact, it was even more critical for Uber than for just about any other company to have its own house in order; the very nature of the company’s business created the conditions for living above the law to become culturally acceptable — praised even." This seems like an excellent description of the problem: if you're going to run a company that intentionally pushes the boundaries of specific regulatory restrictions (in order to demonstrate a better result that can only happen without them, to get popular backing for removing them), then you need to draw a clear internal dividing line between the risky actions taken in support of that goal and all the other areas in which the company should act as a model for upstanding behavior.
not_that_noob 10y ago
Travis fits the mold of a ruthless kind of CEO, always pushing the ethical line as far as he can get away with. Bill Gates in his first incarnation as ruthless CEO has engaged in all sorts of questionable behavior. For example, interview a bunch of people from a rival, figure out who's key, and hire them all away at once. Or structure the agreement with IBM to eventually own the rights to Windows, then screw IBM over by slow-pedalling and malingering on OS/2, and then release Windows in co-ordination with the newly created clone PC market, which he relentlessly encouraged behind IBM's back. Note that I'm not judging - I have come to realize (sadly) that a certain ruthlessness may be necessary for large-scale success in business, especially in the tech industry.
chaser7016 10y ago
Who cares if Uber is a tad dirty in breaking down down the status quo. The public didn't cared previously about this until they realized that Uber treats everyone(their employees, contracted drivers, customers, stealing from their competitor, the common man driving to work who could get killed by an unproven Uber robot car and more) like trash and steamrolls over all who is not a KalaDick bro!
_jal 10y ago
"Otto having stolen intellectual property are very serious, it’s worth remembering that the entire industry is basically built on theft" There's an interesting argument in the article, but the amount of squid-ink being squirted overwhelms it. A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit. Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down as incompetent. If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...)
- zaptheimpaler 10y ago
  >A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit. Yes this left a bad taste in my mouth. Quote from article: "The fact of the matter is that we as an industry are responsible for Uber too. We’ve created a world that simultaneously celebrates rule-breaking and undervalues women (and minorities), full of investors and companies that are utterly ruthless when money is on the line, while cloaking said ambition in fluff about changing the world." Soo.. its our fault for enabling this behavior, but we shouldn't punish Uber for it? Nooo. The majority of us don't create the rules/hierachy of what is valued, we can only vote with our feet and wallets and we should.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- M_Grey 10y ago
  >Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down as incompetent. If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...) Watch him aim for the middle ground... weaseling and PR with the fervent prayers that attention will shift and he can keep eating the sweet cake he gets to keep. When most people can't formulate or even understand the logical proposition you're offering, heartless people are left with amazing leeway.
spoondan 10y ago
One very serious shortcoming of this article is the claim that the theoretical spirit of taxi regulation is exclusively (or even primarily) rider safety. Regardless of how we believe it has all worked out in practice, taxi regulation has long been earnestly pushed for a multitude of reasons: traffic congestion, driver pay and rights, consumer protection (from fare abuse), road safety (independent from rider safety), and, yes, the kind of rider safety that Uber is far better at through GPS tracking and driver reputation. There are many attitudes to have about taxi regulation. Some would argue that the market will eventually provide better solutions; even for issues like traffic congestion. Others might contend that the regulation is necessary because the market will either not find solutions or the cost of finding those solutions via the market is prohibitive. Some might take a less principled approach and consider whether the current regulations are better at solving problems or creating them. Regardless, we have to honestly consider the whole story. It's easiest to argue for Uber's approaches when you consider only the small part of the argument where Uber and its ilk clearly best the entrenched taxi system.
- wrsh07 10y ago
  This is a good point, but I think regardless reform is in order. Sometimes the best way to reform a thing is to tear it down, and I think that's where Thompson's cautiously optimistic post about Brexit landed. (Perhaps this one? https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/ https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/)
- GauntletWizard 10y ago
