5 ms·
Seems to me the heft of the problem falls in forcing drivers to either explicitly consent to agreeing with the platform's views by selecting "Yes on 22" or to c
by plankers 6y ago
Seems to me the heft of the problem falls in forcing drivers to either explicitly consent to agreeing with the platform's views by selecting "Yes on 22" or to communicate their ambivalence by selecting "OK" in the dialogue that is presented to them in the driver app.
If Uber just presented an explanation of the issues and allowed drivers to decide for themselves without any way for the platform to track their decision, no problem.
- nickff 6y agoI may be in the minority, but it seems to me that a 'threat' has to be something more than simply recording whether someone agrees or disagrees with a given position.
- plankers 6y agoI'm not suggesting that there's any threat, implicit or otherwise. But why should an employer (or contractor) be allowed to register the political sentiment of their employees/workers as part of the normal course of business?
- nickff 6y agoWell, this thread is about a lawsuit, where the law in question refers to a 'threat'. I'm not sure about the morality or ethics of this question, and it seems like it would really depend a lot on the framework you use to analyze the question (as well as what the long-term outcomes are likely to be).