3 ms·

What's traffic safety got to do with being the Silicon Valley of Europe? Uber is outlawed not because of their technology, disruption or innovations, but becaus

by units 12y ago

What's traffic safety got to do with being the Silicon Valley of Europe? Uber is outlawed not because of their technology, disruption or innovations, but because of hiring untrained drivers and potentially unsafe cars. Germany's culture = safety first. So get TÜV certified cars and licensed drivers.

smsm42 12y ago
I wonder how Germans tolerate thousands of regular "unlicensed" (I mean beyond regular driving license - I don't think Uber is hiring drivers that don't have regular driving license?) drivers flooding the German streets every day. It is so unsafe. When finally German citizenry understands that and bans private driving by unsafe drivers in potentially unsafe cars? Safety first! So I'm not getting how it is still allowed. If you want to get somewhere - just take a bus or call a taxi or even better, just bike - it's more ecologically friendly. I think private car ownership in Germany should be banned immediately - for the safety, of course.
- Drakim 12y ago
  I take it that you don't think it should be legal for businesses to lie about their products, but you think it should be legal for normal people to tell lies. There is quite a bit of difference in regulating what businesses are and are not allowed to do, and regulating what people are and are not allowed to do.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    It is completely legal for businesses to lie, and they do it every day, just as every other people do, at least in countries where freedom of speech is respected. What is not legal is to enter a contract under false pretenses - i.e. lie to me about the contract I am about to enter, defraud me, misrepresent your offering or details of the goods, etc. Same holds for a person too - if I defraud you, I would break the law, even though I am not a business. "Business" is just a common name for people (or just one person) doings things in exchange for money, it doesn't change who the people are. So why exactly the difference? Where does it come from?
    - Drakim 12y ago
      Really? A company can just make a TV ad where they say "We are the most environmentally friendly company in this country" when they aren't?
      - dalke 12y ago
        Can TCBY say they are "The Country's Best Yogurt"? Can an cider mill ask " How do we Make the Best Apple Cider in West Michigan?" (Quoting from http://www.klackleorchards.com/make-best-apple-cider-west-michigan/ http://www.klackleorchards.com/make-best-apple-cider-west-mi... ). Team Razer says they "make the best gaming peripherals in the world" (http://www.razerzone.com/team/join http://www.razerzone.com/team/join ) and Surefoot makes "the best fitting, best performing ski boots in the world" (http://www.surefoot.com/news.php http://www.surefoot.com/news.php ). The answer is "yes." Under US law, these are "harmless puffery." A search, btw, finds that SUNOCO is "the most environmentally-friendly company in the entire [petroleum] industry" http://prezi.com/2m6blwsr9u9c/geo-greenwash-ad/ http://prezi.com/2m6blwsr9u9c/geo-greenwash-ad/ and Sediment Removal Solutions is "the most environmentally friendly company around" http://www.sedimentremovalsolutions.com/franchise.html http://www.sedimentremovalsolutions.com/franchise.html . At some point there may be problems, but as there's no standard for 'environmentally friendly', the claim is rather vague in the first place. Still, see Kasky v. Nike (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/ http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/ ) for the question of if a company's press statements, in this case about Nike's non-use of sweat shop labor, counts a protected free speech.
    - zeeed 12y ago
      It's illegal to not follow legislation in the country you're operating in.
    - dalke 12y ago
      In the US, commercial free speech has less protection under the First Amendment than noncommerical speech. Eg, Nike v. Kasky established that in California commercial free speech is (at least currently) subordinate to false advertising laws, in that information in Nike press releases is not immediately protected under the First Amendment. In reading your posting, it appears that you have merged two meanings of "business." The first use is "legal for businesses to lie" as different from "every other people." This implies that you are talking about a specific legal entity, eg, a limited liability corporation, as something different than a human being. The second is '"Business" is just a common name for people', which implies that don't see a business as anything other than a non-empty set of human beings. You should be more clear about what you mean, but in this case it doesn't make a difference. The courts haven't made a distinction between a corporation and a human being making the commercial speech, so the point is moot. See http://hstlj.org/articles/a-brief-history-of-the-commercial-speech-doctrine-with-some-implications-for-tobacco-regulation/ http://hstlj.org/articles/a-brief-history-of-the-commercial-... for a brief history of commercial speech doctrine which is relatively readable. (Most of the ones I came across were much denser reading.) You should note that the lesser protection of commercial speech includes the ability of government to prohibit the advertisement of illegal transactions, even if there is no misrepresentation. Eg, it is illegal to advertise cigarettes to children, even though it is legal for you, under free speech, to carry a sign saying "children should smoke Virginia Slims". The distinction is the goal - is it to sell a product, or an expression of your political, religious, or other beliefs? Should this go to court, the court would look at various factors, like if you're being paid to carry the sign. Similarly, and to get away from a vice-related topic, it's illegal to sell your vote or to offer to buy or sell votes (see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/net_election/2000/10/want_to_sell_your_vote_not_so_fast.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/net_election... ), but if you were at an oil industry protest with a sign saying "I'll sell my vote to ExxonMobil for $6 million" (that being the amount they spent on lobbying last year), then that's clearly political speech.