  Here's a devils advocate take on it: Taxi regulation is as much and more about "Guilds", Ghettos, and outright racism. It's been used as a blunt instrument to keep many people out of doing a simple, everyday activity that many view as a form of entertainment - driving around - for cash. The effect, if not the goal, of medallions has been to enforce the assumption that drivers are underpaid immigrants. The assumption of the driver as a criminal has lead to their mistreatment. The serfdom that medallion enforcement has created - Where drivers do not own their job, merely rent it from landlords demanding an increasingly greater cut - Has created the toxic environment that has allowed even awful competitors an advantage.
ariwilson 10y ago
Moreover, one of Uber’s other “scandals” — the fact that Kalanick asked Amit Singhal to step down as Senior Vice President of Engineering after not disclosing a sexual harassment claim at Google — reflected far worse on Google than Uber: if Singhal committed a fireable offense the search giant should have fired the man who rewrote their search engine; instead someone in the know dribbled out allegations that happened to damage a company they view as a threat. It's not clear when Uber learned about these allegations of sexual harassment. I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they acted immediately after all the other cultural problems with harassment they seem to have.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > Google at least pushed Amit out as soon as the allegations were substantiated. We don't have any evidence that the allegations were substantiated. We have some internal, anonymous leaks that claim that Google found the allegations were "credible".
  - ariwilson 10y ago
    You're right, thanks.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Tycho 10y ago
I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take down Uber. The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't. The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators. And then you have other bloggers cashing in on the situation by writing these kinds of posts to get page views.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take down Uber." If there is, it's from Uber itself. Everything that has come out are things that Uber has done by itself. No one else's fault but Uber and it's leadership. "The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? " The buck stops there. He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company. "Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't." No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously. "The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators." Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile workplace environments at Uber before.
  - Tycho 10y ago
    >He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company. The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100% responsibility to one person. In fact it's practically the antithesis. > No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously. Why? > Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile workplace environments at Uber before. Not an actor, but possibly someone was trawling for embarrassing footage that otherwise would probably never see the light of day. The blog post was clearly fake and I'm just wondering if it was part of a viral marketing campaign for New Balance sneakers, or a party with a grudge, or possibly just a regular troll.
freshflowers 10y ago
Gee, and there was me thinking that the rise of Trump had put an end to the argument that these types of unethical behaviour are not symptoms of the same problem. Defending a lack of ethics with ideology is a nothing more than a cheap trick. And I'm not falling for it anymore.
perseusprime11 10y ago
Instead of stepping down, it looks like Travis is hiring a COO http://www.recode.net/2017/3/7/14843680/kara-swisher-uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-coo-executive-recruiter http://www.recode.net/2017/3/7/14843680/kara-swisher-uber-ce...
perseusprime11 10y ago
I still think Uber's future challenge will be to return all capital it has raised so far and will raise in the next 5 years.
davidgerard 10y ago
> There is no disputing that Uber has operated in the gray zone, perhaps adhering to the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit. Well, except the bit where they didn't do that either.
socrates1998 10y ago
This is super interesting. I guess one of the reasons why Uber has been so successful in taking on powerful regulations and a lot of push back from different players is BECAUSE of their super aggressive business cultural. And I could easily see this "fuck the world, we do what we do" attitude creating a hyper-alpha atmosphere where sexual harassment is scoffed at. So, one could argue that without this attitude, Uber would have run out of steam or lacked the hustle to take on the Taxi companies and government regulations. Still, regardless of the success that this culture has achieved, you can't treat your workers like shit and ignore sexual harassment. I could easily see Uber being replaced by another company after Uber does all the hard legwork of taking on the Taxi companies and governments. Especially if Uber lacks the ability to fix its' image.

