4 ms·

I think the party that sued are the drivers themselves who allege that collection such information is tantamount to wiretapping. I could be wrong in my interpre

by exergy 9y ago

I think the party that sued are the drivers themselves who allege that collection such information is tantamount to wiretapping. I could be wrong in my interpretation though. On the other hand, I completely disagree with your last paragraph. That kind of world is my definition of hell. Winners are "happier"? On what metric? Is Lyft a "loser" company? Are it's employees losers? Who's "unhappy" in this scenario? A "win at all cost" culture that leaves the losers in the dust sounds like a nasty, vile dystopia.

cookiecaper 9y ago
>On the other hand, I completely disagree with your last paragraph. That kind of world is my definition of hell. Winners are "happier"? On what metric? Is Lyft a "loser" company? Are it's employees losers? Who's "unhappy" in this scenario? A "win at all cost" culture that leaves the losers in the dust sounds like a nasty, vile dystopia. It's not "win at all costs". It's "win at some costs"; in other words, a competition with some rules. Business is a competition and your competitors are going to be looking for and actively exploiting the advantages they can get over you. This necessarily requires you to look for advantages you can get over them or just cede the market, and if you're willing to do that, there's no point in competing in the first place. It's sad how HN is here demanding meticulous adherence to a clause buried deep in the incumbent's ToS and pretending that violating it is some basic moral misdeed.
- xaa 9y ago
  > It's sad how HN is here demanding meticulous adherence to a clause buried deep in the incumbent's ToS and pretending that violating it is some basic moral misdeed. Probably because the context for a "TOS violation" is very different between a large company and an individual, and because the motives for this violation are venal. And because Uber is a serial violator of pretty much every rule it comes into contact with. I doubt you'd find many here who would see a problem with, say, a researcher violating the same clause to get data for a research project. Large companies can afford lawyers to read TOS documents. Normal people don't have the time or expertise to read them, usually. And who writes TOS documents in the first place? Large companies. It is a double standard if a company wants their TOS followed, but breaks other companies'. So it is coherent to argue that large companies have a higher burden to follow a TOS more "meticulously" than individuals do.

by exergy 9y ago

cookiecaper 9y ago

>On the other hand, I completely disagree with your last paragraph. That kind of world is my definition of hell. Winners are "happier"? On what metric? Is Lyft a "loser" company? Are it's employees losers? Who's "unhappy" in this scenario? A "win at all cost" culture that leaves the losers in the dust sounds like a nasty, vile dystopia. It's not "win at all costs". It's "win at some costs"; in other words, a competition with some rules. Business is a competition and your competitors are going to be looking for and actively exploiting the advantages they can get over you. This necessarily requires you to look for advantages you can get over them or just cede the market, and if you're willing to do that, there's no point in competing in the first place. It's sad how HN is here demanding meticulous adherence to a clause buried deep in the incumbent's ToS and pretending that violating it is some basic moral misdeed.

xaa 9y ago
> It's sad how HN is here demanding meticulous adherence to a clause buried deep in the incumbent's ToS and pretending that violating it is some basic moral misdeed. Probably because the context for a "TOS violation" is very different between a large company and an individual, and because the motives for this violation are venal. And because Uber is a serial violator of pretty much every rule it comes into contact with. I doubt you'd find many here who would see a problem with, say, a researcher violating the same clause to get data for a research project. Large companies can afford lawyers to read TOS documents. Normal people don't have the time or expertise to read them, usually. And who writes TOS documents in the first place? Large companies. It is a double standard if a company wants their TOS followed, but breaks other companies'. So it is coherent to argue that large companies have a higher burden to follow a TOS more "meticulously" than individuals do.