Lyft surges to the top 10 on App Store following the “DeleteUber” campaign(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Lyft surges to the top 10 on App Store following the “DeleteUber” campaign
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/30/lyft-surges-to-the-top-10-on-apples-app-store-following-the-deleteuber-campaign
567 comments
Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. This absurd focus on whether surge pricing was a multiplier or disincentive is a complete distraction.
The taxi drivers reached out and asked Uber for solidarity. They dispatched drivers to break the strike. They made their bed in the court of public opinion, now they can lie in it.
The taxi drivers reached out and asked Uber for solidarity. They dispatched drivers to break the strike. They made their bed in the court of public opinion, now they can lie in it.
Uber is a company, it is not organized in a union. I would never expect them to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop working. Just like a taxicab company doesn't participate in the strike, but the drivers do.
This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??
This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??
This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest.
By not participating, Uber naturally made enemies among a group of people with a tendency to boycott everyone they disagree with.
(I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out that this was a predictable outcome.)
By not participating, Uber naturally made enemies among a group of people with a tendency to boycott everyone they disagree with.
(I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out that this was a predictable outcome.)
> This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest.
The taxis started a strike action (in support of the protest, but a strike nonetheless).
> By not participating
strike-breaking.
> I'm not taking sides here
Of course you are.
The taxis started a strike action (in support of the protest, but a strike nonetheless).
> By not participating
strike-breaking.
> I'm not taking sides here
Of course you are.
A competing service that continues BAU without participating has the result of undermining the aim of the strike - to disrupt services.
The term 'strike-break' is usually used when that service has some obligation or agreement to participate in the first place. In this case, the strike was ineffective because there was enough competition/redundancy to cope with the withdrawn services.
The term 'strike-break' is usually used when that service has some obligation or agreement to participate in the first place. In this case, the strike was ineffective because there was enough competition/redundancy to cope with the withdrawn services.
I thought the union (not the individual taxis) called for the work stoppage.
Perhaps we can call it both a strike and a political protest.
There doesn't seem to have been any way for Uber to avoid (being perceived as) taking sides, but how am I taking sides?
Perhaps we can call it both a strike and a political protest.
There doesn't seem to have been any way for Uber to avoid (being perceived as) taking sides, but how am I taking sides?
[deleted]
If the taxis are doing a strike, you can speak of strike breaking only for taxis not participating in it. Uber are not taxis per se, so there is no way they can break a strike they aren't doing in the first place.
Also there seems to be a confusion made on strike and strike consequences or demonstration. Being on strike only means stop working, not directly blocking access or service (although it is often done in conjunction). So again Uber providing service for people not serviced by taxis can not be labeled of strike breaking: Uber didn't prevent any taxis to be on strike if they want to do it.
Aside my opinion on the matter as a French who suffered more than one time from strikes is that Uber did a good job by allowing people to live their lives normally. Not being able to move, send a mail, study, lend a book, ... is really frustrating.
Also there seems to be a confusion made on strike and strike consequences or demonstration. Being on strike only means stop working, not directly blocking access or service (although it is often done in conjunction). So again Uber providing service for people not serviced by taxis can not be labeled of strike breaking: Uber didn't prevent any taxis to be on strike if they want to do it.
Aside my opinion on the matter as a French who suffered more than one time from strikes is that Uber did a good job by allowing people to live their lives normally. Not being able to move, send a mail, study, lend a book, ... is really frustrating.
That seems like an absurd splitting of hairs. Under that logic the concept of a strike breaker couldn't exist. "It was coal workers who were striking, but the replacements are not coal workers per se they were non-participating laborers who happen to perform the same function"
If my mom arrives at the airport and needs a ride, am I supposed to refuse because of the strike? Will the union let me vote on the strike on that basis?
> If my mom arrives at the airport and needs a ride, am I supposed to refuse because of the strike?
Do you intend on charging your mother for the ride she needs? If your answer is "of course not," you aren't providing the same function as a taxi.
Do you intend on charging your mother for the ride she needs? If your answer is "of course not," you aren't providing the same function as a taxi.
> Uber are not taxis per se
Of course Uber (and Lyft) are taxis. It's a service that you call to have a guy in a car come pick you up and take you directly to your destination. It's a different kind of taxi, certainly, but it's still a taxi.
It's very fashionable right now for startups to pretend that they're really a completely different industry than the one they're trying to disrupt, to distance themselves from the stodgy image, but marketing rhetoric doesn't make it so.
Of course Uber (and Lyft) are taxis. It's a service that you call to have a guy in a car come pick you up and take you directly to your destination. It's a different kind of taxi, certainly, but it's still a taxi.
It's very fashionable right now for startups to pretend that they're really a completely different industry than the one they're trying to disrupt, to distance themselves from the stodgy image, but marketing rhetoric doesn't make it so.
> to distance themselves from the stodgy image
or, ya'know, regulatory laws.
or, ya'know, regulatory laws.
That, too.
That's exactly what happened. Uber wasn't under any obligation to do a time- or money-wasting exercise started by third parties that didn't give a damn about them. It's not even likely to change what's going on given that starts in Washington with support of powerful people and the man's voters. So, no reason to take part in it for achieving a political goal.
Now, on business side, image management is so important it's a huge industry. Many businesses have gone under or lost substantial money when their brands were tarnished by what potential buyers thought of them. Looks like they made another bad move on this front. Most Fortune 500 companies would at least pretend to care more than Uber does. Also in a way highly visible to customers.
Now, on business side, image management is so important it's a huge industry. Many businesses have gone under or lost substantial money when their brands were tarnished by what potential buyers thought of them. Looks like they made another bad move on this front. Most Fortune 500 companies would at least pretend to care more than Uber does. Also in a way highly visible to customers.
Things like this reply on having the power to cause disruption by withdrawing service. In this case, there are a number of downsides:
- It also shows people/companies what a liability free drivers / unions are. Especially were there is a limit of available taxis (taxi badge).
- Individual taxis are being disrupted and facing competition from Lyft/Uber at the moment.
- the country is divided over support of Trump. Strikers may not be able to reply on a majority for support due to the political nature of the strike.
- It also shows people/companies what a liability free drivers / unions are. Especially were there is a limit of available taxis (taxi badge).
- Individual taxis are being disrupted and facing competition from Lyft/Uber at the moment.
- the country is divided over support of Trump. Strikers may not be able to reply on a majority for support due to the political nature of the strike.
>This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest.
What's the difference??
What's the difference??
I think we could all agree by calling it a work-stoppage. To me they're basically all the same but a strike is generally a work stoppage intended to force management to in some way improve the employment environment whereas a political protest can and usually is directed outwards and occurs for any number of reasons.
> a strike is generally a work stoppage intended to force management to in some way
This is also a political protest. Just because it's not against the U.S. government doesn't make it less so.
This is also a political protest. Just because it's not against the U.S. government doesn't make it less so.
> This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??
Well, yes, that's how a general strike works. You expect every worker in the field to follow. This is not a strike to get better conditions within one company, this is a strike toward a governmental action.
Well, yes, that's how a general strike works. You expect every worker in the field to follow. This is not a strike to get better conditions within one company, this is a strike toward a governmental action.
>Well, yes, that's how a general strike works.
You mean how it doesn't work. Cartels eventually fall apart when there's no way of enforcing the rules (no way to force someone to strike) because the incentives to cheat (drive during strike) are high.
You mean how it doesn't work. Cartels eventually fall apart when there's no way of enforcing the rules (no way to force someone to strike) because the incentives to cheat (drive during strike) are high.
Well, at least in the U.S., general strikes worked great and were so effective for labor that they were banned by law, and remain illegal today.
I suppose someone could've DDOSd Uber's API to force their hand instead of relying on Travis' navigation of the political waters and moral fortitude (hah!).
Successful general strikes (a longer list than many people believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike#Notable_general...) usually enforce it somehow. Possibly through illegal means.
You expect workers to follow, not their companies to order them!
People appear to expect companies to take stances and play politics. It's an important observation and should be exploited for business leveraging. This is how namecheap gained market traction - they took heavy handed anti-godaddy stances during the SOPA debate and it worked hugely in their favor.
The other observation is that if your market position has a lot to do with inertia and habit - as in, if many people are using you mostly because they used you the last time, your position is tenuous.
And lastly, this may be a good example of aggregate forms of capital cost. The idea is that every exchange involves not only financial capital (money) but social and spiritual (what one thinks of themselves) capital. Your competitors can increase this aggregate cost and you can modify it without consciously being aware.
The other observation is that if your market position has a lot to do with inertia and habit - as in, if many people are using you mostly because they used you the last time, your position is tenuous.
And lastly, this may be a good example of aggregate forms of capital cost. The idea is that every exchange involves not only financial capital (money) but social and spiritual (what one thinks of themselves) capital. Your competitors can increase this aggregate cost and you can modify it without consciously being aware.
> I would never expect them to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop working.
Doubly so since half of their business model's premise is that Uber drivers are not employees, independent contractors who bring their own equipment, set their own hours, and pick up the fares that they feel like. They officially only boss the drivers around once they've picked up the fare.
Doubly so since half of their business model's premise is that Uber drivers are not employees, independent contractors who bring their own equipment, set their own hours, and pick up the fares that they feel like. They officially only boss the drivers around once they've picked up the fare.
Oh no, Uber is a "ride-sharing platform", so it doesn't have any "drivers", only "partners". If these "partners", being the perfectly free agents that they are, wish to participate in any form of action, they can do so on their own.
No company can be expected to behave morally? Is that what you are arguing?
Is it immoral not to participate in a strike organized by people you have no connection to, who work for different people, and who never consulted me?
If I was going to work and some strangers told me not to because they were on strike, I'd tell them to get lost.
If I was going to work and some strangers told me not to because they were on strike, I'd tell them to get lost.
Broadly speaking, I hate the tendency to conflate "we expect you to hold this view" with "we expect you to take this action". There are some views that I think it's genuinely reasonable to expect of people, but claiming that those views create a right to redirect people's time and money to your tactics is a way higher bar to clear.
Uber took steps to help their affected drivers, and stated intent to raise the issue at meetings with Trump. They decided not to engage in the strike along with the taxi drivers. Somehow, what looks to me like a tactical disagreement got recast as proof that Uber doesn't care about immigrants.
Uber took steps to help their affected drivers, and stated intent to raise the issue at meetings with Trump. They decided not to engage in the strike along with the taxi drivers. Somehow, what looks to me like a tactical disagreement got recast as proof that Uber doesn't care about immigrants.
Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders. Sometimes, that happens to align with public or moral good. However, our only expectation should be that companies make decisions and take actions within the parameters prescribed by regulators. Anything they do beyond that is either a violation, and should be punished, or a secondary, unexpected benefit.
>>Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders.
I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the current situation is benefiting Uber's shareholders.
The point being that by breaking the strike, Uber made a terrible business decision. They massively underestimated the backlash they would get. Now they have a (yet another) PR nightmare in their hands.
I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the current situation is benefiting Uber's shareholders.
The point being that by breaking the strike, Uber made a terrible business decision. They massively underestimated the backlash they would get. Now they have a (yet another) PR nightmare in their hands.