155 points by dwaxe 10y ago

A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law. I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able to legally operate as a "limo service." In that particular case, I agree with the author. But I thought that in many other cities, Uber came in and started operating in clear violation of the letter of the law, not just the spirit. Is that true, or am I just misinformed?

ivraatiems 10y ago
You are not. Here is a list of scummy things Uber does that I put together recently for another thread.[1] All are pretty gross, many are "word but not spirit" issues, but at least a few of them are outright, flatly illegal. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13793923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13793923
- mikeash 10y ago
  Thanks. That's quite a list. Given that, it seems like this whole article rests on false pretenses.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    The funny thing is it's not even complete. There is definitely much more out there; I just ran out of time to compile it all. In fairness, I'm not sure I would go so far as saying the article's pretenses are false - rather, the article is assuming good faith when it probably shouldn't. I also think that it's talking mostly about Uber's core business idea being a gray area (which it is), rather than all the myriad bad things Uber does that aren't directly related to its actual business.
nilved 10y ago
They violate the letter of the law regularly. For example, their driverless car experiment.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Uber is careful to violate local (civil) laws where it has popular backing, as opposed to state or federal laws that can carry criminal penalties. Think: Zenefits or Theranos versus Airbnb.
- GCA10 10y ago
  Richard Petty, the legendary Nascar driver, once said that the secret to winning at Nascar is knowing how to "cheat neat." There's great art in knowing how to rejigger a car that must look like a Toyota Camry, but obviously is not the same Camry that you or I could buy from the local dealer for $30,000. There's a blog post for someone to write about Silicon Valley's efforts to put the Petty Principle in action. Lots of gray in the middle on this one. I'd love to see someone's comprehensive take on what's forgivable these days vs. unforgivable.
  - pryelluw 10y ago
    Smokey Yunick's 7/8 '66 Chevelle is the classic NASCAR cheat story. It's on the Wikipedia page here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick He basically scaled down a car's dimensions to make it lighter while still looking similarly to the full size version. This made NASCAR introduce jigs to measure the cars. A rule that is still very much in use.
tedunangst 10y ago
In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.
- yazaddaruvala 10y ago
  That is a loophole! If the fines incurred are less than margins, then you have a profitable strategy.
  - jaclaz 10y ago
    Margins? Profit? Both seem like not a priority for Uber. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-loss-exceeds-800-million-in-third-quarter-on-1-7-billion-in-net-revenue https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/uber-s-lo... >The company is said to have lost at least $2 billion last year and is on track to pile up a loss of at least $3 billion this year. Those are rough figures that may underestimate how much money Uber is losing and don't include interest, taxes or stock-based compensation.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Yeah, I don't think that's too bad. If you know you're breaking the law and accept the fines and pay them willingly because it's worth the cost, I don't see a big problem with that. Where I start having trouble is when they try to hide their lawbreaking, or fight against enforcement. For a similar example, UPS and FedEx both rack up an unbelievable amount of parking tickets in major cities for stopping their delivery vehicles in places where they're not allowed. These companies do this deliberately, because it's cheaper to pay the tickets than to have drivers take the extra time and effort of locating a legal place to stop. Some big cities have gone so far as to set up special accommodations for these companies to pay their tickets in bulk rather than dealing with each one individually. In effect, these parking tickets work as a tax on delivery companies. Doesn't seem particularly evil. Interesting side note: USPS, as a federal agency, apparently has immunity from local laws like this, so they don't get ticketed. This gives them a substantial advantage over their non-governmental competitors in big cities.
Eridrus 10y ago
I think you misinterpreted this article, the author claims that Uber is not violating the spirit of the law, since the spirit of the law is to promote safety, not a government run monopoly. Given how popular Uber is, and how much people dislike the Taxi industry, it is enlightening to think about why taxi reform was never on anyone's agenda.
- bobbytherobot 10y ago
  Then Uber disregarded the California Public Utilities Commission law designed purely for safety that does not promote the Taxi industry. It was actually made for the likes of Uber and Lyft to allow them to operate while providing the public with trust that the vehicles are safe, passengers with accessibility needs had access and to thwart racial discrimination. Lyft had no issues with complying, but Uber did. http://www.recode.net/2015/7/15/11614750/uber-fined-7-3-million-for-not-reporting-california-accessibility-data http://www.recode.net/2015/7/15/11614750/uber-fined-7-3-mill...

superduper36 10y ago

To me it is a clear case Uber is being systematically attacked. Most likely by Google. They fear Uber will get credit for self driving cars before them and they are horrified. So they use the full weight of their online power to bring the narrative Uber is evil. The easiest way to do that is trot out the good old "sexist" card. That gets the ball rolling and it's all downhill from there.

