4 ms·

That's a strangely bitter way of looking at things. Ride sharing companies, including Uber, have brought tremendous benefits to society, and drunk driving preve

by lend000 10y ago

That's a strangely bitter way of looking at things. Ride sharing companies, including Uber, have brought tremendous benefits to society, and drunk driving prevention is probably at the top of the list. Uber has made the largest difference of all these companies because it has been the most aggressive in disrupting rent-seekers like taxi companies. The drivers and the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy should also be credited, but not to the discredit of the companies that created the ride-sharing platforms that made it all possible.

jellicle 10y ago
Incorrect. Independent contractors cheerfully 'sharing' their vehicles have made 100% of the difference; Uber does not employ anyone to drive anywhere. The number of drunks driven home by Uber employees is ~0. Thanks independent contractors!
- jryle70 10y ago
  This is disingenuous at best. Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? It's fair to criticize Uber's aggressive and shady practices, it's also fair to acknowledge the enormous changes that it has brought about to the transportation landscape.
  - giaour 10y ago
    > Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? A fair number were. I lived in Harlem from 2008-2011, and we often had to hail off-duty black car service vehicles due to the dearth of medallion cabs outside of central Manhattan. These were commonly known as "gypsy cabs," and the drivers were picking people up to make money on the side. I believe it was technically illegal but very, very common.
  - strictnein 10y ago
    Actually most taxi drivers are independent contractors, which makes it even clearer that Uber added something to the equation, and always makes it kind of funny how upset people are about Uber drivers not being full time employees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor-boards-shift-in-legal-interpretation-could-allow-thousands-of-taxi-drivers-to-unionize/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor...
    - IanCal 10y ago
      I'm happy with uber having contractors, workers or employees (three distinct categories in the UK). What I'm not happy with is them picking and choosing the parts of those definitions which benefit themselves. I don't think it's particularly amusing to be upset at a multi-billion dollar company trying to skirt employment laws.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  By that logic, has then the AppStore not created any apps, Ebay not sold any goods, Kickstarter not created any products, and GoFundMe not funded any projects?
billions 10y ago
Unfortunately this does not play into the mass media narrative of today. Hopefully HN can evaluate statistics more objectively
username223 10y ago
Perhaps, but don't call it "sharing," because sharing is reciprocal. If it were actually sharing, you would be driving for Uber as much as the people who chauffeur you around. Call them what they are: unlicensed taxis. Also, "the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy" is just another way of saying "many people are desperate enough to do sub-minimum-wage piecework."
- zaroth 10y ago
  Platforms should provide the opportunity to monetize your time in all sorts of ways. Ridesharing is just one example of ways people do it, and anything that adds liquidity to the overall ability to monetize time and existing capital is a good thing. Everything else is just supply and demand. I don't see why we should stop anyone from ridesharing with the Uber platform, as long as the terms are clear enough. People are expected to think and make their own best judgments with these sorts of things, to some extent.
- nikcub 10y ago
  > because sharing is reciprocal. This didn't sound right so I looked it up[0] No mention of it being reciprocal - which makes sense for almost every use of "sharing" I can think of When I share my sandwich I'm not receiving any other sandwich from anybody else (perhaps if I was I'd share more often) Anyway, its not easy to defend Uber and I don't want to be labeled that way - since I've boycotted the service more than once, but some of the arguments in this thread on this page seem really petty [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing
  - IanCal 10y ago
    I agree that reciprocal doesn't really describe it. Perhaps the concept they were trying to get at is that sharing suggests everyone involved is getting the same thing in some way. If I share a ride with you, it's because we're both going the same way. What's actually happening with uber is we each want something different. They want my money, and I want to be taken somewhere. It is, however, an highly successful branding exercise.
  - 10y ago
Dotnaught 10y ago
"Bitter" is a strangely ad hominem argument. The thing is that Uber explicitly disclaims responsibility for its drivers in its terms of service. And in court, when an Uber driver is accused of a crime, Uber maintains it's not responsible. Eg.: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06434/fine-print-says-riders-cant-blame-uber-unsafe-drivers http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06... It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones.
- lend000 10y ago
  > It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones. The world is not so black and white my friend. Uber is most definitely credited with both negative and positive outcomes; however, 'an Uber driver is accused of a crime' is not a good example, as such an accusation does not reflect on Uber anymore than you being accused of committing a crime reflects on your employer, assuming you work for a large company. If, however, there was an example that read 'Uber drivers commit crimes on the job at a statistically significant rate compared to taxis, Lyft, etc.,' then we have a means to blame the platform itself. Or in the case of the sexual harassment allegations, if this is a systemic problem at high levels of leadership, then that's a major, blameworthy issue.

