3 ms·

Though it conflicts with other desirable principles, I think that without Uber, almost all of the innovation benefits from ride sharing would not have been purs

by dv_dt 9y ago

Though it conflicts with other desirable principles, I think that without Uber, almost all of the innovation benefits from ride sharing would not have been pursued by the existing taxi industry. Customers have benefited directly and indirectly from the presence of Uber. While one does need to maintain a "rule of law" to maintain society, but I would argue that the application of that is not wholly a precise mathematical or computational execution of laws. There needs to be a human-based fuzzy medium in that rule, the binary and complete enforcement of the laws as the definition of "rule of law" is both an unattainable standard and a terrifying goal. That little human buffer isn't 'anarchy', it's a needed degree of freedom needed to prevent tyranny becoming a friction that grinds up the entire machine of our society.

toss1 9y ago
The elements of "fuzzy medium", "buffer", human judgement should of course always be included in any justice system. That does not justify deliberately and systematically exploiting the slack in the system for your own benefit and to the detriment of others. Uber was and is not civil disobedience. Its business model was to exploit every bit of available slack in the system to its own benefit and to the detriment of everyone else. Notice how the typical driver only lasts a few months there. This is flatly unethical, and the broad-based unethical slime came right from the top in the form of scandal after scandal, which finally sunk the CEO (and rightfully so). And NO, the ends do not justify the means. Especially not when the means are a massive unethical and exploitative company being built to accelerate by a few years the hidebound practices of a minor industry for a minor improvement in the occasional transportation convenience of urban hipsters. And, while it of course had the minor benefit of accelerating improvement in the taxi industry, it also destroyed the business value of those in the industry, many of whom are aspiring small businesses whose retirement (value of medallion) is now 6-figure debt. It has also probably torched billions of investment capital that could have gone to other more productive and ethical uses in the technology industry. (my bet is that Uber is in a death spiral.) Moreover, it was completely unnecessary for it to have been so unethical. Merely remaining as a proper and ethical ride-sharing service as it (purportedly) started, would have created similar innovation at a more moderate pace. Again, the ends do not justify the means. Not in this case and not as a general rule. I recommend taking a few ethics courses or reading a few philosophers.

by dv_dt 9y ago

toss1 9y ago

The elements of "fuzzy medium", "buffer", human judgement should of course always be included in any justice system. That does not justify deliberately and systematically exploiting the slack in the system for your own benefit and to the detriment of others. Uber was and is not civil disobedience. Its business model was to exploit every bit of available slack in the system to its own benefit and to the detriment of everyone else. Notice how the typical driver only lasts a few months there. This is flatly unethical, and the broad-based unethical slime came right from the top in the form of scandal after scandal, which finally sunk the CEO (and rightfully so). And NO, the ends do not justify the means. Especially not when the means are a massive unethical and exploitative company being built to accelerate by a few years the hidebound practices of a minor industry for a minor improvement in the occasional transportation convenience of urban hipsters. And, while it of course had the minor benefit of accelerating improvement in the taxi industry, it also destroyed the business value of those in the industry, many of whom are aspiring small businesses whose retirement (value of medallion) is now 6-figure debt. It has also probably torched billions of investment capital that could have gone to other more productive and ethical uses in the technology industry. (my bet is that Uber is in a death spiral.) Moreover, it was completely unnecessary for it to have been so unethical. Merely remaining as a proper and ethical ride-sharing service as it (purportedly) started, would have created similar innovation at a more moderate pace. Again, the ends do not justify the means. Not in this case and not as a general rule. I recommend taking a few ethics courses or reading a few philosophers.