7 ms·

This is their MO. Growth at any cause. Passengers get raped? Oh well. Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in I

This is their MO. Growth at any cause. Passengers get raped? Oh well. Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim and say it didn't happen. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-india-woman-rape-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-indi... Unable to read the article linked, but this is Classic Uber and the reason that capitalism needs more regulations. Cars catch fire? Oopsies! Companies like Uber should not be allowed to operate at this insane "growth at any cost". It's not functional. It's not human. They can't be bothered to do background checks on drivers or safety checks on cars. They shouldn't be allowed to operate.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
> Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim. No they did not. They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true. They never actively discredited the victim. There's plenty of stuff to hate Uber for without you making up outrage.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- watwut 9y ago
  Honest attempt at verification would involve medical expert. What happened is that Uber employees wawed the records to each other and yelled "see, she is making it up".
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true No they didn't. They illegally gained access to the records. If they were trying to verify the situation's accuracy they would not have used illegal methods to do so and should not be given a pass since they did.
- mikeash 9y ago
  They succeeded in procuring her medical records. They then accused her of being a shill for a competitor. I think that's perfectly reasonable to summarize as "tried to discredit the victim." If anything, it's putting things a bit too mildly, since it fails to mention that obtaining her medical records was itself illegal and immoral.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- am1988 9y ago
  because that's so much better. They have fought background checks at various times in various places.
hueving 9y ago
Capitalism does not need more regulations, the government just needs to enforce the ones that exist.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  In case of Uber - precisely. They mostly exploit the fact that law is not enforced swiftly and decisively enough. By the time a local government realizes they should probably do something, Uber already has popular support in the area due to their price shenanigans.
module0000 9y ago
Vote with your wallet - you don't need big brother to do your research for you. Read reviews, (possibly) try out the service, and make your decision from there. Whatever you do, don't ask your government to decide what you should and should not have a right to buy. If you think "why not? what could go wrong?", then you are young, and will likely (and unfortunately) learn these lessons in your lifetime.
- lttlrck 9y ago
  Vulnerable people must be proactively protected. It’s too late to vote with your wallet after you have been raped, isn’t it?
  - module0000 9y ago
    >> Vulnerable people must be proactively protected. "Slippery slope" is the term used to describe the fallacy of logic in that sentence. Who must perform this proactive protection? Why should/must they do it? What constitutes "vulnerable"? This sounds like the musings of a privileged youth. It's not too late to avoid making the same mistakes you made that resulted in your original grievance. No one put a gun to your head and made you become an Uber driver/passenger. You/they decided to take on that role, and failed to assess and appreciate the risk involved. tldr; those unpleasant things in your life that have happened, are happening, and will eventually happen in your life are ultimately your fault. PS: I'm not advocating whatever happened or didn't happen to whatever circumstance you are attributing "rape" to. I'm not sure if you chose that verb for hyperbolic reasons or not.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      The parent poster is probably referring to the Uber driver that raped a woman in India. Uber tried to discredit her, illegally obtained her medical records, etc. It's not hyperbole, because rape is what happened. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/technology/uber-fires-executive.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/technology/uber-fires-exe...
    - emodendroket 9y ago
briandear 9y ago
It’s not human? What does that even mean? What does this story have to do with capitalism needing more regulation? A company acting negligently already is subject to legal action. Any idea how much dangerous stuff gets covered up by governments? This isn’t a problem with capitalism; it’s a problem with Uber. As far as background checks, why should that be required? If it’s known that Uber doesn’t need do background checks, then consumers are free to choose another option. They can choose the level of risk they want to assume. Millions of Uber rides – so there are bound to be some outlier cases of bad actors. Taxi drivers have never committed a crime? We aren’t talking water systems here, we are talking about a ride share/taxi service that nobody has any obligation to use. Using Uber is completely voluntary. Don’t agree with Uber? Don’t use Uber! I haven’t used Uber for several years now. That’s how capitalism works – you vote with your money. I personally think that the entire private car transportation business is filled with terrible people: taxi drivers in Seoul trying to rip you off, Shanghai taxi drivers refusing to give change, New York taxi drivers expecting a tip for driving all over Brooklyn to run up the meter. Taxi mobsters controlling medallions. Drivers showing up hours late for a scheduled pickup. I paid the French SNCF for a taxi booking to make a Sunday morning train and the driver never showed up. Missed my train and never could get my money back without Kafka-level bureaucratic insanity. Uber does some bad things, but you obviously have never spent any time in the highly regulated taxi business. It’s a cesspool of dishonesty and cutthroat drivers, corrupt business practices and more. Look at how taxi companies exploit drivers – ridiculous things like charging 10% for credit card transactions, charging drivers for no-fault car damage despite being covered by insurance. “Leasing” taxis with extortionare terms which essentially make the drivers indentured servants. The drivers pay it forward by doing everything they can to scam customers out of an extra dollar here and there. There are plenty of good taxi drivers but you’re playing airport roulette when you arrive in Delhi late in the evening and need to get to your hotel. Good luck – you will need it. Only place I have always had a good taxi experience was London. But being a London cabbie is incredibly difficult. It isn’t a job for fresh-of-the-boat drivers, but for highly trained professionals. The private car business is a dirty one and it has nothing to do with regulations or lack thereof.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > It’s not human? What does that even mean? It means they show no compassion, either as executives or a company. > Don’t agree with Uber? Don’t use Uber Uber has far reaching consequences that affect all of society regardless of whether I use the service or not. In this case those consequences are negative and I'm morally right to oppose the service even if I don't use it. Your argument is full of logical fallacies.
throwaway_1f12 9y ago
> Unable to read the article linked, but this is Classic Uber and the reason that capitalism needs more regulations. Cars catch fire? Oopsies! You CLEARLY didn't read the article. Uber reached out to the authorities and other automative experts about this recall. There was NO objection from authorities. Everyone is so quick to jump on Uber about literally anything. They've done a lot of terrible shit, but it doesn't seem like what they did here was so terrible. Sure, maybe they should've taken greater precautions, but after reaching out to authorities and experts, what would you have them do, pull these cars off the roads? The headline would have read "Uber takes away cars from driver depriving them of income". From Uber in a recent response: As soon as we learned of a Honda Vezel from the Lion City Rental fleet catching fire, we took swift action to fix the problem, in close coordination with Singapore’s Land Transport Authority as well as technical experts. But we acknowledge we could have done more—and we have done so. We’ve introduced robust protocols and hired three dedicated experts in-house at LCR whose sole job is to ensure we are fully responsive to safety recalls. Since the beginning of the year, we’ve proactively responded to six vehicle recalls and will continue to do so to protect the safety of everyone who uses Uber.
- burkaman 9y ago
  > Uber reached out to the authorities and other automative experts about this recall. There was NO objection from authorities. After one car caught fire, they wrote up a plan that involved talking to authorities and experts, but that would be much too late. At that point they had already ignored the problem and intentionally endangered their drivers. > what would you have them do, pull these cars off the roads? No, not give them to their drivers in the first place. Buy other cars. "Uber managers in Singapore were aware of the Honda recall when they bought more than 1,000 defective Vezels and rented them to Mr. Koh and other drivers without the needed repairs, according to internal Uber emails and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with people familiar with Uber’s operations in the region." Uber wouldn't have to worry about taking cars off the road if they didn't knowingly buy defective cars.
literallycancer 9y ago
You mean the passenger hired the rapist to drive her somewhere, right?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I do not believe that customers have an expectation that they are hiring totally independent operators they need to vet themselves when they decide to ride an Uber.
emodendroket 9y ago
I totally agree but it's interesting how quickly opinions seem to have turned around on Uber. I feel like a year or two ago a comment like this would have been at the bottom of the page.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

> Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim. No they did not. They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true. They never actively discredited the victim. There's plenty of stuff to hate Uber for without you making up outrage.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
watwut 9y ago
Honest attempt at verification would involve medical expert. What happened is that Uber employees wawed the records to each other and yelled "see, she is making it up".
cryptoz 9y ago
> They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true No they didn't. They illegally gained access to the records. If they were trying to verify the situation's accuracy they would not have used illegal methods to do so and should not be given a pass since they did.
mikeash 9y ago
They succeeded in procuring her medical records. They then accused her of being a shill for a competitor. I think that's perfectly reasonable to summarize as "tried to discredit the victim." If anything, it's putting things a bit too mildly, since it fails to mention that obtaining her medical records was itself illegal and immoral.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
am1988 9y ago
because that's so much better. They have fought background checks at various times in various places.

hueving 9y ago

Capitalism does not need more regulations, the government just needs to enforce the ones that exist.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
In case of Uber - precisely. They mostly exploit the fact that law is not enforced swiftly and decisively enough. By the time a local government realizes they should probably do something, Uber already has popular support in the area due to their price shenanigans.

module0000 9y ago

Vote with your wallet - you don't need big brother to do your research for you. Read reviews, (possibly) try out the service, and make your decision from there. Whatever you do, don't ask your government to decide what you should and should not have a right to buy. If you think "why not? what could go wrong?", then you are young, and will likely (and unfortunately) learn these lessons in your lifetime.

lttlrck 9y ago
Vulnerable people must be proactively protected. It’s too late to vote with your wallet after you have been raped, isn’t it?
- module0000 9y ago
  >> Vulnerable people must be proactively protected. "Slippery slope" is the term used to describe the fallacy of logic in that sentence. Who must perform this proactive protection? Why should/must they do it? What constitutes "vulnerable"? This sounds like the musings of a privileged youth. It's not too late to avoid making the same mistakes you made that resulted in your original grievance. No one put a gun to your head and made you become an Uber driver/passenger. You/they decided to take on that role, and failed to assess and appreciate the risk involved. tldr; those unpleasant things in your life that have happened, are happening, and will eventually happen in your life are ultimately your fault. PS: I'm not advocating whatever happened or didn't happen to whatever circumstance you are attributing "rape" to. I'm not sure if you chose that verb for hyperbolic reasons or not.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    The parent poster is probably referring to the Uber driver that raped a woman in India. Uber tried to discredit her, illegally obtained her medical records, etc. It's not hyperbole, because rape is what happened. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/technology/uber-fires-executive.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/technology/uber-fires-exe...
  - emodendroket 9y ago

