3 ms·

Whether it's necessary or not doesn't change the fact that Uber knew the current state of the laws and told their drivers they were operating legally. It looks

by akerl_ 12y ago

Whether it's necessary or not doesn't change the fact that Uber knew the current state of the laws and told their drivers they were operating legally. It looks like Uber set up the situation so that these drivers could be martyrs in Uber's PR cause. Uber can now say "look, how terrible the PPA is, we shall defend our drivers from this injustice!". They score some PR points at the cost of massively affecting the drivers' lives. The non-shitty way to accomplish their goal would have been for them to organize the people who wanted the laws to change and to actually participate in the political process, rather than trying to end-run the system by just moving in to town and setting up shop.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
> The non-shitty way to accomplish their goal would have been for them to organize the people who wanted the laws to change and to actually participate in the political process, rather than trying to end-run the system by just moving in to town and setting up shop. Unfortunately, Uber's process is much more likely to evoke change than "participating in the political process". Consumers are much more interested in the interests than your average voter.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  If the average voter doesn't want the system to change, should it? I'm not sure I'm fully a fan of derailing this thread into a discussion of the disconnect between progress and true democracy, but if we allow the minority of the population to override the majority's decision because we "know better" than them, are we still being democratic?
  - malandrew 12y ago
    Once the number of people using these P2P economy services reaches a critical mass, shouldn't voting with their dollars by using these services be seen indirectly as a vote supporting these changes? Furthermore, there is absolutely no indication that the status quo is the "majority's decision". These days, which regulatory capture, the revolving door and pork barreling, it's pretty much impossible to tell what laws were passed because it's the majority decision and which were favors traded among members congress to support the interests of their biggest donors. We have at best a quasi-democratic system; i.e. just enough democracy to maintain an illusion of a functioning democracy.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    I don't think that's derailing it at all. It's at the very core of my ambivalent feelings about companies like Uber and AirBNB. There aren't great social injustices at work here, overheated rhetoric aside. At worst there's run of the mill corruption. The concepts of what these kinds of regulation do are well-founded and something society has clearly wanted. The exact implementations may well have been corrupted, but the stated intent of the laws and regulations are in the public interest, and the public has been happy-ish with them. Does that then mean the fix is to throw out the whole regimen of rules? For example, someone mentioned Seattle hasn't issued new medallions in decades. So the solution is to do away with medallions? Why not just issue more? What about county level food safety inspectors? Many of those regulatory agencies are also corrupt. And don't even start with alcohol licensing. But should we "disrupt" those too? Just ignore them because there's some corruption in the system? When you get down to it, none of these companies want to increase consumer choice. In their perfect world, they'd be the only choice. So it's hard to accept they're really out for the public good. And that makes it really difficult for me to cheer them on as they pick and choose which laws they accept as valid expressions of the people's will. The people aren't really being given a vote here. Well, actually, they have been given a vote, and these companies are choosing to ignore it for their own benefit. As I said, it's not some great social injustice at stake. Civil Rights leaders broke the law with greater purposes in mind than "So my company can be valued in the billions".
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > I'm not sure I'm fully a fan of derailing this thread into a discussion of the disconnect between progress and true democracy, but if we allow the minority of the population to override the majority's decision because we "know better" than them, are we still being democratic? The majority of the population (I speak US-centric here, as I'm a US citizen) wasn't for same-sex marriage nor healthcare reform, yet we "knew better" to enact both. > If the average voter doesn't want the system to change, should it? Yes. We should never cater to the lowest common denominator.
    - akerl_ 12y ago
      This logic works really well until you consider that everybody thinks that they're the ones who "know better". Historically, there haven't been many vocal groups who thought they were on the wrong side of the cause they were championing. How does society tell the difference between non-majority groups who are actually right and non-majority groups who just think they are?
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >minority of the population to override the majority's decision That doesn't sound like a good description. The largest group doesn't care one way or the other, and should probably be excluded from the decision. If some arbitrary issue has 80% uncaring, 15% for, 5% against, I would say it should definitely happen.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  At a minimum, Uber could have advised the drivers that they were engaging in civil disobedience. They appear to have resorted to conscripting protesters.

by akerl_ 12y ago

toomuchtodo 12y ago

> The non-shitty way to accomplish their goal would have been for them to organize the people who wanted the laws to change and to actually participate in the political process, rather than trying to end-run the system by just moving in to town and setting up shop. Unfortunately, Uber's process is much more likely to evoke change than "participating in the political process". Consumers are much more interested in the interests than your average voter.

akerl_ 12y ago
If the average voter doesn't want the system to change, should it? I'm not sure I'm fully a fan of derailing this thread into a discussion of the disconnect between progress and true democracy, but if we allow the minority of the population to override the majority's decision because we "know better" than them, are we still being democratic?
- malandrew 12y ago
  Once the number of people using these P2P economy services reaches a critical mass, shouldn't voting with their dollars by using these services be seen indirectly as a vote supporting these changes? Furthermore, there is absolutely no indication that the status quo is the "majority's decision". These days, which regulatory capture, the revolving door and pork barreling, it's pretty much impossible to tell what laws were passed because it's the majority decision and which were favors traded among members congress to support the interests of their biggest donors. We have at best a quasi-democratic system; i.e. just enough democracy to maintain an illusion of a functioning democracy.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  I don't think that's derailing it at all. It's at the very core of my ambivalent feelings about companies like Uber and AirBNB. There aren't great social injustices at work here, overheated rhetoric aside. At worst there's run of the mill corruption. The concepts of what these kinds of regulation do are well-founded and something society has clearly wanted. The exact implementations may well have been corrupted, but the stated intent of the laws and regulations are in the public interest, and the public has been happy-ish with them. Does that then mean the fix is to throw out the whole regimen of rules? For example, someone mentioned Seattle hasn't issued new medallions in decades. So the solution is to do away with medallions? Why not just issue more? What about county level food safety inspectors? Many of those regulatory agencies are also corrupt. And don't even start with alcohol licensing. But should we "disrupt" those too? Just ignore them because there's some corruption in the system? When you get down to it, none of these companies want to increase consumer choice. In their perfect world, they'd be the only choice. So it's hard to accept they're really out for the public good. And that makes it really difficult for me to cheer them on as they pick and choose which laws they accept as valid expressions of the people's will. The people aren't really being given a vote here. Well, actually, they have been given a vote, and these companies are choosing to ignore it for their own benefit. As I said, it's not some great social injustice at stake. Civil Rights leaders broke the law with greater purposes in mind than "So my company can be valued in the billions".
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > I'm not sure I'm fully a fan of derailing this thread into a discussion of the disconnect between progress and true democracy, but if we allow the minority of the population to override the majority's decision because we "know better" than them, are we still being democratic? The majority of the population (I speak US-centric here, as I'm a US citizen) wasn't for same-sex marriage nor healthcare reform, yet we "knew better" to enact both. > If the average voter doesn't want the system to change, should it? Yes. We should never cater to the lowest common denominator.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    This logic works really well until you consider that everybody thinks that they're the ones who "know better". Historically, there haven't been many vocal groups who thought they were on the wrong side of the cause they were championing. How does society tell the difference between non-majority groups who are actually right and non-majority groups who just think they are?
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >minority of the population to override the majority's decision That doesn't sound like a good description. The largest group doesn't care one way or the other, and should probably be excluded from the decision. If some arbitrary issue has 80% uncaring, 15% for, 5% against, I would say it should definitely happen.
tedunangst 12y ago
At a minimum, Uber could have advised the drivers that they were engaging in civil disobedience. They appear to have resorted to conscripting protesters.