That's fair, and I certainly wasn't trying to analyze the business implications of Uber's maneuvering, simply that any decision made is 'usually' motivated by how it benefits a company's stakeholders.
I would agree that this seems to be the case almost always, but should it have to be that way?
Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often?
To some extent this is already the case, you don't see Dow Chemical grinding up children and selling them as couch stuffing, although sometimes they're not very far from that mark.
Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often?
To some extent this is already the case, you don't see Dow Chemical grinding up children and selling them as couch stuffing, although sometimes they're not very far from that mark.
Right, I mean that's a separate debate, one that requires a lot of introspection re: capitalism, etc. I'm just answering your previous question; that no, we can't expect them to behave morally. However, to continue with your second comment, we're getting closer to the cause of the symptom.
I saw a headline on HN that said "why always outlasts how" and I believe this to be intrinsic. If we should encourage companies to behave in ways more closely aligned with the public interest, fine. Now, how do we do that? So far, it has been done through varying degrees of regulation and the court of public opinion, but those often fail.
To answer your question - "Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often?" - because we lack a better how for the time being.
I saw a headline on HN that said "why always outlasts how" and I believe this to be intrinsic. If we should encourage companies to behave in ways more closely aligned with the public interest, fine. Now, how do we do that? So far, it has been done through varying degrees of regulation and the court of public opinion, but those often fail.
To answer your question - "Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often?" - because we lack a better how for the time being.
They are a company, sure. But the citizens vote with their wallets, and are clearly making a choice for the type of company they prefer. Maybe that means most people in New York prefer a company which cooperates with their local unions.
Did Lyft cooperate with their local unions?
Here is the letter they wrote for their blog:
>We created Lyft to be a model for the type of community we want our world to be: diverse, inclusive, and safe.
>This weekend, Trump closed the country's borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft's and our nation's core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.
>We know this directly impacts many of our community members, their families, and friends. We stand with you, and are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. We ask that you continue to be there for each other - and together, continue proving the power of community.
I notice that it diplomatically does not answer your question, only that it will donate for the cause. So I guess it depends on what you mean by "cooperate." They certainly didn't order their workers to strike (which would be dumb of them anyway.)
>We created Lyft to be a model for the type of community we want our world to be: diverse, inclusive, and safe.
>This weekend, Trump closed the country's borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft's and our nation's core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.
>We know this directly impacts many of our community members, their families, and friends. We stand with you, and are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. We ask that you continue to be there for each other - and together, continue proving the power of community.
I notice that it diplomatically does not answer your question, only that it will donate for the cause. So I guess it depends on what you mean by "cooperate." They certainly didn't order their workers to strike (which would be dumb of them anyway.)
No they scabbed as well, but we're just better with PR. We've been so inculcated with Neoliberalism that switching to a more successfully deceptive brand is now seen as protest.
OK, they are a company. And a company has no right to customers. Sorry, that's business, that's capitalism, that's the market.
> This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??
Consumers could still vote with their dollars, as they should. If you think Uber did nothing wrong then feel free to continue using them.
Consumers could still vote with their dollars, as they should. If you think Uber did nothing wrong then feel free to continue using them.
The sole point I'll argue in this thread is "so did Lyft". If you're boycotting all ridesharing apps in favour of licensed taxis, that's one thing. But deleting Uber and installing Lyft is misguided.
"I'm #deletingUber to show how anti-Trump I am!"
uses Peter Thiel backed Lyft instead
funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber.
nobody does an ounce of research anymore.
uses Peter Thiel backed Lyft instead
funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber.
nobody does an ounce of research anymore.
>nobody does an ounce of research anymore
This is true of the vast majority of activists in any political cause. Most join as social signaling to their community that they are "one of them". Case in point, almost nobody interviewed for occupy Wallstreet could even agree on what the goal of the group was.
Particularly in this case, showing support is literally as simple as installing an app that does almost the exact same thing as another app. "sure, I'll do that and post to Facebook about it to show how forward thinking I am"
This is true of the vast majority of activists in any political cause. Most join as social signaling to their community that they are "one of them". Case in point, almost nobody interviewed for occupy Wallstreet could even agree on what the goal of the group was.
Particularly in this case, showing support is literally as simple as installing an app that does almost the exact same thing as another app. "sure, I'll do that and post to Facebook about it to show how forward thinking I am"
> almost nobody interviewed for occupy Wallstreet could even agree on what the goal of the group was.
Protests are rarely about setting policy. They're about voicing their disagreement. Even if people at Occupy Wallstreet (and many other protests) can't agree on the solution, they do tend to agree on the problem.
Protests are rarely about setting policy. They're about voicing their disagreement. Even if people at Occupy Wallstreet (and many other protests) can't agree on the solution, they do tend to agree on the problem.
That may or may not be the case now, but it certainly isn't true historically. There's a reason why "What do we want? Something! When do we want it? Now!" is a protest cliche.
Grassroots activism used to be better organised. Trade unions and other working-class organisations provided structure and institutional expertise. Discontent could be directed as part of a broader strategic campaign. The atomization of society has diminished the influence of these organisations. Most activism today is disorganised and strategically inept, simply because the instigators are inexperienced and lack the support of a wider network.
Grassroots activism used to be better organised. Trade unions and other working-class organisations provided structure and institutional expertise. Discontent could be directed as part of a broader strategic campaign. The atomization of society has diminished the influence of these organisations. Most activism today is disorganised and strategically inept, simply because the instigators are inexperienced and lack the support of a wider network.
It seems our means of communication have grown beyond our ability to organize through those means. This seems to be a trend with the Internet in general where arguments like gamer gate etc. are fractured into two sides, but even on each side you won't find a coherent set of ideals that unifies.
I believe cases like these are just spotlights on how different we as humans tend to think while assuming those grouped around us tend to be more similar than in actuality.
I believe cases like these are just spotlights on how different we as humans tend to think while assuming those grouped around us tend to be more similar than in actuality.
Well that and the systematic destruction of unions in the US that started in earnest under Reagan.
Organizations tend to be organized and have specific goals. But mass protests rarely come from a single organization. They come from an angry populace.
We seem to have largely moved passed the concept of nuance, knee jerk reactions and virtual signalling in place of reasoned responses.
Its dangerous when all sides don't consider the others viewpoints at all.
Its dangerous when all sides don't consider the others viewpoints at all.
It's lonely to consider the other side these days. Dare to consider Trump's side? You're a fascist. Dare to consider the progressive side? You're a communist. It's no wonder nobody does it anymore.
You think that's lonely? Try not choosing a side. I'm both a fascist and a dirty commie because I choose focusing on actions, policies, and outcomes over labels and ideologies. And you can't even talk about actions, policies, or outcomes, because if you get it 'wrong' (regardless of whether you're actually wrong) out come the labels and closed go the ears.
Both sides are so busy trying to force their ideologies on all Americans through a tyranny of the majority that they are simply incapable of reason.
Both sides are so busy trying to force their ideologies on all Americans through a tyranny of the majority that they are simply incapable of reason.
I got into a discussion on Reddit the other day on the topic of gun control and mentioned that I'm a gun owner who is in favor of some restrictions (like assault weapons bans). The responses were:
"how can you exercise this right if you support its infringement?"
"you should just give up your guns"
"don't expect anyone to stick up for you"
"you're a hypocrite who thinks 'screw everyone else because I already got mine.'"
That's a microcosm of what discourse is like if you have a moderate opinion these days. There is no middle ground.
"how can you exercise this right if you support its infringement?"
"you should just give up your guns"
"don't expect anyone to stick up for you"
"you're a hypocrite who thinks 'screw everyone else because I already got mine.'"
That's a microcosm of what discourse is like if you have a moderate opinion these days. There is no middle ground.
Indeed, also considering someones viewpoint doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
Its quite reasonable to find it abhorrent, just don't take it as abhorrent because other people to you that it is.
I like statistics and politics, I dig into the numbers and the actual reports behind news stories and the agendas are so obvious, I get the reasons why, in the UK newspapers are sold on outrage and worldview confirmation first and second and facts about sixth.
I don't believe there was ever a golden age of media but I do think they had more integrity in the past.
Its quite reasonable to find it abhorrent, just don't take it as abhorrent because other people to you that it is.
I like statistics and politics, I dig into the numbers and the actual reports behind news stories and the agendas are so obvious, I get the reasons why, in the UK newspapers are sold on outrage and worldview confirmation first and second and facts about sixth.
I don't believe there was ever a golden age of media but I do think they had more integrity in the past.
A bit off topic, but I honestly think Retro Report (sponsored by NYT) is wonderful in that it highlights how often the media misses the mark. Especially in the age of the 24 hour news cycle. Sure, they'll issue retractions and such, but the damage to someone is usually done. Richard Jewell is a case in point.
Anyway, it is indeed disheartening that if we consider some other viewpoint or perhaps even sympathise with it how easy it is to be branded an enemy to the other. It's a 'you're with us or against us' mentality that is becoming more and more ingrained.
Anyway, it is indeed disheartening that if we consider some other viewpoint or perhaps even sympathise with it how easy it is to be branded an enemy to the other. It's a 'you're with us or against us' mentality that is becoming more and more ingrained.
>I don't believe there was ever a golden age of media but I do think they had more integrity in the past.
I disagree. The bullshit was just harder to discover in the past - without internet and 10,000 independent sources stating contrary to whatever the media was trying to peddle.
Media's job isn't to educate people. It's to educate people to see things "their" way which is where media bias, however major or slight, comes into play.
I disagree. The bullshit was just harder to discover in the past - without internet and 10,000 independent sources stating contrary to whatever the media was trying to peddle.
Media's job isn't to educate people. It's to educate people to see things "their" way which is where media bias, however major or slight, comes into play.
"I disagree. The bullshit was just harder to discover in the past - without internet and 10,000 independent sources stating contrary to whatever the media was trying to peddle."
I think it's the opposite. The headlines, style, and bias made the bullshit more obvious in the past. Now, there can be 10,000 "independent" sources peddling the same person's bullshit. Media consolidation means many of the news sources all come from the same few dozen companies that consistently bullshit. False information also travels fast in waves across social media but debunks don't per Facebook. There are also firms specializing in doing this with propaganda teams.
It's golden age of media disinformation. Also, with so many sources of low integrity, it's harder than ever for the average person to figure out what's true. Smart people can pull it off for many things but it's a lot of work. More work than many will spend vs turning to favorite channel, station, or friend feed.
I think it's the opposite. The headlines, style, and bias made the bullshit more obvious in the past. Now, there can be 10,000 "independent" sources peddling the same person's bullshit. Media consolidation means many of the news sources all come from the same few dozen companies that consistently bullshit. False information also travels fast in waves across social media but debunks don't per Facebook. There are also firms specializing in doing this with propaganda teams.
It's golden age of media disinformation. Also, with so many sources of low integrity, it's harder than ever for the average person to figure out what's true. Smart people can pull it off for many things but it's a lot of work. More work than many will spend vs turning to favorite channel, station, or friend feed.
>it's harder than ever for the average person to figure out what's true.
It's so much easier to find truth backed arguments with the internet, the average person can easily check sources. People are just mostly lazy and willing to let their biases inform what they will accept as true.