briandear 9y ago

It’s not human? What does that even mean? What does this story have to do with capitalism needing more regulation? A company acting negligently already is subject to legal action. Any idea how much dangerous stuff gets covered up by governments? This isn’t a problem with capitalism; it’s a problem with Uber. As far as background checks, why should that be required? If it’s known that Uber doesn’t need do background checks, then consumers are free to choose another option. They can choose the level of risk they want to assume. Millions of Uber rides – so there are bound to be some outlier cases of bad actors. Taxi drivers have never committed a crime? We aren’t talking water systems here, we are talking about a ride share/taxi service that nobody has any obligation to use. Using Uber is completely voluntary. Don’t agree with Uber? Don’t use Uber! I haven’t used Uber for several years now. That’s how capitalism works – you vote with your money. I personally think that the entire private car transportation business is filled with terrible people: taxi drivers in Seoul trying to rip you off, Shanghai taxi drivers refusing to give change, New York taxi drivers expecting a tip for driving all over Brooklyn to run up the meter. Taxi mobsters controlling medallions. Drivers showing up hours late for a scheduled pickup. I paid the French SNCF for a taxi booking to make a Sunday morning train and the driver never showed up. Missed my train and never could get my money back without Kafka-level bureaucratic insanity. Uber does some bad things, but you obviously have never spent any time in the highly regulated taxi business. It’s a cesspool of dishonesty and cutthroat drivers, corrupt business practices and more. Look at how taxi companies exploit drivers – ridiculous things like charging 10% for credit card transactions, charging drivers for no-fault car damage despite being covered by insurance. “Leasing” taxis with extortionare terms which essentially make the drivers indentured servants. The drivers pay it forward by doing everything they can to scam customers out of an extra dollar here and there. There are plenty of good taxi drivers but you’re playing airport roulette when you arrive in Delhi late in the evening and need to get to your hotel. Good luck – you will need it. Only place I have always had a good taxi experience was London. But being a London cabbie is incredibly difficult. It isn’t a job for fresh-of-the-boat drivers, but for highly trained professionals. The private car business is a dirty one and it has nothing to do with regulations or lack thereof.

cryptoz 9y ago
> It’s not human? What does that even mean? It means they show no compassion, either as executives or a company. > Don’t agree with Uber? Don’t use Uber Uber has far reaching consequences that affect all of society regardless of whether I use the service or not. In this case those consequences are negative and I'm morally right to oppose the service even if I don't use it. Your argument is full of logical fallacies.

throwaway_1f12 9y ago

> Unable to read the article linked, but this is Classic Uber and the reason that capitalism needs more regulations. Cars catch fire? Oopsies! You CLEARLY didn't read the article. Uber reached out to the authorities and other automative experts about this recall. There was NO objection from authorities. Everyone is so quick to jump on Uber about literally anything. They've done a lot of terrible shit, but it doesn't seem like what they did here was so terrible. Sure, maybe they should've taken greater precautions, but after reaching out to authorities and experts, what would you have them do, pull these cars off the roads? The headline would have read "Uber takes away cars from driver depriving them of income". From Uber in a recent response: As soon as we learned of a Honda Vezel from the Lion City Rental fleet catching fire, we took swift action to fix the problem, in close coordination with Singapore’s Land Transport Authority as well as technical experts. But we acknowledge we could have done more—and we have done so. We’ve introduced robust protocols and hired three dedicated experts in-house at LCR whose sole job is to ensure we are fully responsive to safety recalls. Since the beginning of the year, we’ve proactively responded to six vehicle recalls and will continue to do so to protect the safety of everyone who uses Uber.

burkaman 9y ago
> Uber reached out to the authorities and other automative experts about this recall. There was NO objection from authorities. After one car caught fire, they wrote up a plan that involved talking to authorities and experts, but that would be much too late. At that point they had already ignored the problem and intentionally endangered their drivers. > what would you have them do, pull these cars off the roads? No, not give them to their drivers in the first place. Buy other cars. "Uber managers in Singapore were aware of the Honda recall when they bought more than 1,000 defective Vezels and rented them to Mr. Koh and other drivers without the needed repairs, according to internal Uber emails and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with people familiar with Uber’s operations in the region." Uber wouldn't have to worry about taking cars off the road if they didn't knowingly buy defective cars.

literallycancer 9y ago

You mean the passenger hired the rapist to drive her somewhere, right?

emodendroket 9y ago
I do not believe that customers have an expectation that they are hiring totally independent operators they need to vet themselves when they decide to ride an Uber.

emodendroket 9y ago

I totally agree but it's interesting how quickly opinions seem to have turned around on Uber. I feel like a year or two ago a comment like this would have been at the bottom of the page.