3 ms·
This seems very optimistic about the likelihood of a "community" to vet itself properly vs. covering things up "for the good of the community". Obviously it can
by noirbot 4y ago
This seems very optimistic about the likelihood of a "community" to vet itself properly vs. covering things up "for the good of the community". Obviously it can work out, but there's bountiful examples of communities ranging from schools to churches to workers unions that have a pretty well established history of systematic abuse and coverups.
- igorkraw 4y agoThe thing is, as a co-op in a small and competitive market, it's not like you have much leeway for reputational damage. Unlike Uber, you can't really survive a scandal by filling in with profits from other cities or drivers. And what you said is true, but it's also a vapid statement without looking at percentages and incentives. Individual bad examples exist everywhere, but a workers coop of drivers in a City has social incentives (if a driver from your coop robs someone who goes to the same church as you, you'll hear from it) and constraints (if your cooperative gets boycotted in your town, what will you do, move everyone next postcode?) which uber lacks (if there's a boycott in one town, bad for the drivers, but you just put out a press blurb, do a promotion and donate to a charity and wait until things die down)