It's so much easier to find truth backed arguments with the internet, the average person can easily check sources. People are just mostly lazy and willing to let their biases inform what they will accept as true.
"People are just mostly lazy and willing to let their biases inform what they will accept as true."
Exactly. Combined with easier spread of misinformation, it makes things worse than it was before where easily-misinformed population in voting or demand side has massive influence on our lives.
Exactly. Combined with easier spread of misinformation, it makes things worse than it was before where easily-misinformed population in voting or demand side has massive influence on our lives.
I'm curious how far we can go in terms of inducing economic anxiety. Are the people willing to go for a general strike?
How about a Hartal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal
How about a Hartal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal
When so many horrible things are happening, it's difficult for thoughtful people to agree on exactly which one is the most important.
> what the goal of the group was
That implies there was a group, in a formal sense, at all.
That implies there was a group, in a formal sense, at all.
[deleted]
Do you have something substantive to add besides posting the Wikipedia link? One could uncharitably interpret your comment as virtue signaling in and of itself.
I found it useful, I forgot what the term was and wanted to look it up.
Meta-virtue signalling: signalling that you are smarter and better informed by everyone else by dismissing anything anybody else does, however well intentioned, as mere virtue signalling.
dismissing anything anybody else does, however well intentioned, as mere virtue signalling
Indeed. I think you've underscored exactly why calling out virtue signaling is so unhelpful for productive discourse.
Indeed. I think you've underscored exactly why calling out virtue signaling is so unhelpful for productive discourse.
If anything, I think people assign too much weight to "sending a message" or "taking a stance." Thiel backed both Trump and Lyft! Down with Lyft! Uber wouldn't go along with some strike! Disavow! YC works with a Trump supporter! Fire him!
Apparently the latest outrage on Twitter is over Elon Musk's condemnation of Trump's order not being tough enough. They're mad at him for trying to convince Trump to modify his proposal, because "making compromises with the opponent validates them," and he's being "morally cowardly." Well, ok. But at this point the order is (unless the ACLU wins) a reality, and the pragmatic thing to do is to work within the bounds of reality to make things better. Would these people rather he not do that, just to show that he's "standing with them"?
I have an increasing suspicion that the word "solidarity" is becoming a word the means less and less. As far as I can tell, when applied to public figures, it mostly means sending the message that you care. I wish we'd care less about messaging, and more about what works.
Apparently the latest outrage on Twitter is over Elon Musk's condemnation of Trump's order not being tough enough. They're mad at him for trying to convince Trump to modify his proposal, because "making compromises with the opponent validates them," and he's being "morally cowardly." Well, ok. But at this point the order is (unless the ACLU wins) a reality, and the pragmatic thing to do is to work within the bounds of reality to make things better. Would these people rather he not do that, just to show that he's "standing with them"?
I have an increasing suspicion that the word "solidarity" is becoming a word the means less and less. As far as I can tell, when applied to public figures, it mostly means sending the message that you care. I wish we'd care less about messaging, and more about what works.
There is real risk when business mingle with politics. Both Musk and Uber should consider this before working with Trump. Thiel will be forever marked as Trump supporter and he saw it coming.
As for your suggestion to work with bounds of reality it should apply to Trump. If he want to change immigration policy he can work with Congress to pass laws and regulations. His flashy actions are just for his silly supporters and not for the benefit of US.
Trump plan is to govern through the crisis. He will make flashy stupid actions to get everyone attention while Republicans and Lobbyist disassemble what has been achieved in last 8 years.
As for your suggestion to work with bounds of reality it should apply to Trump. If he want to change immigration policy he can work with Congress to pass laws and regulations. His flashy actions are just for his silly supporters and not for the benefit of US.
Trump plan is to govern through the crisis. He will make flashy stupid actions to get everyone attention while Republicans and Lobbyist disassemble what has been achieved in last 8 years.
Business is politics. Lobbying is rampant and everywhere. When you set wages or try to destroy organized labor that's political. Everything you do when you exercise the power you have as a businessman is a political action.
"As for your suggestion to work with bounds of reality it should apply to Trump."
That makes no sense. Our existing structure we're working in will let him do about whatever he wants with his voters supporting him. If you want to change that, try to get some amendments to the Constitution through that will. If you're not changing it, then he'll do whatever he wants. Then, anyone trying to change that has to work within the constraints. His if appealing to Executive Branch. Giving him something better for you that also appears to accomplish his goals is one way to do it.
I'm not pushing any specific ideas on that. I'm just saying that it's ridiculous act with assumption the villains shouldn't be villains or some other utopia should happen. Instead, gotta work with what we have.
That makes no sense. Our existing structure we're working in will let him do about whatever he wants with his voters supporting him. If you want to change that, try to get some amendments to the Constitution through that will. If you're not changing it, then he'll do whatever he wants. Then, anyone trying to change that has to work within the constraints. His if appealing to Executive Branch. Giving him something better for you that also appears to accomplish his goals is one way to do it.
I'm not pushing any specific ideas on that. I'm just saying that it's ridiculous act with assumption the villains shouldn't be villains or some other utopia should happen. Instead, gotta work with what we have.
I'm experiencing dissonance. Business and politics are both social actions, but are some of us starting to conceive business as a space beyond social responsibility?
How does XKCD put it?
> Fuck. That. Shit.
https://xkcd.com/137/
What, you think it was only true when it was applied to people you like?
> Fuck. That. Shit.
https://xkcd.com/137/
What, you think it was only true when it was applied to people you like?
I would agree with XKCD in this case, being honest is liberating. I am just observer and I have strong opinions.
I like my wife, child and few friends. I do not care about Musk, Jobs, Jesus or any other created by PR icon that people put faith in.
I like my wife, child and few friends. I do not care about Musk, Jobs, Jesus or any other created by PR icon that people put faith in.
It's true, Founders Fund backed Lyft in Series B (lead, 15M), C (60M) and D (250M). They also have Geoff Lewis on board.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lyft/investors
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lyft/investors
You can tell the difference between this and actually really caring, because the latter actually costs the person something. Using Lyft instead of Uber? Walking out at Google knowing full well it won't affect their job security at all (if not improve it by brown nosing)? Or what about a lawyer who is on her way out anyway, deciding to burn that bridge, knowing she'll have a cushioned landing (again, maybe even improving her career).
This is ridiculous bullshit doing nothing.
Thousands of people doing something that would risk their job, or land them in jail (and I'm not talking about a couple of out-of-work stragglers while the rest high tail it home when the police come out) might change something.
But this? Just a big circle jerk which if Trump has a brain in his head, will just ignore.
This is ridiculous bullshit doing nothing.
Thousands of people doing something that would risk their job, or land them in jail (and I'm not talking about a couple of out-of-work stragglers while the rest high tail it home when the police come out) might change something.
But this? Just a big circle jerk which if Trump has a brain in his head, will just ignore.
> funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber.
Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Trump.
Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Trump.
What matters is who lives in what swing state counties now. That's basically what the US voting system has been designed to measure.
Quite surprising when you start to do the math.
Quite surprising when you start to do the math.
What matters is TURNOUT. Always has.
Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary:
http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg
Whether due to disappointment that Bernie Sanders wasn't nominated, or belief that voting wasn't important since Trump wasn't projected to win, or "OMG Russian hacker!!" conspiracy theories, etc. The bottom line is that Democratic turnout has dropped 15% over the past couple of cycles.
Like the shore in low tide, "swing" locations shift and move out when this happens. I hear advice that future nominees should just ignore blue states and focus entirely on swing locations. That's exactly what the Clinton campaign did! It's a recipe for failure in the modern day. Because once again, turnout is what matters. The rising tide pushed back the "swing" coastline.
This new era of U.S. politics scares me... because I've grown accustomed to Democrats having the luxury of sounding reasonable and centrist, while the Republicans have been forced to pander to extremists in their base. But I think the old conventional wisdom of "run to the edge in the primaries and then pivot back to the center for the general" is breaking down.
In the new rules, candidates have to LIVE out on the edge in order to keep their bases energized and draw turnout. I think we're going to see extreme left candidates facing extreme right candidates (or whatever Trump is), with a goal of get-out-the-vote operations rather than winning over swing moderates. As a swing moderate myself, this sounds disastrous no matter who wins.
Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary:
http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg
Whether due to disappointment that Bernie Sanders wasn't nominated, or belief that voting wasn't important since Trump wasn't projected to win, or "OMG Russian hacker!!" conspiracy theories, etc. The bottom line is that Democratic turnout has dropped 15% over the past couple of cycles.
Like the shore in low tide, "swing" locations shift and move out when this happens. I hear advice that future nominees should just ignore blue states and focus entirely on swing locations. That's exactly what the Clinton campaign did! It's a recipe for failure in the modern day. Because once again, turnout is what matters. The rising tide pushed back the "swing" coastline.
This new era of U.S. politics scares me... because I've grown accustomed to Democrats having the luxury of sounding reasonable and centrist, while the Republicans have been forced to pander to extremists in their base. But I think the old conventional wisdom of "run to the edge in the primaries and then pivot back to the center for the general" is breaking down.
In the new rules, candidates have to LIVE out on the edge in order to keep their bases energized and draw turnout. I think we're going to see extreme left candidates facing extreme right candidates (or whatever Trump is), with a goal of get-out-the-vote operations rather than winning over swing moderates. As a swing moderate myself, this sounds disastrous no matter who wins.
>Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary:
http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg
Your data is from very soon after the election. Once all the votes were counted, Clinton had the same vote total as Obama '12 [1]. Perhaps an argument can be made that due to population growth she'd need 1% more (or some number) to truly match Obama '12.
That said, I agree with your general message about turnout.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
That said, I agree with your general message about turnout.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
> What matters is TURNOUT. Always has.
That is important, but it's turnout in states that have swing counties. Turnout in California is less important.
> Whether due to disappointment that Bernie Sanders wasn't nominated, or belief that voting wasn't important since Trump wasn't projected to win, or "OMG Russian hacker!!" conspiracy theories, etc. The bottom line is that Democratic turnout has dropped 15% over the past couple of cycles.
Your explanation is curiously devoid of what I see many people here omit: the repeal of the VRA. We saw changes to requirements and last minute eligability changes in many states that would have been illegal and challengable under the VRA.
While I certainly think there is a contingent of "bernie or bust" people, the turnout in blue states was NOT substantially depressed and HRC didn't lose votes. The vote totals were similar to their 2012 counterparts (in some cases higher) in blue states with absentee/mail voting making a huge appearance. If the BoB people were a significant factor for the blue vote we would ahve seen it reflected.
It's a weird myth that blue turnout was down in blue states. When I look at the vote counts post January, I just don't see it.
What we do see is a conspicuous and large gap of blue votes in red states, and when you overlay that with voter law changes enabled by the VRA the correspondence is quite high.
It's really tempting to lean on the "well they just didn't vote" argument, because it's very pat and not contentious. We should be suspicious of that though.
That is important, but it's turnout in states that have swing counties. Turnout in California is less important.
> Whether due to disappointment that Bernie Sanders wasn't nominated, or belief that voting wasn't important since Trump wasn't projected to win, or "OMG Russian hacker!!" conspiracy theories, etc. The bottom line is that Democratic turnout has dropped 15% over the past couple of cycles.