xenadu02 10y ago

The article makes a good point: Uber seems to have conflated pushing regulatory boundaries with pushing the boundaries of decent behavior. For a company trying so hard to overturn regulatory capture they sure did let their own house become a shambles. It's like if Edward Murrow went after McCarthy without bothering to double-check his own staff for anything that could be used against him.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

crabasa 10y ago

On the flipside, I, for one, view Uber’s regulatory maneuvering in a much more positive light. After all, thinking about the “spirit of the law” can lead to a very different conclusion: the purpose of taxi regulation, at least in theory, was not to entrench local monopolies but rather to ensure safety. If those goals can be met through technology — GPS tracking, reputation scoring, and the greater availability of transportation options, particularly late at night — then it is the taxi companies and captured regulators violating said spirit. I agree with this. Taxi regulations might have started with noble intentions, but quickly evolved into protecting a monopoly at the expense of consumers.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
There's civil disobedience to unjust laws and there's giving no fucks about the legal system. Your argument is basically valid, but fails to account for Uber's consistent violations of law at several levels of government and geographic areas.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  "consistent" is exactly what you'd hope for when attempting to systematically demonstrate an improvement that a class of regulations prevents; "consistent" here means alignment with a clear goal, focusing on the things that achieve that goal, and treating every restriction preventing that goal in the same way. The article suggests, and I'd agree, that the problem wasn't Uber avoiding or ignoring taxi regulations; the problem was them applying that same gleefully transgressive attitude towards other areas that had nothing to do with their goal.
st3v3r 10y ago
While true, that still doesn't justify Uber's actions. Uber doesn't give a crap about those regulations, or reforming them. In fact, they want them to stay in place so they can have an unfair advantage.
- ergothus 10y ago
  Absolutely true. But just like we shouldn't forgive Uber their sins because they improved the market, nor should we condemn their market changes because of their wrongdoing. And "caring" is something almost no companies do. Even in pure capitalism, companies don't WANT competition. They don't CARE about their consumers - they just want to make as much money as they can.

mandevil 10y ago

This is one the few times I've felt actually disappointed in Thompson. He is exactly right that Google (and basically every other company in SV) is totally implicated with the same problem. But saying that Kalanick should get another chance to turn around the company? Look back to 2014: Kalanick tweeted out an apology for one of his execs threatening a (female, natch) journalist, but decided not to fire the exec in question, because "I believe that folks who make mistakes can learn from them- myself included." 2014 was his opportunity to turn around the culture. He failed, utterly and massively- and Fowler (who didn't join the company until almost a year after that tweet storm) and plenty of other women paid the price for his failure. We're now three years later and clearly the culture is even worse, and there is no evidence of improvement. Again, she didn't join the company until a year after he promised to work to show "that Uber is and will continue to be a positive member of the community. And furthermore, I will do everything in my power towards the goal of earning that trust." Where is the evidence that he should get another chance? Ultimately, it's that Kalanick is a high performer, the same excuse Uber gave Fowler.

gdulli 10y ago

> Note the easy conflation: avoiding regulators, allegedly tolerating sexual harassments, it’s all the same thing. Well, I disagree. I would say there's an equal danger of conflating their disrupting regulations with innovation or progress. There's some relation, but it's not equivalent. Treating them the same is only good for Uber. Or maybe it's that "innovation" and "progress" are mistaken to be only good things.

brilliantcode 10y ago

If Uber was trading on wall street it would be shorted to oblivion. When this unicorn implodes, it's going to change the valuation dynamics. Downvotes not going to fix Uber.

civilian 10y ago
You're getting downvotes for claiming absolute knowledge of a very complex issue. :P

