5 ms·

Uber is what it is today because the board and Kalanick had no ethics and complete diregard for the law since the beginning. They showed that from their very e

Uber is what it is today because the board and Kalanick had no ethics and complete diregard for the law since the beginning. They showed that from their very early days. If you supported the company until last year, then you supported their behavior as a whole. You cannot have your pie and eat it too.

0xbear 9y ago
I actually approve of some of that disregard for the law as it relates to the taxi industry. The law was utterly insane and I'm glad the likes of Uber and Lyft are challenging it.
- taxicabjesus 9y ago
  > The law was utterly insane and I'm glad the likes of Uber and Lyft are challenging it. Not all jurisdictions limited the number of taxis (via "medallions"/etc). Arizona had a limited number of regulations to protect people from blatant dishonesty (inaccurate meters, background screening for drivers, etc). Large taxi companies were trusted to regulate themselves, or the department of weights & measures helped single-car companies certify their meter's accuracy & verify vehicle safety, etc. I drove for a large company because they'd spent decades building a brand that people trusted. They took care of the regulations, provided a clean well-maintained vehicle, and made a little off my efforts. I considered it an acceptable arrangement. The company changed its leasing operation to unmarked vehicles that drivers can use with any of the apps. Their contracts (Medicaid patients to/from appointments, etc) pay better than non-surge uber fares, and their app is cheaper for riders than the upstarts'. When uber cab is dead and gone, no one in Arizona will care.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    Please. I used taxis before Uber. They all sucked ass and I did not "trust them" any more than I trust some random Uber driver. If it wasn't for Uber they wouldn't even have mobile apps, and the prices would be much higher. Car hailing is here to stay, whether it's done by Uber or by some other company. The reason is simple: it's just better in every way.
    - negativ0 9y ago
      no is not better. Taxi people know the fucking streets. Uber driver dont know how to go from A to B without a gps.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        This is very dependent on the locale. Around here, it's true that taxi drivers on average know the streets better than Uber drivers, but it's still very hit-and-miss, and if they don't know it, you're stuck. Following a GPS may have its problems, but you're unlikely to not get there at all.
      - dreamcompiler 9y ago
        London and Tokyo cabbies know their streets. But in no place else I've been in the world is this true. Most cabbies are recent immigrants who barely know how to find their way home and have difficulty with the local language. Before Uber taught cabbies the value of GPS, you had to direct your cabbie from the back seat with your own GPS.
      - 0xbear 9y ago
        Why do you need to know the streets if GPS and maps are built into everything? It's like saying, oh no, those "automobiles" are no good, their drivers don't even know how to feed a horse. Frankly I _want_ them to rely on GPS. Or else they can (and do) drive you the route which maximizes their miles billed.
      - elgenie 9y ago
        In an ever-growing number of places, the value of years of knowing "the fucking streets" is dwarfed by something like Waze: a GPS app with real-time traffic information and real-time crowd-sourced versions of that street knowledge.
        negativ0 9y ago
        yeah of course, too bad people who drives Uber are not using Waze. Personally in various cities i had to rely on classic Taxi after having issues with Uber, like calling 20 times a ride and the guy never show up/canceled after 20 minutes (Amsterdam, 3x) or driver got lost with the support of the GPS of course (Lisbon, 5x), or the time i had to tell him the way ( he was using gps ). For my needs it's a useless service cause they cannot give a standard good service.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ghughes 9y ago
It's possible to be OK with (or even approve of) a company defying local regulations that exist to prop up an entrenched legacy industry, and not be OK with a corporate culture where sexual harassment is condoned.
- rdl 9y ago
  Indeed. I don't even care exclusively about the sexual harassment solely as harassment; the problem is Uber was treating its team badly. The "jacket thing" was as bad as the rest, even though it wasn't harassment under any definition, for this reason.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  And I do not understand this view (even though I see it often expressed). Is society such an abstract thing for people as to be irrelevant? Frankly, we're talking about Uber hurting the livelihood of and exploiting lots of people worldwide, all for the sake of profits (the whole talk about "disrupting entrenched legacy industry" was always a PR bullshit, as evidenced e.g. by them breaking any law they didn't like, and not just those helping "taxi mafias") - and comparing that to them hurting the feelings of a few employees. Frankly, this pile-up on Uber because of Susan Fowler story feels like a case of "arson, murder, jaywalking"[0] to me. I do appreciate it nonetheless, because maybe this will be enough to reach critical mass and finally kill off their business. -- [0] - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJay...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    In what way does Uber exploit people more than existing taxi companies?
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      Uber unethical behavior doesn't magically become acceptable when other businesses use similar unethical practices.
RickS 9y ago
I think it's worth making a distinction between their public and private conduct. To be specific: I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider this an extension of "move fast and break things". I am not okay with their purportedly rampant sexual misconduct. It is morally reprehensible and has no business value. Roping both types of conduct under "their behavior" is a step too far, IMO.
- alpha_squared 9y ago
  > I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider this an extension of "move fast and break things". If there were any statement that is a good summation of tech culture hubris, it's "move fast and break things." You can not and, more appropriately, should not apply that to law as a basis for your business. If you are doing something illegal in your resident locale, then you are doing something illegal and reprehensible. Full stop. If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics. Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    "Full stop" is not an argument. However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics. The two are not incompatible. Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal. "Violating the law is illegal", says Captain Obvious.
  - ClassyJacket 9y ago
    >If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. This is bad advice for companies like Uber. The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them. It's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible. Some laws are just stupid.