Your explanation is curiously devoid of what I see many people here omit: the repeal of the VRA. We saw changes to requirements and last minute eligability changes in many states that would have been illegal and challengable under the VRA.
While I certainly think there is a contingent of "bernie or bust" people, the turnout in blue states was NOT substantially depressed and HRC didn't lose votes. The vote totals were similar to their 2012 counterparts (in some cases higher) in blue states with absentee/mail voting making a huge appearance. If the BoB people were a significant factor for the blue vote we would ahve seen it reflected.
It's a weird myth that blue turnout was down in blue states. When I look at the vote counts post January, I just don't see it.
What we do see is a conspicuous and large gap of blue votes in red states, and when you overlay that with voter law changes enabled by the VRA the correspondence is quite high.
It's really tempting to lean on the "well they just didn't vote" argument, because it's very pat and not contentious. We should be suspicious of that though.
You left out "targeted voter suppression" in your list of reasons democrats didn't turn out. With North Carolina being a particularly egregious and well documented example.
>“Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-c...
Campaign finance reform, gerrymandering reform, compulsory voting...these are all good things to have in a democratic republic, but they're difficult to sex up for mass appeal.
Instead we get stuck in the mud with tangible topics that affect regular lives like universal health care and free public higher education. Good things, sure, but not the solution to our deeper problems.
Instead we get stuck in the mud with tangible topics that affect regular lives like universal health care and free public higher education. Good things, sure, but not the solution to our deeper problems.
Yea. Whoever runs for the dem nomination and wants to beat trump or pence (if he gets impeached) shouldn't even bother visiting blue states. Spend the entire campaign talking to voters in the rust belt.
To be fair, many Trump supporters are in areas where ride sharing services aren't nearly as popular as the generally left-leaning cities.
Or they can afford private drivers
If you're rich, you probably benefited from free trade and mass immigration. Trump's base are the people who suffered the most from these trends.
Or that Uber had more to lose, and Lyft more to gain.
Or there are fewer Trump supporters in the urban areas where ridesharing apps tend to operate.
that makes The divided states of America (D.S.A.)
Its true, in many of the points for which Uber is criticized (including this), Lyft is no better. One might even go as far as to say something along the lines of "there is no ethical consumption under capitailism."
But the point of a boycott isn't to purify one's own ethics, but to get the producer of the boycotted product to change their behavior. To this end it is more productive to focus on the market leader, or the most egregious offender, or some other 'tall poppy' of impropriety, than to try to boycott all actors you believe are unethical.
But the point of a boycott isn't to purify one's own ethics, but to get the producer of the boycotted product to change their behavior. To this end it is more productive to focus on the market leader, or the most egregious offender, or some other 'tall poppy' of impropriety, than to try to boycott all actors you believe are unethical.
Lyft donated 1M to the ACLU. That's pretty different about taking action.
And Uber is spending $3 million on legal services for their drivers.
I don't want to take sides, but how is spending $3 million to compensate their own drivers vs. $1 million going to the ACLU which benefits people other than Lyft's "employees" in any way equal?
Isn't what Uber has done better? At least for Uber drivers. They're standing by the people they're benefiting from, instead of an undirected donation.
An analogy: a company has an oil spill, so they donate to Greenpeace.
An analogy: a company has an oil spill, so they donate to Greenpeace.
It's clearly not undirected -- it's explicitly to fight in court the executive order as unconstitutional, which then applies to the entire US and not just their own tiny ecosystem.
Further, 3mil to their own drivers (which I haven't heard about but whatever) doesn't change US law -- so if their driver is booted out of the country, a few thousand dollars ain't much if you're thrown into a civil war or worse.
Further, 3mil to their own drivers (which I haven't heard about but whatever) doesn't change US law -- so if their driver is booted out of the country, a few thousand dollars ain't much if you're thrown into a civil war or worse.
>"there is no ethical consumption under capitailism."
Imagine there was a competitor to Uber and Lyft that was owned by the drivers themselves in the form of a cooperative, so that any new drivers would have equal say in the direction the service took. Would that not be more ethical than Uber and Lyft?
Imagine there was a competitor to Uber and Lyft that was owned by the drivers themselves in the form of a cooperative, so that any new drivers would have equal say in the direction the service took. Would that not be more ethical than Uber and Lyft?
But that wouldn't be organized as a capitalist company then.
Who cares? John Lewis is a partnership of all 90,000 employees and they are probably the most successful supermarket and department store chain in Britain. They dominate high end food and homeware sales.
http://www.johnlewis.com/customer-services/information-about...
http://www.johnlewis.com/customer-services/information-about...
...sure it would? Cooperatives of various sorts are a time-tested method of corporate organization, and plenty of them exist as corporations and make money in capitalist systems.
> "so did Lyft"
"Lyft had continued to operate as well but did not turn off its surge pricing, a company spokeswoman said;"[0] - Exactly, but they managed to stay under the radar as they had less market share. Also both CEOs are on President Trump’s economic advisory group, so what's the reason to boycott Uber?
[0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
"Lyft had continued to operate as well but did not turn off its surge pricing, a company spokeswoman said;"[0] - Exactly, but they managed to stay under the radar as they had less market share. Also both CEOs are on President Trump’s economic advisory group, so what's the reason to boycott Uber?
[0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
I agree and already had commented so prior to my post on this thread.
The taxi drivers' strike was in poor taste anyway. "Ok, so people are going to have trouble with airport transportation because of this immigration ban, so let's make it even harder by taking away from transportation options." They not only could have made it harder for those who did eventually manage to clear CBP to get home, but they also made it harder for protesters to get to and from the airport. If I were in charge of Uber's or Lyft's ability to shut down their service for the airport, I certainly wouldn't do that.
This is a fine example of a union strike harming people.
Regarding surge, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't": when they leave surge pricing up in these situations, they're blasted for profiteering, and now when they disable it, they're blasted for... what, exactly? Providing less of an incentive for drivers to go there?
This is a fine example of a union strike harming people.
Regarding surge, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't": when they leave surge pricing up in these situations, they're blasted for profiteering, and now when they disable it, they're blasted for... what, exactly? Providing less of an incentive for drivers to go there?
Well that's one way of looking at it. People apparently still could ride Uber and Lyft so they werent really impeding anyones travels to and from the airport.
Another is that NY Taxi which employs many 1st and 2nd generation immigrants were granted one hour of their time to stand up in solidarity for those immigrants being detained without risking their jobs. It's not a case of "union strike" since it's unrelated to labour it's simply a political action. You might not like it but calling their protest "poor taste" is just demeaning.
Another is that NY Taxi which employs many 1st and 2nd generation immigrants were granted one hour of their time to stand up in solidarity for those immigrants being detained without risking their jobs. It's not a case of "union strike" since it's unrelated to labour it's simply a political action. You might not like it but calling their protest "poor taste" is just demeaning.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either:
a) You expect Uber/Lyft to take part in your strike, in which case you are impeding travel, or
b) You don't expect Uber/Lyft to take part, in which case no one should be coming down so hard on them for "breaking the strike".
I think it's great that NY Taxi gave their immigrant employees time to participate in the protests, but, they could have... y'know... just done that. Not called for a strike. I'm not sure where you're hearing that it wasn't a strike, though: seems like everyone here is convinced it was an actual labor action, as does the original article. Not saying that's the final word on the matter, but it's pretty confusing what went on, and it seems a bit crazy to call for this strike or non-strike or whatever it was, and then get pissed at Uber/Lyft for not participating.
I don't agree with you that my words are "demeaning". People's actions have consequences. If protesters had extra trouble getting to/from the airport due to the strike, then I consider that a bad consequence of the strike. If there was even the possibility that someone detained by the CBP could have been released during the strike and had trouble getting home because of the strike, then I think "poor taste" is a generous description of events.
a) You expect Uber/Lyft to take part in your strike, in which case you are impeding travel, or
b) You don't expect Uber/Lyft to take part, in which case no one should be coming down so hard on them for "breaking the strike".
I think it's great that NY Taxi gave their immigrant employees time to participate in the protests, but, they could have... y'know... just done that. Not called for a strike. I'm not sure where you're hearing that it wasn't a strike, though: seems like everyone here is convinced it was an actual labor action, as does the original article. Not saying that's the final word on the matter, but it's pretty confusing what went on, and it seems a bit crazy to call for this strike or non-strike or whatever it was, and then get pissed at Uber/Lyft for not participating.
I don't agree with you that my words are "demeaning". People's actions have consequences. If protesters had extra trouble getting to/from the airport due to the strike, then I consider that a bad consequence of the strike. If there was even the possibility that someone detained by the CBP could have been released during the strike and had trouble getting home because of the strike, then I think "poor taste" is a generous description of events.
I never claimed to hold either of those positions. Personally I think it's great that the taxi drivers of NY could display solidarity in this issue with the detained immigrants and their contempt for this clusterfuck of an Excecute Order. But I will not engage you in trying to collapse this argument into a squabble over trivial details. To echo another reply:
You don't understand protest.
The words in MLKs "Letter from a Birmingham jail" could hardly be more suitable to your chain of reasoning.
"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the ____ great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the ____ to wait for a'"more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."[0]
sources: [0] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
You don't understand protest.
The words in MLKs "Letter from a Birmingham jail" could hardly be more suitable to your chain of reasoning.
"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the ____ great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the ____ to wait for a'"more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."[0]
sources: [0] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
[deleted]
> This is a fine example of a union strike harming people.
IMHO every strike is about "harming people". That's the point. When the bus drivers in my city strike, they do it to cause mass inconvenience to get people to notice and get a message across.
IMHO every strike is about "harming people". That's the point. When the bus drivers in my city strike, they do it to cause mass inconvenience to get people to notice and get a message across.
In this case, my stance is they're harming the people they're intending to support/help.
I'm sort of baffled by your reasoning. You believe that they are "harming" the people by protesting with them?
I mean honestly, you think that one hour (not several hours as you posted) of protesting to show solidarity with the people being detained. One hour of looking the people you are trying to help in the eye and saying "We're with you! You are not alone." is somehow "harming" the people they're trying to help?
Maybe you feel that you can save the world behind a keyboard but most of us would, I think, disagree. You have to show support with actions, not just words.
I mean honestly, you think that one hour (not several hours as you posted) of protesting to show solidarity with the people being detained. One hour of looking the people you are trying to help in the eye and saying "We're with you! You are not alone." is somehow "harming" the people they're trying to help?
Maybe you feel that you can save the world behind a keyboard but most of us would, I think, disagree. You have to show support with actions, not just words.
I think the choice of actions matters too. If people aren't going to think seriously about the consequences of their actions instead of just going along for fear of being branded strikebreakers, I'd rather they limited themselves to words. At least that way they won't cause that much damage.
No opinion on the specific case, I just find your proposal overbroad.
No opinion on the specific case, I just find your proposal overbroad.
> The taxi drivers' strike was in poor taste anyway.
Most taxi drivers are immigrants and many are refugees, whose families are directly affected by this ban; I'm sure your own personal notion of good taste was far from their minds.
Most taxi drivers are immigrants and many are refugees, whose families are directly affected by this ban; I'm sure your own personal notion of good taste was far from their minds.