JoshTriplett 10y ago

The most critical quote from the article: "Kalanick’s mistake was in not clearly defining, communicating, and enforcing accountability on actions that pushed the line but had nothing to do with the company’s regulatory fight. In fact, it was even more critical for Uber than for just about any other company to have its own house in order; the very nature of the company’s business created the conditions for living above the law to become culturally acceptable — praised even." This seems like an excellent description of the problem: if you're going to run a company that intentionally pushes the boundaries of specific regulatory restrictions (in order to demonstrate a better result that can only happen without them, to get popular backing for removing them), then you need to draw a clear internal dividing line between the risky actions taken in support of that goal and all the other areas in which the company should act as a model for upstanding behavior.

not_that_noob 10y ago

Travis fits the mold of a ruthless kind of CEO, always pushing the ethical line as far as he can get away with. Bill Gates in his first incarnation as ruthless CEO has engaged in all sorts of questionable behavior. For example, interview a bunch of people from a rival, figure out who's key, and hire them all away at once. Or structure the agreement with IBM to eventually own the rights to Windows, then screw IBM over by slow-pedalling and malingering on OS/2, and then release Windows in co-ordination with the newly created clone PC market, which he relentlessly encouraged behind IBM's back. Note that I'm not judging - I have come to realize (sadly) that a certain ruthlessness may be necessary for large-scale success in business, especially in the tech industry.

chaser7016 10y ago

Who cares if Uber is a tad dirty in breaking down down the status quo. The public didn't cared previously about this until they realized that Uber treats everyone(their employees, contracted drivers, customers, stealing from their competitor, the common man driving to work who could get killed by an unproven Uber robot car and more) like trash and steamrolls over all who is not a KalaDick bro!

_jal 10y ago

"Otto having stolen intellectual property are very serious, it’s worth remembering that the entire industry is basically built on theft" There's an interesting argument in the article, but the amount of squid-ink being squirted overwhelms it. A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit. Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down as incompetent. If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...)

zaptheimpaler 10y ago
>A big chunk of the article is pretty much "They didn't do it, and if they did, look at everyone else." Which is pretty much bullshit. Yes this left a bad taste in my mouth. Quote from article: "The fact of the matter is that we as an industry are responsible for Uber too. We’ve created a world that simultaneously celebrates rule-breaking and undervalues women (and minorities), full of investors and companies that are utterly ruthless when money is on the line, while cloaking said ambition in fluff about changing the world." Soo.. its our fault for enabling this behavior, but we shouldn't punish Uber for it? Nooo. The majority of us don't create the rules/hierachy of what is valued, we can only vote with our feet and wallets and we should.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
M_Grey 10y ago
>Where it lands for me: If the CEO wants to disclaim responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down as incompetent. If the CEO wants to take responsibility for the culture, he needs to step down for running an institution that routinely breaks the law. (There's a legal term for that...) Watch him aim for the middle ground... weaseling and PR with the fervent prayers that attention will shift and he can keep eating the sweet cake he gets to keep. When most people can't formulate or even understand the logical proposition you're offering, heartless people are left with amazing leeway.

spoondan 10y ago

One very serious shortcoming of this article is the claim that the theoretical spirit of taxi regulation is exclusively (or even primarily) rider safety. Regardless of how we believe it has all worked out in practice, taxi regulation has long been earnestly pushed for a multitude of reasons: traffic congestion, driver pay and rights, consumer protection (from fare abuse), road safety (independent from rider safety), and, yes, the kind of rider safety that Uber is far better at through GPS tracking and driver reputation. There are many attitudes to have about taxi regulation. Some would argue that the market will eventually provide better solutions; even for issues like traffic congestion. Others might contend that the regulation is necessary because the market will either not find solutions or the cost of finding those solutions via the market is prohibitive. Some might take a less principled approach and consider whether the current regulations are better at solving problems or creating them. Regardless, we have to honestly consider the whole story. It's easiest to argue for Uber's approaches when you consider only the small part of the argument where Uber and its ilk clearly best the entrenched taxi system.

