3 ms·

Here's your evidence: > Earlier this month, before California users of the app could call for a ride, they had to “confirm” they’d seen a message that describe

Here's your evidence: > Earlier this month, before California users of the app could call for a ride, they had to “confirm” they’d seen a message that described how wait times and prices would rise if Prop 22 wasn’t passed > Last week, Uber users complained on social media about in-app notifications stating that “Prop 22 will save lives,” in an apparent violation of Apple’s app developer agreement > “Almost every time we log on, we are fed more one-sided information to pressure us into supporting Prop 22,” Ben Valdez, a driver for Uber and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. That includes in-app videos of drivers speaking about why “Prop 22 would make a difference,” reinforcing Uber’s stance that the measure should pass. https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/22/21529082/uber-drivers-lawsuit-prop-22-alerts-california-gig-workers https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/22/21529082/uber-drivers-la...

cactus2093 6y ago
Coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats. Maybe we could disagree on whether this was a misinformation campaign, but it's still certainly not coercion. Still doesn't even seem like misinformation to me, the reality was that every driver who did not want to work full-time on the company's schedule would lose the ability to work if AB5 stands. (And if the companies shut down operations altogether in CA or demand took a big hit due to higher prices, then some or all of the rest of the drivers would lose their jobs too). I don't see how advertising that to drivers is dishonest.
- nyghtly 6y ago
  Drivers were forced to watch political ads before they could start working. They were forced to read pro-prop-22 messages before they could start working. Some of these messages warned (some might say threatened) that the drivers would lose their jobs if Prop 22 passed. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_it_looks_like_a_duck,_swims_like_a_duck,_and_quacks_like_a_duck,_then_it_probably_is_a_duck#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_it_looks_like_a_duck,_swim...
  - cactus2093 6y ago
    Forced to watch an ad != forced to vote a certain way. And again, a threat implies it is done maliciously. You think it would be better if the companies just stayed quiet, and then just out of blue one day said "sorry we're shutting down operations, you're all out of jobs"?
    - pdxandi 6y ago
      The original commenter said they were coerced into working as campaign volunteers, not coerced to vote.
    - nyghtly 6y ago
      Forcing drivers to watch the ad was a means of persuading them to support Prop 22. Hence, they were coerced to support Prop 22. Persuasion via force is exactly in line with the definition that you gave.
      - username90 6y ago
        They get coerced to watch ads, not coerced to vote a certain way or have a certain opinion. The reason they started supporting prop 22 after watching the ad is that prop 22 gave them minimum wage and healthcare without being employees, which is exactly what most drivers wants.

cactus2093 6y ago

Coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats. Maybe we could disagree on whether this was a misinformation campaign, but it's still certainly not coercion. Still doesn't even seem like misinformation to me, the reality was that every driver who did not want to work full-time on the company's schedule would lose the ability to work if AB5 stands. (And if the companies shut down operations altogether in CA or demand took a big hit due to higher prices, then some or all of the rest of the drivers would lose their jobs too). I don't see how advertising that to drivers is dishonest.

nyghtly 6y ago
Drivers were forced to watch political ads before they could start working. They were forced to read pro-prop-22 messages before they could start working. Some of these messages warned (some might say threatened) that the drivers would lose their jobs if Prop 22 passed. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_it_looks_like_a_duck,_swims_like_a_duck,_and_quacks_like_a_duck,_then_it_probably_is_a_duck#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_it_looks_like_a_duck,_swim...
- cactus2093 6y ago
  Forced to watch an ad != forced to vote a certain way. And again, a threat implies it is done maliciously. You think it would be better if the companies just stayed quiet, and then just out of blue one day said "sorry we're shutting down operations, you're all out of jobs"?
  - pdxandi 6y ago
    The original commenter said they were coerced into working as campaign volunteers, not coerced to vote.
  - nyghtly 6y ago
    Forcing drivers to watch the ad was a means of persuading them to support Prop 22. Hence, they were coerced to support Prop 22. Persuasion via force is exactly in line with the definition that you gave.
    - username90 6y ago
      They get coerced to watch ads, not coerced to vote a certain way or have a certain opinion. The reason they started supporting prop 22 after watching the ad is that prop 22 gave them minimum wage and healthcare without being employees, which is exactly what most drivers wants.