Source on "Most taxi drivers are immigrants and many are refugees, whose families are directly affected by this ban"?
uh, going outside? I thought that was a 'sky is blue' level of common knowledge.
It's nice when company owners support labor solidarity, but I think it's silly to say that uber scabbed or broke the strike. Uber is a multi hundred billion dollar capitalist entity, with a stated goal of automating away all of the drivers. Uber drivers broke the strike. Lyft drivers also broke the strike.
It's one thing to expect labor solidarity from workers, but I don't see how it's rational to expect labor solidarity from a massive store of private wealth.
What uber did was make it less profitable for uber drivers to scab, which is moderately pro strike if anything. Lyft fares undoubtedly went up in that time, but Lyft doesn't profit as much from surge pricing, rather their model allowed scabbing drivers to keep those extra wages.
It's one thing to expect labor solidarity from workers, but I don't see how it's rational to expect labor solidarity from a massive store of private wealth.
What uber did was make it less profitable for uber drivers to scab, which is moderately pro strike if anything. Lyft fares undoubtedly went up in that time, but Lyft doesn't profit as much from surge pricing, rather their model allowed scabbing drivers to keep those extra wages.
Scabbing is breaking the strike. Uber dispatched drivers to break the strike. I'll say it again, it's not complicated.
Scabs have historically operated under the cover of a private entity. This was the express function of the Pinkertons, for example. You can't rewrite the history of American labor and what its accomplished with neoliberal circumlocutions. Just because corporations became clever enough to describe scabs as "independent contractors" operating under "complex algorithms" and "surge pricing," doesn't mean we have to believe them.
Scabs have historically operated under the cover of a private entity. This was the express function of the Pinkertons, for example. You can't rewrite the history of American labor and what its accomplished with neoliberal circumlocutions. Just because corporations became clever enough to describe scabs as "independent contractors" operating under "complex algorithms" and "surge pricing," doesn't mean we have to believe them.
Uber dispatched nobody. The drivers dispatched themselves. You're saying it was Uber's responsibility to side with the strikers (who are their competition) against the wishes of their own drivers? Seriously?
If Uber had forced a strike on its drivers (without a vote no less) people would have been pissed that they were left stranded.
If enough Uber drivers wanted to strike, they would have. They didn't. Maybe they are a different demograph with different concerns. Who knows.
You know the last time Uber had surge pricing during a huge surge in demand in Australia they got a lot of shit. They said they wouldn't do it again. They kept their word.
And why must Uber be on the side of the strikers or face punishment? What about all the people hailing cabs, Ubers, or Lyfts? They are exempt from morality? Lyft picked up people too. The fact that Uber chose not to price gouge is not a support of the ban.
If Uber had forced a strike on its drivers (without a vote no less) people would have been pissed that they were left stranded.
If enough Uber drivers wanted to strike, they would have. They didn't. Maybe they are a different demograph with different concerns. Who knows.
You know the last time Uber had surge pricing during a huge surge in demand in Australia they got a lot of shit. They said they wouldn't do it again. They kept their word.
And why must Uber be on the side of the strikers or face punishment? What about all the people hailing cabs, Ubers, or Lyfts? They are exempt from morality? Lyft picked up people too. The fact that Uber chose not to price gouge is not a support of the ban.
No, they're not exempt, and I already said as much before in other comments on this post.
Saying the didn't dispatch drivers is just another cavillous circumlocution. They created, maintain, and profit from the platform through which the scabs were sent to break a strike. People see through these kind of dodges, although they could do a better job of seeing through Lyft's PR.
Saying the didn't dispatch drivers is just another cavillous circumlocution. They created, maintain, and profit from the platform through which the scabs were sent to break a strike. People see through these kind of dodges, although they could do a better job of seeing through Lyft's PR.
Let's compare two quotes from you:
"They dispatched drivers to break the strike."
"They created, maintain, and profit from the platform through which the scabs were sent to break a strike."
These are two very different shades of meaning. The first is active, the second is passive. So Uber passively broke the strike, but not actively. I think the difference is appreciable.
"They dispatched drivers to break the strike."
"They created, maintain, and profit from the platform through which the scabs were sent to break a strike."
These are two very different shades of meaning. The first is active, the second is passive. So Uber passively broke the strike, but not actively. I think the difference is appreciable.
To be clear, Uber did not break the strike. Uber drivers, who apparently did not feel compelled to take part in the strike, broke it. Strikes are not composed of companies, they are composed of workers. Would you expect Uber to have refused to let its drivers operate (against their will) during the taxi strike? That's absurd on its face.
Most importantly, AFAIK it wasnt even the taxi companies that called the strike, but the taxi unions.
I would expect Uber to ensure drivers are organized and informed about strikes and empowered to join them, if they were truly a neutral ride-sharing platform.
Really, they're just a business that employs people whom they don't want to classify as employees, and would sooner drown their riders in a lake than see them organize.
Really, they're just a business that employs people whom they don't want to classify as employees, and would sooner drown their riders in a lake than see them organize.
> I would expect Uber to ensure drivers are organized and informed about strikes
That seems absurd. Uber is not a union. There is a dangerous conflict of incentive in relying on the people harmed by a strike to be organizing them.
That seems absurd. Uber is not a union. There is a dangerous conflict of incentive in relying on the people harmed by a strike to be organizing them.
Yes. That's because Uber ISN'T a neutral platform for ride sharing, it's a taxi service with employees.
But you don't break the strike by removing surge pricing and increasing everyone's pick-up time, you break it by keeping surge pricing, so that the drivers chasing the surge swarm the location in order to boost their earnings.
Breaking the strike was picking up someone at JFK during the strike. Uber and Lyft both picked up riders during the strike. It's not complicated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
Workers choosing not to work is a strike. Infrastructure owners choosing not to let workers work is something else.
Since Uber actively works against their drivers' collective organization and intentionally atomizes their labor force, a coordinated action for all drivers is only feasible in the context of Uber suspending service. If individual drivers chose not to service JFK, that was their decision and we can respect them for it. There were, however, Uber drivers breaking the strike and that reflects on Uber accordingly.
Can't modern drivers organize with a Facebook group or something? Or do Uber hire corporate spies to collect names and ban everyone?
Funny you should ask...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/29/12314544/uber-ergo-seattle...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/29/12314544/uber-ergo-seattle...
So just black out the area for drivers and passengers?
Unless this is a coordinated effort, drivers and passengers will just go down the list to see if Lyft/Gett/Wingz/you-name-it is working.
Unless this is a coordinated effort, drivers and passengers will just go down the list to see if Lyft/Gett/Wingz/you-name-it is working.
Right. And then a driver from one of those services breaks the strike and the parent company they contract for gets hammered in the court of public opinion for breaking the strike.
The strike was widely publicized and the protest visible. Everyone involved was allowed to act as they saw fit and we can think what we want of those decisions as well.
However the typical activist doesn't get this level of nuance. They apparently employ the reasoning of a 6 year old: case in point (as mentioned earlier,) Lyft was partially funded by Peter Thiel.
How does it feel, knowing people with the mentality of 6 year olds are doing more to affect change than you are?
Drivers on Uber are contractors. Isn't it each driver's choice to decide if they want to strike or not?
It absolutely is. This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however. All it has guaranteed in this instance is that a bunch of hapless Uber drivers are going to be feeling the backlash. Friends don't let friends scab.
> This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however... Friends don't let friends scab.
"If you don't actively participate in my exact form of political activism, you're a bad person!"
This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. For some reason, it's a common leftist tactic right now to insist that if you aren't actively engaged in whatever form of extremism the speaker is advocating, you are evil and (propping up the man | part of the patriarchy | oppressing <group> | a literal nazi | etc.). Entirely predictably, this is likely to alienate anyone even slightly to the right of the speaker and push them further right.
Maybe most Uber drivers don't really want to protest in this way. Maybe they agree with Trump. (Probably not, given that it's Manhattan, but who knows.) Maybe they feel like they don't have all the facts and don't want to make a stand based on an incomplete understanding. Either way, attacking them for it is counterproductive for you.
"If you don't actively participate in my exact form of political activism, you're a bad person!"
This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. For some reason, it's a common leftist tactic right now to insist that if you aren't actively engaged in whatever form of extremism the speaker is advocating, you are evil and (propping up the man | part of the patriarchy | oppressing <group> | a literal nazi | etc.). Entirely predictably, this is likely to alienate anyone even slightly to the right of the speaker and push them further right.
Maybe most Uber drivers don't really want to protest in this way. Maybe they agree with Trump. (Probably not, given that it's Manhattan, but who knows.) Maybe they feel like they don't have all the facts and don't want to make a stand based on an incomplete understanding. Either way, attacking them for it is counterproductive for you.
> This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump.
I hate to pick on this quote (I appreciate and suggest people read the rest of your post) but I don't agree with this. A common rightist tactic is to suggest either 1) I was okay with X policy when Obama did something so I have no moral authority to judge it now, or 2) I'm just a liberal whiner, too young, or too weak to appreciate that someone else is in charge so my beliefs are invalid. I am pushed to the left by conservative intolerance just as much as the reverse is true.
Both sides have extremes. I think it balances out. You are following your own proclivities of reasoning, fixating on which messaging you're most enticed by or most repulsed by.
I hate to pick on this quote (I appreciate and suggest people read the rest of your post) but I don't agree with this. A common rightist tactic is to suggest either 1) I was okay with X policy when Obama did something so I have no moral authority to judge it now, or 2) I'm just a liberal whiner, too young, or too weak to appreciate that someone else is in charge so my beliefs are invalid. I am pushed to the left by conservative intolerance just as much as the reverse is true.
Both sides have extremes. I think it balances out. You are following your own proclivities of reasoning, fixating on which messaging you're most enticed by or most repulsed by.
> Both sides have extremes. I think it balances out.
You seem to be saying not "that kind of leftish rhetoric didn't push people towards Trump", but "there's also rightish rhetoric which pushed people away from Trump".
Which seems true to me, and totally worth bringing up. But the bit you quoted also seems true to me, and your post doesn't parse as disagreement with it.
You seem to be saying not "that kind of leftish rhetoric didn't push people towards Trump", but "there's also rightish rhetoric which pushed people away from Trump".
Which seems true to me, and totally worth bringing up. But the bit you quoted also seems true to me, and your post doesn't parse as disagreement with it.
A common rightist tactic was also to claim that that the president of the United States was an ineligible non-Christian non-citizen, despite all evidence to the contrary. This was done by elected leaders and representatives of a major political party, not just random people on Twitter. That kind of callous disregard for fact removes the possibility of civil debate and drives people away in a similar fashion as screaming "Hitler" constantly.
Calling out people for staying silent under Obama is not a tactic. It's just a way to highlight a person's motivation.
It's an intellectually honest way to point out inconsistency. The hypocrisy is asymmetric from my pov. I know people who were horrified Obama got elected and some indulged in variations of the 'he's Hitler' BS, but the current reaction by the extreme neo-left is a magnitude of order worse. There's plenty (a majority I bet) of Dems that are not making that mistake, but the echo chamber prevents them from speaking unless they are willing to piss off their peers.
Like the echo chambers that were (and still are being) ruthlessly exploited by Bannon-backed Cambridge Analytica and Macedonian-registered ad-laden fake news sites?