wrsh07 10y ago
This is a good point, but I think regardless reform is in order. Sometimes the best way to reform a thing is to tear it down, and I think that's where Thompson's cautiously optimistic post about Brexit landed. (Perhaps this one? https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/ https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/)
GauntletWizard 10y ago
Here's a devils advocate take on it: Taxi regulation is as much and more about "Guilds", Ghettos, and outright racism. It's been used as a blunt instrument to keep many people out of doing a simple, everyday activity that many view as a form of entertainment - driving around - for cash. The effect, if not the goal, of medallions has been to enforce the assumption that drivers are underpaid immigrants. The assumption of the driver as a criminal has lead to their mistreatment. The serfdom that medallion enforcement has created - Where drivers do not own their job, merely rent it from landlords demanding an increasingly greater cut - Has created the toxic environment that has allowed even awful competitors an advantage.

ariwilson 10y ago

Moreover, one of Uber’s other “scandals” — the fact that Kalanick asked Amit Singhal to step down as Senior Vice President of Engineering after not disclosing a sexual harassment claim at Google — reflected far worse on Google than Uber: if Singhal committed a fireable offense the search giant should have fired the man who rewrote their search engine; instead someone in the know dribbled out allegations that happened to damage a company they view as a threat. It's not clear when Uber learned about these allegations of sexual harassment. I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they acted immediately after all the other cultural problems with harassment they seem to have.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> Google at least pushed Amit out as soon as the allegations were substantiated. We don't have any evidence that the allegations were substantiated. We have some internal, anonymous leaks that claim that Google found the allegations were "credible".
- ariwilson 10y ago
  You're right, thanks.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Tycho 10y ago

I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take down Uber. The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't. The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators. And then you have other bloggers cashing in on the situation by writing these kinds of posts to get page views.

st3v3r 10y ago
"I'm getting the sense that there's some kind of orchestrated effort to take down Uber." If there is, it's from Uber itself. Everything that has come out are things that Uber has done by itself. No one else's fault but Uber and it's leadership. "The whole "Kalanick must step down" talking point is ridiculous. There was an HR problem he wasn't personally connected to, so now he must be removed despite being an incredibly effective CEO? " The buck stops there. He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company. "Because SJWs now rule Silicon Valley and investors bow to them? Um, no, they don't." No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously. "The fake "I'm an Uber survivor" anonymous blog post and the leaked cab video seem like they're possibly the work of anti-Uber conspirators." Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile workplace environments at Uber before.
- Tycho 10y ago
  >He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company. The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100% responsibility to one person. In fact it's practically the antithesis. > No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously. Why? > Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile workplace environments at Uber before. Not an actor, but possibly someone was trawling for embarrassing footage that otherwise would probably never see the light of day. The blog post was clearly fake and I'm just wondering if it was part of a viral marketing campaign for New Balance sneakers, or a party with a grudge, or possibly just a regular troll.

freshflowers 10y ago

Gee, and there was me thinking that the rise of Trump had put an end to the argument that these types of unethical behaviour are not symptoms of the same problem. Defending a lack of ethics with ideology is a nothing more than a cheap trick. And I'm not falling for it anymore.

perseusprime11 10y ago

Instead of stepping down, it looks like Travis is hiring a COO http://www.recode.net/2017/3/7/14843680/kara-swisher-uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-coo-executive-recruiter http://www.recode.net/2017/3/7/14843680/kara-swisher-uber-ce...

perseusprime11 10y ago

I still think Uber's future challenge will be to return all capital it has raised so far and will raise in the next 5 years.

davidgerard 10y ago

> There is no disputing that Uber has operated in the gray zone, perhaps adhering to the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit. Well, except the bit where they didn't do that either.

socrates1998 10y ago

This is super interesting. I guess one of the reasons why Uber has been so successful in taking on powerful regulations and a lot of push back from different players is BECAUSE of their super aggressive business cultural. And I could easily see this "fuck the world, we do what we do" attitude creating a hyper-alpha atmosphere where sexual harassment is scoffed at. So, one could argue that without this attitude, Uber would have run out of steam or lacked the hustle to take on the Taxi companies and government regulations. Still, regardless of the success that this culture has achieved, you can't treat your workers like shit and ignore sexual harassment. I could easily see Uber being replaced by another company after Uber does all the hard legwork of taking on the Taxi companies and governments. Especially if Uber lacks the ability to fix its' image.