0xbear 9y ago

I actually approve of some of that disregard for the law as it relates to the taxi industry. The law was utterly insane and I'm glad the likes of Uber and Lyft are challenging it.

taxicabjesus 9y ago
> The law was utterly insane and I'm glad the likes of Uber and Lyft are challenging it. Not all jurisdictions limited the number of taxis (via "medallions"/etc). Arizona had a limited number of regulations to protect people from blatant dishonesty (inaccurate meters, background screening for drivers, etc). Large taxi companies were trusted to regulate themselves, or the department of weights & measures helped single-car companies certify their meter's accuracy & verify vehicle safety, etc. I drove for a large company because they'd spent decades building a brand that people trusted. They took care of the regulations, provided a clean well-maintained vehicle, and made a little off my efforts. I considered it an acceptable arrangement. The company changed its leasing operation to unmarked vehicles that drivers can use with any of the apps. Their contracts (Medicaid patients to/from appointments, etc) pay better than non-surge uber fares, and their app is cheaper for riders than the upstarts'. When uber cab is dead and gone, no one in Arizona will care.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Please. I used taxis before Uber. They all sucked ass and I did not "trust them" any more than I trust some random Uber driver. If it wasn't for Uber they wouldn't even have mobile apps, and the prices would be much higher. Car hailing is here to stay, whether it's done by Uber or by some other company. The reason is simple: it's just better in every way.
  - negativ0 9y ago
    no is not better. Taxi people know the fucking streets. Uber driver dont know how to go from A to B without a gps.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      This is very dependent on the locale. Around here, it's true that taxi drivers on average know the streets better than Uber drivers, but it's still very hit-and-miss, and if they don't know it, you're stuck. Following a GPS may have its problems, but you're unlikely to not get there at all.
    - dreamcompiler 9y ago
      London and Tokyo cabbies know their streets. But in no place else I've been in the world is this true. Most cabbies are recent immigrants who barely know how to find their way home and have difficulty with the local language. Before Uber taught cabbies the value of GPS, you had to direct your cabbie from the back seat with your own GPS.
    - 0xbear 9y ago
      Why do you need to know the streets if GPS and maps are built into everything? It's like saying, oh no, those "automobiles" are no good, their drivers don't even know how to feed a horse. Frankly I _want_ them to rely on GPS. Or else they can (and do) drive you the route which maximizes their miles billed.
    - elgenie 9y ago
      In an ever-growing number of places, the value of years of knowing "the fucking streets" is dwarfed by something like Waze: a GPS app with real-time traffic information and real-time crowd-sourced versions of that street knowledge.
      - negativ0 9y ago
        yeah of course, too bad people who drives Uber are not using Waze. Personally in various cities i had to rely on classic Taxi after having issues with Uber, like calling 20 times a ride and the guy never show up/canceled after 20 minutes (Amsterdam, 3x) or driver got lost with the support of the GPS of course (Lisbon, 5x), or the time i had to tell him the way ( he was using gps ). For my needs it's a useless service cause they cannot give a standard good service.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ghughes 9y ago

It's possible to be OK with (or even approve of) a company defying local regulations that exist to prop up an entrenched legacy industry, and not be OK with a corporate culture where sexual harassment is condoned.

rdl 9y ago
Indeed. I don't even care exclusively about the sexual harassment solely as harassment; the problem is Uber was treating its team badly. The "jacket thing" was as bad as the rest, even though it wasn't harassment under any definition, for this reason.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
And I do not understand this view (even though I see it often expressed). Is society such an abstract thing for people as to be irrelevant? Frankly, we're talking about Uber hurting the livelihood of and exploiting lots of people worldwide, all for the sake of profits (the whole talk about "disrupting entrenched legacy industry" was always a PR bullshit, as evidenced e.g. by them breaking any law they didn't like, and not just those helping "taxi mafias") - and comparing that to them hurting the feelings of a few employees. Frankly, this pile-up on Uber because of Susan Fowler story feels like a case of "arson, murder, jaywalking"[0] to me. I do appreciate it nonetheless, because maybe this will be enough to reach critical mass and finally kill off their business. -- [0] - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJay...
- icebraining 9y ago
  In what way does Uber exploit people more than existing taxi companies?
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    Uber unethical behavior doesn't magically become acceptable when other businesses use similar unethical practices.

RickS 9y ago

I think it's worth making a distinction between their public and private conduct. To be specific: I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider this an extension of "move fast and break things". I am not okay with their purportedly rampant sexual misconduct. It is morally reprehensible and has no business value. Roping both types of conduct under "their behavior" is a step too far, IMO.

alpha_squared 9y ago
> I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider this an extension of "move fast and break things". If there were any statement that is a good summation of tech culture hubris, it's "move fast and break things." You can not and, more appropriately, should not apply that to law as a basis for your business. If you are doing something illegal in your resident locale, then you are doing something illegal and reprehensible. Full stop. If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics. Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal.
- icebraining 9y ago
  "Full stop" is not an argument. However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics. The two are not incompatible. Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal. "Violating the law is illegal", says Captain Obvious.
- ClassyJacket 9y ago
  >If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. This is bad advice for companies like Uber. The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them. It's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible. Some laws are just stupid.