There is an intense echo chamber on the far right that you've failed to mention, with similar barriers to entry. They've gone as far as to create a walled-off invite-only social network called gab.ai. They brigade similarly on Twitter, and aggressively block opinions that do not align with theirs. They peddle information that cannot possibly be true, and resort to personal attacks when facts are pointed out to them. I had someone tell me that 50 million people died from heroin overdoses under Obama. That is absurd – it's a full sixth of the US population. But they insisted. "Do your own research" comes hard and fast when contrary evidence is presented.
These views are mindlessly repeated and reshared by the thousands. Anything that signals group membership is adored regardless of evidence to the contrary; anything that conflicts with the group opinion is rejected outright. I've watched these people change the definition of per-capita to fit their narrative, then insist it's always meant that. There is no shortage of echo chamber problems on the right. Look at Breitbart News.
There is a bipartisan communication problem in America. Algorithmic newsfeeds have fractured the audience into distinct groups that no longer communicate with one another. Americans seem unable or unwilling to perform basic searches to fact-check news sources. Pinning it on a political party or subset of the political spectrum IMO reflects a fundamentally incomplete view of the problem.
There is an intense echo chamber on the far right that you've failed to mention, with similar barriers to entry. They've gone as far as to create a walled-off invite-only social network called gab.ai. They brigade similarly on Twitter, and aggressively block opinions that do not align with theirs. They peddle information that cannot possibly be true, and resort to personal attacks when facts are pointed out to them. I had someone tell me that 50 million people died from heroin overdoses under Obama. That is absurd – it's a full sixth of the US population. But they insisted. "Do your own research" comes hard and fast when contrary evidence is presented.
These views are mindlessly repeated and reshared by the thousands. Anything that signals group membership is adored regardless of evidence to the contrary; anything that conflicts with the group opinion is rejected outright. I've watched these people change the definition of per-capita to fit their narrative, then insist it's always meant that. There is no shortage of echo chamber problems on the right. Look at Breitbart News.
There is a bipartisan communication problem in America. Algorithmic newsfeeds have fractured the audience into distinct groups that no longer communicate with one another. Americans seem unable or unwilling to perform basic searches to fact-check news sources. Pinning it on a political party or subset of the political spectrum IMO reflects a fundamentally incomplete view of the problem.
I didn't imply echo chambers were limited to my description of the "alt-left".
"These views" Can you list another? I started that list with the calling the opponent Hitler example.
I would appreciate a cite on "change the definition of per-capita", not because I don't think some "expert" made that assertion... it looks very similar to the similarly meaningless def of "unemployed" some use.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph.
"These views" Can you list another? I started that list with the calling the opponent Hitler example.
I would appreciate a cite on "change the definition of per-capita", not because I don't think some "expert" made that assertion... it looks very similar to the similarly meaningless def of "unemployed" some use.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph.
It's definitely not experts making these claims, and that's part of the problem. These are just masses of mindless reshares of unsourced "facts" from strangers. But people bite. People appear to comment by the hundreds indicating belief in them. Check out "Donald Trump American President" administered by "Jimmy Johnson" on Facebook if you really want to see the garbage first hand.
The echo chamber comments were prompted by the statement that "the neo-left is an [order of magnitude] worse". There is, in fact, staggering depravity on the right if you look in the right (cough) places.
The echo chamber comments were prompted by the statement that "the neo-left is an [order of magnitude] worse". There is, in fact, staggering depravity on the right if you look in the right (cough) places.
Yes. I've seen recent allegations that this weekend's airport protests are "terror-tied", which is obviously false and politically-motivated on its face. There was a neverending sea of false anti-Obama material throughout the election, asserting everything from "he's a secret Muslim" to "he wants all Americans under Sharia Law", to even older widely-discredited "birther" claims. These allegations IIRC mostly originated from Breitbart News, a site still under the control of Steven Bannon (who now has the IMO dangerous conflict of sitting on the National Security Committee while running a supposed news organization). They were widely shared in multiple closed groups on Facebook with memberships in the 20-50k range.
But further than that: I've seen persistent allegations and slurs against the Jewish faith (many in pre-prepared image form), advocation of literal genocide, celebration of alleged bills that would make it legal for people to use motor vehicles to strike and kill protestors, and calls for those protesting legally and peacefully to literally be rounded up and imprisoned by police because a small group of unrelated individuals committed acts of vandalism or violence. The excuse? "If they're not stopping them, they're supporting them". These were not isolated incidents. I personally witnessed hundreds of voices repeating the latter talking point on a single local news station's Facebook page, in a single night.
The current US National Security advisor Michael Flynn allegedly accidentally retweeted one of these. According to news reports, it read "Not anymore, Jews".
Further down the abyss, speaking more to rhetorical depravity: I've watched pro-Trump posters in private Facebook groups post pictures of themselves pointing firearms at the camera in response to disagreements over fact. There was also a disturbing pattern of posters sifting through the public profiles of others for pictures – essentially peoples' family photos – altering them to appear pornographic or otherwise offensive, and then reposting them in public. One even literally offered to sell a stranger's child in to slavery, on their personal Facebook page, using a picture of them, "because that's what the Muslims would do". I saw attempts to get people fired from their job due to a Facebook political disagreement.
I really believe that there are intrinsic issues with social media that are feeding this crisis: a demand for instantaneous engagement often at the expense of even a few minutes of thought, a "real names" policy on Facebook that sabotages efforts to deflect/prohibit personal attacks in discussion groups, a comically understaffed/underresourced reporting system that I've seen people on all sides try to weaponize against those that disagree with them, algorithmic news feeds that people have voluntarily handed over their information-seeking ability to, and notifications that allow asynchronous debate to escalate into what people perceive as intrusive interruptions. Many unfortunately don't know how to turn these off, and react in anger.
It's no way to communicate and no way to live.
But further than that: I've seen persistent allegations and slurs against the Jewish faith (many in pre-prepared image form), advocation of literal genocide, celebration of alleged bills that would make it legal for people to use motor vehicles to strike and kill protestors, and calls for those protesting legally and peacefully to literally be rounded up and imprisoned by police because a small group of unrelated individuals committed acts of vandalism or violence. The excuse? "If they're not stopping them, they're supporting them". These were not isolated incidents. I personally witnessed hundreds of voices repeating the latter talking point on a single local news station's Facebook page, in a single night.
The current US National Security advisor Michael Flynn allegedly accidentally retweeted one of these. According to news reports, it read "Not anymore, Jews".
Further down the abyss, speaking more to rhetorical depravity: I've watched pro-Trump posters in private Facebook groups post pictures of themselves pointing firearms at the camera in response to disagreements over fact. There was also a disturbing pattern of posters sifting through the public profiles of others for pictures – essentially peoples' family photos – altering them to appear pornographic or otherwise offensive, and then reposting them in public. One even literally offered to sell a stranger's child in to slavery, on their personal Facebook page, using a picture of them, "because that's what the Muslims would do". I saw attempts to get people fired from their job due to a Facebook political disagreement.
I really believe that there are intrinsic issues with social media that are feeding this crisis: a demand for instantaneous engagement often at the expense of even a few minutes of thought, a "real names" policy on Facebook that sabotages efforts to deflect/prohibit personal attacks in discussion groups, a comically understaffed/underresourced reporting system that I've seen people on all sides try to weaponize against those that disagree with them, algorithmic news feeds that people have voluntarily handed over their information-seeking ability to, and notifications that allow asynchronous debate to escalate into what people perceive as intrusive interruptions. Many unfortunately don't know how to turn these off, and react in anger.
It's no way to communicate and no way to live.
I read both of your replies as admitting you form your opinions by attributing the actions of the minority extremes that I am arguing are deliberately promoted. Worse, you seem to realize it. I appreciate the tip on that URL, but I didn't save it fast enough and I don's see it now in your comment. I track similar sounding things and would like to dig into it.
On the flip, shouldn't we all be willing to accept that some of the things we think can't be true are true? History has all kinds of examples.
Arguing that's it's other people who are really making this mistake makes no sense because you made the arg.
Still looking for the cite on "the definition of per-capita".
On the flip, shouldn't we all be willing to accept that some of the things we think can't be true are true? History has all kinds of examples.
Arguing that's it's other people who are really making this mistake makes no sense because you made the arg.
Still looking for the cite on "the definition of per-capita".
Exactly the reason I don't have a more accepting attitude when it comes to left wing positions I might actually agree with. My political disagreements are what they are but the idea of providing any validation to what amounts to Bolshevik-style tactics keeps me on the sidelines.
As an example: I am a free market libertarian who agrees with marriage equality, but the means by which 'activists' attempt to engage issues turns me off. For example, harassing Mike Pence at his house -- I found that tactic childish and off-putting and immature (and divisive) as well as ineffective. Those tactics don't create positive change, they promote Balkanization of people who might otherwise be convinced to agree with a reasonable position.
France's violent anti-Uber protests -- regardless of issue, I'm less likely to listen to potentially reasonable positions when they are presented in violent or disruptive ways. In fact, those sort of things make me less likely to consider their views.
When a child screams for chocolate -- that's less compelling than if they ask in a reasoned, mature way, presenting facts and arguments rather than throwing things and parading around the house in perpetual outrage.
As an example: I am a free market libertarian who agrees with marriage equality, but the means by which 'activists' attempt to engage issues turns me off. For example, harassing Mike Pence at his house -- I found that tactic childish and off-putting and immature (and divisive) as well as ineffective. Those tactics don't create positive change, they promote Balkanization of people who might otherwise be convinced to agree with a reasonable position.
France's violent anti-Uber protests -- regardless of issue, I'm less likely to listen to potentially reasonable positions when they are presented in violent or disruptive ways. In fact, those sort of things make me less likely to consider their views.
When a child screams for chocolate -- that's less compelling than if they ask in a reasoned, mature way, presenting facts and arguments rather than throwing things and parading around the house in perpetual outrage.
You know, you can participate in these protests and help steer their direction. It's not like planning committees get together and grep HN comments; you gotta show up.
If you're "turned off" by how activism is going, Free Market Libertarian, you should put your money where your mouth is and present a more workable alternative.
If you're "turned off" by how activism is going, Free Market Libertarian, you should put your money where your mouth is and present a more workable alternative.
You're penalizing an abstract political opinion based upon the actions of individuals that bear no special ambassadorship or ownership of that view. This is a step down the road to collective punishment. One could easily use this logic to invalidate opinions from the right – because a group sympathetic to those views invaded a federal wildlife refuge with firearms, or because a group sympathetic to the views protested a funeral.
There will always be children in the world. Get an invite to gab.ai if you want to see the giant cache of them on the right, literally advocating violence and genocide outright. Unreasonableness is not the partisan issue you make it out to be.
There will always be children in the world. Get an invite to gab.ai if you want to see the giant cache of them on the right, literally advocating violence and genocide outright. Unreasonableness is not the partisan issue you make it out to be.
Yes. He made an example of the same extreme (non-representative but loud) faction you are are. We could talk about why they are funded and promoted on both sides.
Pretty sure we're in violent agreement here. The claim I took issue with was that the left is somehow an order of magnitude worse. I think it's a shared problem.