by lend000 10y ago

jellicle 10y ago

Incorrect. Independent contractors cheerfully 'sharing' their vehicles have made 100% of the difference; Uber does not employ anyone to drive anywhere. The number of drunks driven home by Uber employees is ~0. Thanks independent contractors!

jryle70 10y ago
This is disingenuous at best. Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? It's fair to criticize Uber's aggressive and shady practices, it's also fair to acknowledge the enormous changes that it has brought about to the transportation landscape.
- giaour 10y ago
  > Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? A fair number were. I lived in Harlem from 2008-2011, and we often had to hail off-duty black car service vehicles due to the dearth of medallion cabs outside of central Manhattan. These were commonly known as "gypsy cabs," and the drivers were picking people up to make money on the side. I believe it was technically illegal but very, very common.
- strictnein 10y ago
  Actually most taxi drivers are independent contractors, which makes it even clearer that Uber added something to the equation, and always makes it kind of funny how upset people are about Uber drivers not being full time employees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor-boards-shift-in-legal-interpretation-could-allow-thousands-of-taxi-drivers-to-unionize/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor...
  - IanCal 10y ago
    I'm happy with uber having contractors, workers or employees (three distinct categories in the UK). What I'm not happy with is them picking and choosing the parts of those definitions which benefit themselves. I don't think it's particularly amusing to be upset at a multi-billion dollar company trying to skirt employment laws.
sokoloff 10y ago
By that logic, has then the AppStore not created any apps, Ebay not sold any goods, Kickstarter not created any products, and GoFundMe not funded any projects?

billions 10y ago

Unfortunately this does not play into the mass media narrative of today. Hopefully HN can evaluate statistics more objectively

username223 10y ago

Perhaps, but don't call it "sharing," because sharing is reciprocal. If it were actually sharing, you would be driving for Uber as much as the people who chauffeur you around. Call them what they are: unlicensed taxis. Also, "the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy" is just another way of saying "many people are desperate enough to do sub-minimum-wage piecework."

zaroth 10y ago
Platforms should provide the opportunity to monetize your time in all sorts of ways. Ridesharing is just one example of ways people do it, and anything that adds liquidity to the overall ability to monetize time and existing capital is a good thing. Everything else is just supply and demand. I don't see why we should stop anyone from ridesharing with the Uber platform, as long as the terms are clear enough. People are expected to think and make their own best judgments with these sorts of things, to some extent.
nikcub 10y ago
> because sharing is reciprocal. This didn't sound right so I looked it up[0] No mention of it being reciprocal - which makes sense for almost every use of "sharing" I can think of When I share my sandwich I'm not receiving any other sandwich from anybody else (perhaps if I was I'd share more often) Anyway, its not easy to defend Uber and I don't want to be labeled that way - since I've boycotted the service more than once, but some of the arguments in this thread on this page seem really petty [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing
- IanCal 10y ago
  I agree that reciprocal doesn't really describe it. Perhaps the concept they were trying to get at is that sharing suggests everyone involved is getting the same thing in some way. If I share a ride with you, it's because we're both going the same way. What's actually happening with uber is we each want something different. They want my money, and I want to be taken somewhere. It is, however, an highly successful branding exercise.
- 10y ago

Dotnaught 10y ago

"Bitter" is a strangely ad hominem argument. The thing is that Uber explicitly disclaims responsibility for its drivers in its terms of service. And in court, when an Uber driver is accused of a crime, Uber maintains it's not responsible. Eg.: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06434/fine-print-says-riders-cant-blame-uber-unsafe-drivers http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06... It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones.

lend000 10y ago
> It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones. The world is not so black and white my friend. Uber is most definitely credited with both negative and positive outcomes; however, 'an Uber driver is accused of a crime' is not a good example, as such an accusation does not reflect on Uber anymore than you being accused of committing a crime reflects on your employer, assuming you work for a large company. If, however, there was an example that read 'Uber drivers commit crimes on the job at a statistically significant rate compared to taxis, Lyft, etc.,' then we have a means to blame the platform itself. Or in the case of the sexual harassment allegations, if this is a systemic problem at high levels of leadership, then that's a major, blameworthy issue.