4 ms·
Well, yes. That is my point. The framing is designed to make you think Uber has done something unfair. Different framing would either not be news "Contracts a
by gwright 8y ago
Well, yes. That is my point. The framing is designed to make you think Uber has done something unfair. Different framing would either not be news "Contracts are enforceable" or be designed to make you think the drivers did something wrong "Drivers Waste Court's Time".
Of the three I think the "Uber did something wrong" framing is least accurate, but is probably the best clickbait.
- mikeash 8y agoMy point is that "forced" doesn't imply anything about which side is right. The side doing the forcing is often in the right. Your other framings are completely bogus. They miss the actual news, which is that arbitration clauses, specifically, are enforceable. This was an open question with good reasons to think they wouldn't be, so "Contracts Are Enforceable" doesn't capture what's interesting about it, and "Drivers Waste Court's Time" is just plain wrong.
- gwright 8y agoIt is my understanding that this is pretty established law (arbitration clauses). But in any case if it isn't, then I think a less pejorative headline would be "Uber Ruling Strengthens Arbitration Clauses" and not "Uber Forces ...."
- mikeash 8y agoI don't think it would have made it to an appeals court if it was that established. I still don't understand what's pejorative about this.