> harassing Mike Pence at his house
By "activists" "harassing" Mike Pence do you mean when three neighbors put up rainbow flags in front of their own houses? [1]
You are fine with allowing trivial unrelated actions influence your fundamental beliefs of right and wrong?
1. http://supremepatriot.com/2016/12/29/vp-mike-pence-harassed-...
By "activists" "harassing" Mike Pence do you mean when three neighbors put up rainbow flags in front of their own houses? [1]
You are fine with allowing trivial unrelated actions influence your fundamental beliefs of right and wrong?
1. http://supremepatriot.com/2016/12/29/vp-mike-pence-harassed-...
A narrow point: Trump is not Obama. It is possible that the differing reactions to their policies, administrations, and signalling are based in the actual differences between their policies, admininistrations, and signalling, not just from differences in the amount of hypocrisy their opponents engage in.
As narrow as it gets. Like saying coins have two sides.
> Obama got elected and some indulged in variations of the 'he's Hitler' BS
Being called Hitler by "some" after simply being elected, unrelated to any action is definitely useless "Hitler BS".
> but the current reaction by the extreme neo-left is a magnitude of order worse
Drawing parallels to current actions might be hyperbolic or extreme or unfair, but not as dumb - definitely not orders of magnitude.
Being called Hitler by "some" after simply being elected, unrelated to any action is definitely useless "Hitler BS".
> but the current reaction by the extreme neo-left is a magnitude of order worse
Drawing parallels to current actions might be hyperbolic or extreme or unfair, but not as dumb - definitely not orders of magnitude.
"by 'some' after simply being elected"
Maybe I should have inserted more qualifiers, but I deliberately didn't say that. The friends I refer to didn't make the "he's Hitler" arg at or before election time. They lost, they knew it, and they thought about why they lost instead of doubling down on the mistake of picking the Obama global government equivalent on the right. Later on some made those implications by inflating relatively minor actions that fit a pattern they were looking for. I was happy he beat Obomney. Better to let the pendulum swing.
Maybe I should have inserted more qualifiers, but I deliberately didn't say that. The friends I refer to didn't make the "he's Hitler" arg at or before election time. They lost, they knew it, and they thought about why they lost instead of doubling down on the mistake of picking the Obama global government equivalent on the right. Later on some made those implications by inflating relatively minor actions that fit a pattern they were looking for. I was happy he beat Obomney. Better to let the pendulum swing.
If they're individuals and you've done the research to support your claim of their individual non-criticism? Sure. If you're seeking to demonize a large group based upon the behavior of individuals with no material connection to others in the group you're criticizing – then it's not at all.
Or they're following a newsfeed algorithm that's determining their information-seeking proclivities for them. I honestly find that much more subtly disturbing and manipulatable than willful ignorance – people have ceded control over their information seeking behavior entirely.
"Maybe they agree with Trump"
Maybe living in NYC is very expensive, they are poor, and they need money.
Maybe living in NYC is very expensive, they are poor, and they need money.
It's a common tactic on the right too. It's a common tactic on social media, period. If you haven't observed similar behavior from the self-described right, get an account on gab.ai or join a few pro-Trump groups on Facebook like "Donald Trump American President". The problem is not unique to those on the left. Search for "MAGA" on Twitter if you want to dive in to the neverending shitshow head-first.
>This doesn't make scabbing any less vile
This is a political opinion, and the context definitely matters. This wasn't a strike for higher wages, this was a strike to back a political stance.
How would you feel if the cabbies went on strike because we allow Muslims to vote? Would you so vehemently blast people that want transportation to continue functioning in the interim in that case as well?
This is a political opinion, and the context definitely matters. This wasn't a strike for higher wages, this was a strike to back a political stance.
How would you feel if the cabbies went on strike because we allow Muslims to vote? Would you so vehemently blast people that want transportation to continue functioning in the interim in that case as well?
Moreover, because this strike was inherently political, should taxi drivers who actually support the immigration EO (or at least don't feel compelled to protest) be forced to partake in the strike? That sounds like an utterly indefensible position to me.
Hoffa is directly collaborating with Trump. You can see for yourself how the left is reacting to union organizers pulling for right-wingers.
(In this case, they dislike Hoffa's collaboration, but nobody started calling for the dissolution of unions.)
(In this case, they dislike Hoffa's collaboration, but nobody started calling for the dissolution of unions.)
It wasn't a strike for higher wages, it was a strike to stop being banned from the country.
Strikes are always political. The point of a strike is to say "you need us" and a HUGE proportion of taxi drivers are Muslim. Their family, friends, the people who keep their family and friends safe risking their lives helping the US military in their home countries were all screwed by this.
They wanted to strike to say 'if you ban Muslims, it doesn't JUST mean the US is now run by weak cowards. It means you won't be able to find a taxi because we won't help you. You need us'. The goal was that plenty of Trump supporters missed their flights because of it and had to think about it -- the services they rely on are run by the people they are attacking. Not sure it happened, but at least they tried.
Strikes are always political. The point of a strike is to say "you need us" and a HUGE proportion of taxi drivers are Muslim. Their family, friends, the people who keep their family and friends safe risking their lives helping the US military in their home countries were all screwed by this.
They wanted to strike to say 'if you ban Muslims, it doesn't JUST mean the US is now run by weak cowards. It means you won't be able to find a taxi because we won't help you. You need us'. The goal was that plenty of Trump supporters missed their flights because of it and had to think about it -- the services they rely on are run by the people they are attacking. Not sure it happened, but at least they tried.
Well then the price of Taxi rides will increase and people will stop working at McDonalds and drive taxis. That's how the world works.
And the "Trump supporters missed flights", yeah so did people who were flying home to see loved ones, didn't support Trump, or didn't care.
And the "Trump supporters missed flights", yeah so did people who were flying home to see loved ones, didn't support Trump, or didn't care.
The only way Uber could have participated in the strike would have been by paying its drivers for the time they didn't work if they decided not to. Uber, as a taxi drivers employer, cannot just decide on its own that its workers are striking and won't get paid.
You can always disable the service.
Then you will get angry drivers that cannot earn money because of a choice you made, but you can participate to the strike.
That would have meant forcing other people (their drivers) to strike, and share the economic loss for it as well. Not very fair, don't you think? Being on strike with other people's money?
Yup, that's the short-term drawback. You correctly identified it. Now, contrast it with the long-term drawbacks of not organizing at all.
Uber could have participated by changing the surge pricing to 20X, 100X or some similarly high number. That's not to say that they should have.
A lot of the anger at Uber is also due to their CEO being an economic advisor to Trump.
Meanwhile, Lyft played this perfectly. Stayed out of the fray and then donated $1MM to the ACLU.
A lot of the anger at Uber is also due to their CEO being an economic advisor to Trump.
Meanwhile, Lyft played this perfectly. Stayed out of the fray and then donated $1MM to the ACLU.
If Uber increased surge pricing they would be accused of trying to make more money off of the protest. It would probably be a worse PR disaster than removing surge pricing
I don't understand why Uber shouldn't have broken the strike. Their competitors decided to shoot themselves in the foot thinking it will help the refugees, and Uber swept in and took advantage (arguably). Coupled with the fact that it uses Saudi money to subsidize American drivers, who surely include refugees among them, I don't see why everyone has a grudge against Uber.
Uber was never a part of the strike to begin with! How can they break something they were never a part of, after it even existed?
I honestly don't care about taxi drivers and reject the idea that they hold some moral ground. I'm glad they're all going out of business. And if they decide to hold a strike, there's zero reason for Uber or Lyft to want to be beholden to them.
I think I'm with you on this--I don't care especially about the taxi-driving profession as it once was, especially the dinosaur unionized kind. (IMO, In less than 10 years it will probably be a nearly extinct profession.) However I think we can all agree that we can still care about taxi drivers themselves, as people.
> Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike.
Okay? So neither Uber nor Lyft wanted to inconvenience thousands of their customers. That's why I use them over taxis in the first place!
Okay? So neither Uber nor Lyft wanted to inconvenience thousands of their customers. That's why I use them over taxis in the first place!
Uber drivers broke the strike as well as Lyft drivers. 'Scabs' refers to people, not competitors to the parent company of the striking union members.
"Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike"
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
If the Airport 'hired taxis' - and then hired 'other taxis' to do some work, then it might be true.
But the Airport doesn't hire them, and also Uber is not technically a taxi ...
So I think it's within the law.
As far as 'court of public opinion' - that's another matter.
I'd be interested to see what people actually think outside of our culture.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
If the Airport 'hired taxis' - and then hired 'other taxis' to do some work, then it might be true.
But the Airport doesn't hire them, and also Uber is not technically a taxi ...
So I think it's within the law.
As far as 'court of public opinion' - that's another matter.
I'd be interested to see what people actually think outside of our culture.
Does Uber have the capability on their platform to disable the service in a specified region (JFK)?
Good for Uber. During this strike innocent people get inconvenienced and for what? Who were the taxis striking against? Trump? How is that strike going to solve anything?
[deleted]
Both Thiel and Icahn are investors in Lyft, who are even closer to Trump. How does it feel directly support Thiel and Icahn?
I don't support Lyft and my first comment on this post was critical of them and the riders who switched to them out of a false solidarity. Perhaps read other comments on this thread before making assumptions.
This isn't about "messaging" or "optics".
Kalanick is playing a double game, collaborating with the Trump administration on the one hand, while simultaneously trying to be seen as moral.
This is too transparent and Kalanick got caught trying to play both sides.
If he believes the Muslim ban and other policies of hate are immoral, he should loudly and publicly resign his position on the president's economic advisory group.
But if Kalanick continues to collaborate, then we know where he stands and we're free to delete Uber and use Lyft instead.
Kalanick is playing a double game, collaborating with the Trump administration on the one hand, while simultaneously trying to be seen as moral.
This is too transparent and Kalanick got caught trying to play both sides.
If he believes the Muslim ban and other policies of hate are immoral, he should loudly and publicly resign his position on the president's economic advisory group.
But if Kalanick continues to collaborate, then we know where he stands and we're free to delete Uber and use Lyft instead.
If he disagrees with the President, why should he (and why should anyone want him to) stop speaking into the President's ear?
All Travis has gotta do is just, uhhh, disrupt all of that, uhhh -- disruption going on? The stuff with the judiciary branch, and whatnot.
To be clear, I don't mean to be incredibly condescending, but: Do you actually think the POTUS or someone like Steve Bannon actually gives a shit what a nerd who owns an app actually thinks, in light of everything happening right now?
I'm being serious. Fundamentally, "nerd who owns app" is all someone like Travis Kalanick is, in this situation. He is not some magical negotiator or politician because he accepted a position with the administration on the Policy Forum. I don't know why to expect him to be anything more than just a soundboard/printed name. Why would I? Because he and Trump are business men?
And if he IS anything more than "nerd who owns app" -- why would he want to be associated with what appears to be a completely unhinged administration? People do not look at someone like Condoleezza Rice and think "I bet she tried real hard, talkin 'em down. Good show."
This idea "good ol' Travis or Elon" can just talk him down off the wire seems to be nothing but a dream, rooted in some fantasy, as far as I can tell. Maybe all the shit going down is bad for them. But if it isn't - why would they stop it?
