4 ms·

I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? W

by ecjhdnc2025 2y ago

I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Why would people not want laws? The answer is so they can do the things that the laws prevent. This is POSIWID territory [0]. "The purpose of a system is what it does". Not what it repeatedly fails to live up to. What was the primary investment purpose of Uber? Not any of the things it will forever fail to turn a profit at. It was to destroy regulations preventing companies like Uber doing what they do. That is what it succeeded at. The purpose of OpenAI is to minimise and denigrate the idea of individual human contributions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

wilg 2y ago
Nobody besides cab medallion owners really liked the regulations that Uber violated is probably a big part of it
nerdponx 2y ago
> I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to. Better to retreat into the emotional safety of techno-fantasy and feeling like you're on the cutting edge of something big and new (and might make some good money in the process). Same reason people got into NFTs.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  > Same reason people got into NFTs. Same people who got into NFTs.
- mycologos 2y ago
  > Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to. This is a dangerous way of thinking about people who disagree with you, because once you decide somebody is stupid, it frees you from ever having to seriously weigh their positions again, which is a kind of stupidity all its own.
  - timeon 2y ago
    > because once you decide somebody is stupid You just have made up an argument. There is no stated nor implied stupidity. You can't dismiss critique of carelessness like that.
rockemsockem 2y ago
But like, Uber gave us taxis on our phones. No taxi company was going to do that without a force like Uber making them to it.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  It also gave you cab drivers who don't earn enough to be able to replace their vehicles. You can cheer on "forces" like Uber all you like but I would prefer it if progress happened without criminal deception: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak... I don't see how anyone can read this and think the uber app is a net positive.
  - rockemsockem 2y ago
    Citation needed on the "drivers who can't replace their vehicles" part. Lots of cities in the US have passed laws about how much such workers must be paid and I generally think the government is the one that should be solving that problem. I read that whole article. I didn't know about the intentional strategy to send Uber drivers into likely violent situations. That's fucked up. Most of that article seemed to focus on Uber violating laws about operating taxi services though. Sounds good to me? Like there's nothing intrinsically morally correct about taxi service operation laws. This sort of proves my point too. Some company was going to have to fight through all that red tape to get app-based taxis working and maybe it's possible to do that without breaking the law, but if it's easier to just break the law and do it, then whatever. I can't emphasize how much I don't care about those particular laws being broken and maybe if I knew more about them I'd even be specifically happy that those laws were broken.
  - dclowd9901 2y ago
    There’s gotta be a middle ground. The registration system was shit and encouraged a ridiculous secondary market that kept a lot of people under someone else’s thumb too. Why does everything keep getting worse? Why do people keep making less? We need to figure out the answers to these questions. And no, nobody here knows them.
afro88 2y ago
> POSIWID You need to be honest about what it actually does then. Cherry picking the thing you don't like and ignoring the rest will bring you no closer to true understanding

wilg 2y ago

Nobody besides cab medallion owners really liked the regulations that Uber violated is probably a big part of it

nerdponx 2y ago

> I often wonder why tech people think so positively about companies they idolise who are Uber-ing their way through regulations. Where do they think it stops? Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to. Better to retreat into the emotional safety of techno-fantasy and feeling like you're on the cutting edge of something big and new (and might make some good money in the process). Same reason people got into NFTs.

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
> Same reason people got into NFTs. Same people who got into NFTs.
mycologos 2y ago
> Because they don't think about the consequences, and don't want to. This is a dangerous way of thinking about people who disagree with you, because once you decide somebody is stupid, it frees you from ever having to seriously weigh their positions again, which is a kind of stupidity all its own.
- timeon 2y ago
  > because once you decide somebody is stupid You just have made up an argument. There is no stated nor implied stupidity. You can't dismiss critique of carelessness like that.

rockemsockem 2y ago

But like, Uber gave us taxis on our phones. No taxi company was going to do that without a force like Uber making them to it.

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
It also gave you cab drivers who don't earn enough to be able to replace their vehicles. You can cheer on "forces" like Uber all you like but I would prefer it if progress happened without criminal deception: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak... I don't see how anyone can read this and think the uber app is a net positive.
- rockemsockem 2y ago
  Citation needed on the "drivers who can't replace their vehicles" part. Lots of cities in the US have passed laws about how much such workers must be paid and I generally think the government is the one that should be solving that problem. I read that whole article. I didn't know about the intentional strategy to send Uber drivers into likely violent situations. That's fucked up. Most of that article seemed to focus on Uber violating laws about operating taxi services though. Sounds good to me? Like there's nothing intrinsically morally correct about taxi service operation laws. This sort of proves my point too. Some company was going to have to fight through all that red tape to get app-based taxis working and maybe it's possible to do that without breaking the law, but if it's easier to just break the law and do it, then whatever. I can't emphasize how much I don't care about those particular laws being broken and maybe if I knew more about them I'd even be specifically happy that those laws were broken.
- dclowd9901 2y ago
  There’s gotta be a middle ground. The registration system was shit and encouraged a ridiculous secondary market that kept a lot of people under someone else’s thumb too. Why does everything keep getting worse? Why do people keep making less? We need to figure out the answers to these questions. And no, nobody here knows them.

afro88 2y ago

> POSIWID You need to be honest about what it actually does then. Cherry picking the thing you don't like and ignoring the rest will bring you no closer to true understanding