5 ms·
There's an argument that companies should be able to run themselves however they please, that Lyft should be able to have whatever community guidelines they cho
by Buttons840 4y ago
There's an argument that companies should be able to run themselves however they please, that Lyft should be able to have whatever community guidelines they choose, no matter how silly it's their right.
I agree with this as long as there is a healthy free market, and 2 or 3 companies to choose from isn't a healthy free market. Either we need to bust these companies up, or regulate them better. In D&D terms, a single company shouldn't be able to give you a permanent stat penalty just because you did something like use the word "young". Many of these companies are so big that if one of the big 2 or 3 ban you, your entire life will be affected. Another example is LinkedIn, if I get banned from LinkedIn I guess I'll just take the -50% to all future job opportunities. Once these companies get big enough they owe society better than automated support processes and surprise lifetime bans once an algorithm determines you might not be profitable enough to bother with.
- Gibbon1 4y ago> There's an argument that companies should be able to run themselves however they please There is also an argument that lift should be paying the government 10 cents a mile to use the states roads.
- edgyquant 4y agoNo there isn’t. We have taxes for this
- Gibbon1 4y agoLift is using a public good as the basis for a private business.
- yarg 4y agoThere's a gas tax.
- lowkey 4y agoWould you also want to charge commercial delivery vehicles $0.10/mile? They are also private businesses and they already pay gas tax. Do you realized the cost will simply be passed on to the consumer in the end either way leading to higher inflation?
- Gibbon1 4y agoWhy not? Large truck already don't pay for the damage they do to roads.
- lowkey 4y agoI’ve heard this before and if it is true I would be in favor of adjusting gas taxes on commercial vehicles to cover the cost of road maintenance. However, $0.10/mile sounds excessive and punitive and inflationary for all consumers. I would love to see some data to support your claim.
- ipaddr 4y agoLarge trucks pay higher fees and require inspection
- Gibbon1 4y agoCommon knowledge that the extra taxes and fees paid by trucks don't cover the cost of the damage they do.
- lowkey 4y agoPer this source [0] it appears you are correct. Trucks contribute 99% of wear and tear on the roads but pay only 35% of the cost. My take is that cars/pickups/suvs are overpaying by a lot and commercial trucks are underpaying by a lot. My biggest concern is that taxes, like inflation, only ever seem to go up, never down. In this case I would be in favor of correcting this inequality if we reduce gas taxes for standard vehicles while increasing taxes on commercial trucks, but given their track record I suspect governments will never reduce taxes, only increase them. [0] https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/ https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-indu...
- ncallaway 4y agoThis is exactly how I look at it. The “censorship” and “arbitrary banning” isn’t the key problem. The key problem is that some of these entities are so powerful that being censored by them, or arbitrarily banned by them, can have serious long term consequences on almost anyone. Frankly, the antitrust regulators and legislators have been asleep at the wheel for decades and have allowed an unimaginable level of consolidation in multiple sectors of the market. We should never have gotten to this point, but now that we’re here I feel like we need to follow the Big Bell example.
- BizarroLand 4y agoIt would be handy if they had a requirement of transparency. Having your job threatened for saying that a driver that hit you looked "young" is too obscure. Make it clear what you won't accept, have a whole web page with every single thing that you have decided on as corporate taboo.
- anony23 4y agoYou are free to chose from a number of local car service or taxi companies.
- jsiepkes 4y ago> I agree with this as long as there is a healthy free market, and 2 or 3 companies to choose from isn't a healthy free market. What about if some VC decides to use 200 million USD to undercut your prices? Would you consider that a healthy free market?
- pydry 4y agoThat very obviously isn't.
- maxerickson 4y agoCompanies that operate under limited liability should have an obligation to run their companies in a way that benefits society (otherwise we should withdraw the limitation on investor liability, as it is being used against us). It's pretty funny how lots of people that are more or less rabidly anti-regulation never manage to consider limited liability to be regulation.
- brewdad 4y agoRegulations are merely rules I don’t like.
- strken 4y agoThe problem is that there was a healthy free market, until the pearl-clutching wealthy decided they didn't like all the taxis that were cluttering up the streets and lobbied to introduce licensing. It took enormous companies breaking the law at an industrial scale to destroy this artificially expensive and terrible regulatory capture, and now those same companies are using the same regulatory mechanisms as a moat to stop competitors.