> it seems weird to describe It's not weird to take issue with mendaciousness and pass moral judgment on it. Most of the responses here take the form of an ar

> it seems weird to describe It's not weird to take issue with mendaciousness and pass moral judgment on it. Most of the responses here take the form of an argument that says, essentially, that if something is possible and/or not illegal, then it's okay, which fundamentally recasts the context of the conversation to give that perspective a kind of leverage that it doesn't have in the original, moral context. This is all moot regarding the specific case, of course, given the reply of the original commenter, who clarified that it was not intentional (and who agrees that it would be scummy if it were intentional). But I find it disturbing the number of people here who were willing to jump in and argue for the "nyah, nyah, I'm not touching you" take, as if that were a serious argument, i.e. in the event that it were taking place in the context they desire. But on the topic of litigating the point both figuratively and literally, legislatures and courts, not to mention private businesses, do have the power to say, essentially, "We see what you're doing. Knock that shit off." E.g., a law that addresses unfair practices by laying out that something can be a cause for action not only if a person makes an untrue statement of material fact, but also if they fail to state "a material fact necessary to make other statements made not misleading". The responses here are pretty devoid of any kind of indicator of an awareness of this, and instead come off as My First Attempt to Exploit a Legal Loophole. > No time travel required; "update" meant Thanks for clearing this up. > If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or ... or charging those riders a fee that happens to correspond with the delta between the original and the new destination, or firing the rider.