3 ms·

It seems we disagree on too many facts. Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If

It seems we disagree on too many facts. Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If this is what you consider "jump(ing) on the bandwagon" and "drag(ging) us back into the darkness,"--and Uber's behavior doesn't trouble you, so be it. Thankfully we have choices, so, even if the feds seize Uber tonight, exactly the same drivers with exactly the same cars are already and would still be available on Lyft & the taxi co's apps. And only time'll tell whether Uber matters.

grandalf 9y ago
> so be it. No offense was meant by my phrasing, FYI. > Thankfully we have choices Yes we do. I think we likely agree on the overall benefits of Uber, but you are more inclined to focus on Lyft as a better instantiation of the idea and I'm just sort of defending Uber because it's fun to do so when everyone hates it.
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  I'm not offended; its just the opposite of persuasive. And "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender: if that's how you understood my reply, we're unlikely to understand each other & its not worth the effort to be clear. I hear you on being a contrarian, but only when there's a compelling argument. Here, I doubt we do agree on Uber--I don't think there are overall benefits. As I've said, I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation but it wouldn't matter if it was (aka Google was the 11th search engine), and regardless, democracy and the rule of law are more important. At any rate, my version of this being fun is being understood. Alas, some fun is incompatible with other fun.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    > "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender Has there not been a very profound anti-Uber bandwagon effect going on? Several incidents snowballing into a major backlash? I think there is some sort of organized labor sponsorship of a smear campaign, fwiw. > I don't think there are overall benefits I'm curious how you reach this conclusion. Is it as a consumer, comparing Uber to traditional taxi offerings in your area? Or based on some other viewpoint? > I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation I think innovation is the wrong word as well. Uber is a political and economic achievement of breaking a very entrenched system that had oppressed many people so that a small number could extract profits at the expense of society as as a whole. > democracy and the rule of law are ... important Absolutely. I view corrupt laws and crony capitalism as antithetical to the rule of law even if the laws which happen to be on the books support specific arrangements. The taxi market was a golden goose being plucked by corrupt officials and a small number of fat cat owners at the expense of everyone else. These sorts of crony/entrenched arrangements are a form of organized crime, as are the regulators who enforce unfair laws meant to funnel money into the coffers of specific crony firms. > my version of this being fun is being understood. I think I understand your points. But I'm not sure how you weigh your various points against each other in terms of their influence on your overall view. I don't disagree with any of them outright, but I think you weigh literal compliance with law too highly. Also, on the subject of Uber's corporate culture, Uber has been punished significantly already for the revelations about its culture. As much as I admire Uber's accomplishments, I would very likely not want to work there. One time I got a coding quiz easter egg in the Uber app and scored well and was invited to apply, but after what I've heard I would be unlikely to consider it, since I personally view the tolerance of sexual harassment behavior by companies to be one of the biggest indicators of larger culture problems and a "law of the jungle" environment where social dominance trumps merit when it comes to how decisions are made.

grandalf 9y ago

> so be it. No offense was meant by my phrasing, FYI. > Thankfully we have choices Yes we do. I think we likely agree on the overall benefits of Uber, but you are more inclined to focus on Lyft as a better instantiation of the idea and I'm just sort of defending Uber because it's fun to do so when everyone hates it.

gotothedoctor 9y ago
I'm not offended; its just the opposite of persuasive. And "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender: if that's how you understood my reply, we're unlikely to understand each other & its not worth the effort to be clear. I hear you on being a contrarian, but only when there's a compelling argument. Here, I doubt we do agree on Uber--I don't think there are overall benefits. As I've said, I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation but it wouldn't matter if it was (aka Google was the 11th search engine), and regardless, democracy and the rule of law are more important. At any rate, my version of this being fun is being understood. Alas, some fun is incompatible with other fun.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender Has there not been a very profound anti-Uber bandwagon effect going on? Several incidents snowballing into a major backlash? I think there is some sort of organized labor sponsorship of a smear campaign, fwiw. > I don't think there are overall benefits I'm curious how you reach this conclusion. Is it as a consumer, comparing Uber to traditional taxi offerings in your area? Or based on some other viewpoint? > I am not convinced Uber is some huge innovation I think innovation is the wrong word as well. Uber is a political and economic achievement of breaking a very entrenched system that had oppressed many people so that a small number could extract profits at the expense of society as as a whole. > democracy and the rule of law are ... important Absolutely. I view corrupt laws and crony capitalism as antithetical to the rule of law even if the laws which happen to be on the books support specific arrangements. The taxi market was a golden goose being plucked by corrupt officials and a small number of fat cat owners at the expense of everyone else. These sorts of crony/entrenched arrangements are a form of organized crime, as are the regulators who enforce unfair laws meant to funnel money into the coffers of specific crony firms. > my version of this being fun is being understood. I think I understand your points. But I'm not sure how you weigh your various points against each other in terms of their influence on your overall view. I don't disagree with any of them outright, but I think you weigh literal compliance with law too highly. Also, on the subject of Uber's corporate culture, Uber has been punished significantly already for the revelations about its culture. As much as I admire Uber's accomplishments, I would very likely not want to work there. One time I got a coding quiz easter egg in the Uber app and scored well and was invited to apply, but after what I've heard I would be unlikely to consider it, since I personally view the tolerance of sexual harassment behavior by companies to be one of the biggest indicators of larger culture problems and a "law of the jungle" environment where social dominance trumps merit when it comes to how decisions are made.