4 ms·

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 chauf

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.
- Terribledactyl 10y ago
  I would just argue that dictionary.com has missed a context for sharing. Consider, "They shared everything." It's best understood as the reciprocal agreement to either partition or grant access to possessions.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  It's only ride "sharing" if the driver is already driving that way. You're going along with them. If someone shares their sandwich they are eating it too. If someone makes a sandwich to give to you that's not sharing.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    If you come visit my house, I'm likely to offer you a drink when you arrive. If you take me up on a water, I'm sharing my water with you, whether or not I drink a water myself at that moment. (I'm perfectly happy to call Uber, Lyft, etc "unlicensed taxis" as I do think that's more accurate than "ride sharing"; I just don't agree that it's completely inaccurate to call them ride shares.)
maccard 10y ago
They're not always unlicensed. In the U.K. all Ubers are licensed private hire vehicles.
etjossem 10y ago
I too have struggled with the term "ride share", since it obviously isn't being used in the sense of "sharing is caring" we were all taught in kindergarten. At some point I realized it means a share (in the economic sense) of a ride (the driver's car / time). As a rider, you are willing to pay for a portion of the driver's time and car mileage, and that's something you generally couldn't do before Uber/Lyft. Sharing has connotations of kindness and altruism when this is really a transaction, so I like to avoid the term "ride sharing", but I feel "ride share" is accurate. As someone else posted nearby, there are plenty more substantive criticisms of Uber right now.

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.
Terribledactyl 10y ago
I would just argue that dictionary.com has missed a context for sharing. Consider, "They shared everything." It's best understood as the reciprocal agreement to either partition or grant access to possessions.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
It's only ride "sharing" if the driver is already driving that way. You're going along with them. If someone shares their sandwich they are eating it too. If someone makes a sandwich to give to you that's not sharing.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  If you come visit my house, I'm likely to offer you a drink when you arrive. If you take me up on a water, I'm sharing my water with you, whether or not I drink a water myself at that moment. (I'm perfectly happy to call Uber, Lyft, etc "unlicensed taxis" as I do think that's more accurate than "ride sharing"; I just don't agree that it's completely inaccurate to call them ride shares.)

maccard 10y ago

They're not always unlicensed. In the U.K. all Ubers are licensed private hire vehicles.

etjossem 10y ago

I too have struggled with the term "ride share", since it obviously isn't being used in the sense of "sharing is caring" we were all taught in kindergarten. At some point I realized it means a share (in the economic sense) of a ride (the driver's car / time). As a rider, you are willing to pay for a portion of the driver's time and car mileage, and that's something you generally couldn't do before Uber/Lyft. Sharing has connotations of kindness and altruism when this is really a transaction, so I like to avoid the term "ride sharing", but I feel "ride share" is accurate. As someone else posted nearby, there are plenty more substantive criticisms of Uber right now.