4 ms·

> the legislature did its best to rectify that. my experience is that this is hardly ever true in politics. Legislators are generally balancing what they think

> the legislature did its best to rectify that. my experience is that this is hardly ever true in politics. Legislators are generally balancing what they think is right (or what they think voters think is right) with what is in their own self interest (such as getting re-elected). As a result, they most often do their best to serve their own self-interest first and foremost. They raarely try to rectify something if rectifying it is at odds with their self-interest. Rectifying this situation would likely involve some third category "somewhere in the middle", but that's not what we got.

basch 7y ago
They would be more like contractors if economies of scale favored open cross compatible ride sharing platforms, instead of proprietary institutions and and oligopoly. If there were 10 ridesharing apps, and any customer could reach any driver using a different app, would you still consider the driver as having not negotiation power? The driver could uncheck "allow riders from uber" if they didnt want uber provided leads. Ride hailing should be as open as SMS, and then drivers AND passengers would gain power in the relationship. By using government to benefit consumers and shun proprietary lockin, the issues could be solved without creating a new employee class. The root need for that class in the first place is Ubers anti-competitive side.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  But then the driver is at the mercy of the aggregator App. It's the same problem as working with Uber or Lyft directly, really.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    Setting aside the rider... in my world Uber and lyft would have open apis so third party apps could somehow aggregate the two services. These apps would be pretty basic and just let the driver accept rides from either service from within the same app. Dunno if this is actually a problem though...
    - pishpash 7y ago
      Aggregation already exists for both riders and drivers. For riders there is Google Maps. For drivers there is Mystro and the like.
  - basch 7y ago
    I'm thinking more like email, ActivityPub, XMPP, or hate to say it, blockchain. There doesnt need to be an aggregator App if its a federated protocol or a shared database. A blockchain would be a central store of truth regarding ride history and reputation. Your reputation would build across access clients. If a client doesnt keep innovating, and there is demand for more features, newer ones would come along, without throwing away the database and starting over.

basch 7y ago

They would be more like contractors if economies of scale favored open cross compatible ride sharing platforms, instead of proprietary institutions and and oligopoly. If there were 10 ridesharing apps, and any customer could reach any driver using a different app, would you still consider the driver as having not negotiation power? The driver could uncheck "allow riders from uber" if they didnt want uber provided leads. Ride hailing should be as open as SMS, and then drivers AND passengers would gain power in the relationship. By using government to benefit consumers and shun proprietary lockin, the issues could be solved without creating a new employee class. The root need for that class in the first place is Ubers anti-competitive side.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
But then the driver is at the mercy of the aggregator App. It's the same problem as working with Uber or Lyft directly, really.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  Setting aside the rider... in my world Uber and lyft would have open apis so third party apps could somehow aggregate the two services. These apps would be pretty basic and just let the driver accept rides from either service from within the same app. Dunno if this is actually a problem though...
  - pishpash 7y ago
    Aggregation already exists for both riders and drivers. For riders there is Google Maps. For drivers there is Mystro and the like.
- basch 7y ago
  I'm thinking more like email, ActivityPub, XMPP, or hate to say it, blockchain. There doesnt need to be an aggregator App if its a federated protocol or a shared database. A blockchain would be a central store of truth regarding ride history and reputation. Your reputation would build across access clients. If a client doesnt keep innovating, and there is demand for more features, newer ones would come along, without throwing away the database and starting over.