3 ms·
In the same sense that Apple is not at fault for allowing its hardware to connect the assailant and victim. I'm aware that we don't consider manufacturers to b
by wutbrodo 5y ago
In the same sense that Apple is not at fault for allowing its hardware to connect the assailant and victim.
I'm aware that we don't consider manufacturers to be culpable for the actions taken with their hardware, and that there's a case to be made that Uber's service is "closer" to the illegal act and thus more responsible.
But that case actually needs to be made. Whether it's Apple or Uber, there are expectations that the company needs to fulfill, and doing so in good-faith means it's beyond silly to assign culpability for every downstream effect of their product.
- FireBeyond 5y ago> In the same sense that Apple is not at fault for allowing its hardware to connect the assailant and victim. Except that Uber claims that the value-add its "marketplace" provides is vetting riders and drivers and providing safety. Doesn't mean they could predict this (though there's several instances of people being reported for other aggressive/harassing behaviors and -not- being kicked off), but when you're slurping "value" from both your rider and driver predicated on providing vetting and safety, well...
- wutbrodo 5y ago> Except that Uber claims that the value-add its "marketplace" provides is vetting riders and drivers and providing safety. Uber doesn't vet riders, and I'm quite sure their marketing material wouldn't claim that they do. I would imagine they do take some large share of the responsibility for vetting drivers.
- FireBeyond 5y agoResponding to ratings on riders and kicking riders off the platform might not be fingerprinting and background checking riders, but it still is gatekeeping their access to the system.