by units 12y ago

smsm42 12y ago

I wonder how Germans tolerate thousands of regular "unlicensed" (I mean beyond regular driving license - I don't think Uber is hiring drivers that don't have regular driving license?) drivers flooding the German streets every day. It is so unsafe. When finally German citizenry understands that and bans private driving by unsafe drivers in potentially unsafe cars? Safety first! So I'm not getting how it is still allowed. If you want to get somewhere - just take a bus or call a taxi or even better, just bike - it's more ecologically friendly. I think private car ownership in Germany should be banned immediately - for the safety, of course.

Drakim 12y ago
I take it that you don't think it should be legal for businesses to lie about their products, but you think it should be legal for normal people to tell lies. There is quite a bit of difference in regulating what businesses are and are not allowed to do, and regulating what people are and are not allowed to do.
- smsm42 12y ago
  It is completely legal for businesses to lie, and they do it every day, just as every other people do, at least in countries where freedom of speech is respected. What is not legal is to enter a contract under false pretenses - i.e. lie to me about the contract I am about to enter, defraud me, misrepresent your offering or details of the goods, etc. Same holds for a person too - if I defraud you, I would break the law, even though I am not a business. "Business" is just a common name for people (or just one person) doings things in exchange for money, it doesn't change who the people are. So why exactly the difference? Where does it come from?
  - Drakim 12y ago
    Really? A company can just make a TV ad where they say "We are the most environmentally friendly company in this country" when they aren't?
    - dalke 12y ago
      Can TCBY say they are "The Country's Best Yogurt"? Can an cider mill ask " How do we Make the Best Apple Cider in West Michigan?" (Quoting from http://www.klackleorchards.com/make-best-apple-cider-west-michigan/ http://www.klackleorchards.com/make-best-apple-cider-west-mi... ). Team Razer says they "make the best gaming peripherals in the world" (http://www.razerzone.com/team/join http://www.razerzone.com/team/join ) and Surefoot makes "the best fitting, best performing ski boots in the world" (http://www.surefoot.com/news.php http://www.surefoot.com/news.php ). The answer is "yes." Under US law, these are "harmless puffery." A search, btw, finds that SUNOCO is "the most environmentally-friendly company in the entire [petroleum] industry" http://prezi.com/2m6blwsr9u9c/geo-greenwash-ad/ http://prezi.com/2m6blwsr9u9c/geo-greenwash-ad/ and Sediment Removal Solutions is "the most environmentally friendly company around" http://www.sedimentremovalsolutions.com/franchise.html http://www.sedimentremovalsolutions.com/franchise.html . At some point there may be problems, but as there's no standard for 'environmentally friendly', the claim is rather vague in the first place. Still, see Kasky v. Nike (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/ http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/ ) for the question of if a company's press statements, in this case about Nike's non-use of sweat shop labor, counts a protected free speech.
  - zeeed 12y ago
    It's illegal to not follow legislation in the country you're operating in.
  - dalke 12y ago
    In the US, commercial free speech has less protection under the First Amendment than noncommerical speech. Eg, Nike v. Kasky established that in California commercial free speech is (at least currently) subordinate to false advertising laws, in that information in Nike press releases is not immediately protected under the First Amendment. In reading your posting, it appears that you have merged two meanings of "business." The first use is "legal for businesses to lie" as different from "every other people." This implies that you are talking about a specific legal entity, eg, a limited liability corporation, as something different than a human being. The second is '"Business" is just a common name for people', which implies that don't see a business as anything other than a non-empty set of human beings. You should be more clear about what you mean, but in this case it doesn't make a difference. The courts haven't made a distinction between a corporation and a human being making the commercial speech, so the point is moot. See http://hstlj.org/articles/a-brief-history-of-the-commercial-speech-doctrine-with-some-implications-for-tobacco-regulation/ http://hstlj.org/articles/a-brief-history-of-the-commercial-... for a brief history of commercial speech doctrine which is relatively readable. (Most of the ones I came across were much denser reading.) You should note that the lesser protection of commercial speech includes the ability of government to prohibit the advertisement of illegal transactions, even if there is no misrepresentation. Eg, it is illegal to advertise cigarettes to children, even though it is legal for you, under free speech, to carry a sign saying "children should smoke Virginia Slims". The distinction is the goal - is it to sell a product, or an expression of your political, religious, or other beliefs? Should this go to court, the court would look at various factors, like if you're being paid to carry the sign. Similarly, and to get away from a vice-related topic, it's illegal to sell your vote or to offer to buy or sell votes (see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/net_election/2000/10/want_to_sell_your_vote_not_so_fast.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/net_election... ), but if you were at an oil industry protest with a sign saying "I'll sell my vote to ExxonMobil for $6 million" (that being the amount they spent on lobbying last year), then that's clearly political speech.