To be clear, I don't mean to be incredibly condescending, but: Do you actually think the POTUS or someone like Steve Bannon actually gives a shit what a nerd who owns an app actually thinks, in light of everything happening right now?
I'm being serious. Fundamentally, "nerd who owns app" is all someone like Travis Kalanick is, in this situation. He is not some magical negotiator or politician because he accepted a position with the administration on the Policy Forum. I don't know why to expect him to be anything more than just a soundboard/printed name. Why would I? Because he and Trump are business men?
And if he IS anything more than "nerd who owns app" -- why would he want to be associated with what appears to be a completely unhinged administration? People do not look at someone like Condoleezza Rice and think "I bet she tried real hard, talkin 'em down. Good show."
This idea "good ol' Travis or Elon" can just talk him down off the wire seems to be nothing but a dream, rooted in some fantasy, as far as I can tell. Maybe all the shit going down is bad for them. But if it isn't - why would they stop it?
Why would Trump listen to what Kalanick has to say about a policy order that is notionally an urgent response to national security threats from Iranian/Syrian/etc. travelers?
With Steve Bannon speaking into the other ear? Bear in mind his strategist is (apparently) deferred to over even Homeland Security officials and DOD commanders when it comes to these matters.
The fact is Kalanick is not going to influence Trump on this issue, but by remaining on the advisory team he might secure a sweet (life saving) deal for Uber down the road. The cost? Trump gets to use him as token for proof of legitimacy/economic acumen/America First/etc.
With Steve Bannon speaking into the other ear? Bear in mind his strategist is (apparently) deferred to over even Homeland Security officials and DOD commanders when it comes to these matters.
The fact is Kalanick is not going to influence Trump on this issue, but by remaining on the advisory team he might secure a sweet (life saving) deal for Uber down the road. The cost? Trump gets to use him as token for proof of legitimacy/economic acumen/America First/etc.
Collaborating with the administration legitimizes and normalizes their policies of hate.
This does far more damage than any marginal benefit from "speaking into the president's ear".
I'm sure it's good for Uber to be on Trump's team, but don't pretend you're "standing up for what's right".
This does far more damage than any marginal benefit from "speaking into the president's ear".
I'm sure it's good for Uber to be on Trump's team, but don't pretend you're "standing up for what's right".
This sort of thinking is so tragically misguided. If the only sane people who might potentially have Trump's ear turn away from this role, then the only people advising Trump are the extremely dangerous group he currently has! This is the far bigger danger then appearing to "legitimize" him (as if someone who was elected president needs any more legitimacy). The good he could do as an adviser is orders of magnitude greater than what he could do by turning down the role in fear of adding legitimacy.
It seems highly unlikely to me that Kalanick has any ability to influence Trump/Bannon's policy in this area. But I'd like to address to aside you made about "legitimacy".
GP talked about legitimizing policies. That is quite different than questioning the legitimacy of the electoral vote.
Trump signed an order that was illegal, apparently, to lawyers and laymen alike, because it authorized revoking legal permanent residents of their right to entry into the US without due process. Federal judges have ruled this to be the case, and yet for unknown reasons certain Border Patrol/Homeland departments are defying that order (which is not in keeping with their legitimate authority).
It's substantially likely to be illegal even without that exclusion because it includes discrimination based on the Christian faith of residency applicants.
The Constitution is the source of the legitimacy of presidential orders, and this policy is in multiple ways incompatible with that.
GP talked about legitimizing policies. That is quite different than questioning the legitimacy of the electoral vote.
Trump signed an order that was illegal, apparently, to lawyers and laymen alike, because it authorized revoking legal permanent residents of their right to entry into the US without due process. Federal judges have ruled this to be the case, and yet for unknown reasons certain Border Patrol/Homeland departments are defying that order (which is not in keeping with their legitimate authority).
It's substantially likely to be illegal even without that exclusion because it includes discrimination based on the Christian faith of residency applicants.
The Constitution is the source of the legitimacy of presidential orders, and this policy is in multiple ways incompatible with that.
I understand your reasoning, and in the case of a fiscally conservative moderate (republican) that's not bought by corporate interest I would fully agree with that sentiment.
But for sake of argument, let's Godwin this:
I don't want an 80% Hitler because someone good is working with him, tilting him 20% towards the better. The only solution is opposition, and that's hard. He needs to be gone.
But for sake of argument, let's Godwin this:
I don't want an 80% Hitler because someone good is working with him, tilting him 20% towards the better. The only solution is opposition, and that's hard. He needs to be gone.
Normally I would agree, because that's true in most cases.
But we're past that here. The Germans went with it, and I'm sure some thought at the start that going along would let them do some good. Look how that turned out.
No, it's not okay to just do business as usual here and try to nudge things a bit with policy suggestions. It's time for much more active responses.
But we're past that here. The Germans went with it, and I'm sure some thought at the start that going along would let them do some good. Look how that turned out.
No, it's not okay to just do business as usual here and try to nudge things a bit with policy suggestions. It's time for much more active responses.
Ah, Godwin's Law. I hope when you reflect back on these times in a year or so you realize how childish it was to compare stopping some Muslims from some unstable countries (not even the big Muslim countries) with literally exterminating Jewish people and blaming them for all of the country's problems.
What 'Godwin' himself had to say: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/...
First, let me get this Donald Trump issue out of the way: If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.
> from some unstable countries
Like Mo Farrah, an olympic gold medal winning athlete and British citizen?
Like Mo Farrah, an olympic gold medal winning athlete and British citizen?
If you did pay attention at school then you'd know that extermination was final step of pretty long process of de-humanizing Jewish people.
Its not like they put them into prison camps overnight. First they couldn't attend university, then they couldn't own a shop later they couldn't get a passport. Propaganda people had much work to do to allow it happen.
We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear.
Its not like they put them into prison camps overnight. First they couldn't attend university, then they couldn't own a shop later they couldn't get a passport. Propaganda people had much work to do to allow it happen.
We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear.
But who is 'they' in this analogy? The immigrants on hold aren't even from the biggest Muslim countries.
Temporary immigration restrictions on 6 countries is hardly the same thing as du-humanizing Muslims.
>We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear.
No it's not. Many other countries have very strict immigration controls dependent on the migrant's origin country and they aren't exactly stuffing people into ovens.
Temporary immigration restrictions on 6 countries is hardly the same thing as du-humanizing Muslims.
>We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear.
No it's not. Many other countries have very strict immigration controls dependent on the migrant's origin country and they aren't exactly stuffing people into ovens.
A very big stretch. Restricting immigration from a narrowly defined list of unstable countries (a list that was created by Obama with regards to the visa-waiver program) is very different than imposing restrictions on Muslims. Muslims from every other country aren't affected and Muslim citizens in the US are also not affected.
This isn't a Muslim ban. This is a 90 day ban on people from specific countries with the goal of improving the vetting process. It's neither permanent or specific to Muslims. Obama did a 180 day ban on Iraqis for the exact same reasons.
The effectiveness of this policy can be debated, but comparing this to Hitler -- that's just nonsense.
This isn't a Muslim ban. This is a 90 day ban on people from specific countries with the goal of improving the vetting process. It's neither permanent or specific to Muslims. Obama did a 180 day ban on Iraqis for the exact same reasons.
The effectiveness of this policy can be debated, but comparing this to Hitler -- that's just nonsense.
Yeah, thus far he's only blamed them (and Mexicans) for all of the country's problems. Totally different.
Maybe that's true, but not being on an economic advisory board isn't the kind of "active response" you're talking about.
Ahh yes, the advisory board with other fringe right-wingers such as Elon Musk, Satya Nadella, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sheryl Sandberg. How could he possibly be so two-faced as to throw his hat in with these marginal characters?
You're misinformed.
Nobody from Microsoft, Google, Apple or Facebook are in this group.
https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-addit...
Nobody from Microsoft, Google, Apple or Facebook are in this group.
https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-addit...
So you think by agreeing to be on Trump's advisory board, Uber agrees with the immigration ban? I guess GM, Tesla, Disney, etc are probably pretending to "stand up for what's right" too , right?
We know exactly one thing: Uber (and none of the companies you list) disagree with the ban enough to threaten to drop out of the advisory board.
I guess there's two ways you can look at it if you're given the chance to advise a President you disagree with:
- Disagree out of principle. Someone else will step up to fill your stop.
- Agree and provide your POV of policy. A 'worse person' won't replace you (immediately).
- Disagree out of principle. Someone else will step up to fill your stop.
- Agree and provide your POV of policy. A 'worse person' won't replace you (immediately).
I agree that he shouldn't be criticized for staying on, but only if he publicly voices his disagreement in unambiguous terms. If Trump only wants boot lickers, he can fire Kalanick like he did the acting attorney general.
Of course, it doesn't look like that is the case. By all appearances Kalanick is mincing words as he tries to balance the affections of the administration and angry users. My guess is that he is just another spineless think-for-himselfer.
Of course, it doesn't look like that is the case. By all appearances Kalanick is mincing words as he tries to balance the affections of the administration and angry users. My guess is that he is just another spineless think-for-himselfer.
That is how a child would behave. You can't quit and ignore the person in charge.
When have you ever heard the advice, "you get what you want by refusing to engage the only people who can do something about it?"
When have you ever heard the advice, "you get what you want by refusing to engage the only people who can do something about it?"
Or it's a child in charge, and it's time the parents assert control.
The person in charge is only in charge because we agree to it. Not agreeing -- and refusing to give them your influence -- is the only way bad leaders are ever removed.
That's preposterous, he's in charge for the next 4 years and nothing (even impeachment) will change that, since he'll just get replaced and his agenda continued. This "legitimacy" and "normalization" talk is just as post-factual as anything Trump ever said.
Is Bernie a fascist for saying he would work with the Trump admin on the good parts of his agenda?
Is Bernie a fascist for saying he would work with the Trump admin on the good parts of his agenda?
If Trump were replaced by Pence, I think there would be a noticeable difference. The agenda, though perhaps similar, wouldn't be identical, and their personas are significantly different.
Just as an exercise, if Pence were president and Trump were VP, do you think we would be hearing as little from Trump as we're currently from Pence? And before you say, well, Pence is the VP, you're right, but I can't imagine Trump taking second seat to anybody, while Pence has.
Just as an exercise, if Pence were president and Trump were VP, do you think we would be hearing as little from Trump as we're currently from Pence? And before you say, well, Pence is the VP, you're right, but I can't imagine Trump taking second seat to anybody, while Pence has.
No, if he gets replaced, Trump's agenda won't continue. It'll be Mike Pence's agenda that will replace his.
you're going to use Lyft, when it's a direct investment of both Peter Thiel and Carl Icahn? Both very, very close associates of Trump and actually helped him win the White House?
It's a real double plus good game he's playing at then, since Uber broke the strike and Kalanick is directly aiding Trump. I guess we're lucky that Uber is so consistently shitty that people saw through them, unlike what happened with Lyft.
What about the million dollar donation to the ACLU Lyft made? Does that count for anything?
Sure, but would have been more meaningful if they weren't also breaking the strike and painting Uber as the sole villain.
What about the three million dollar donation Uber made? Does that count for anything?
They didn't. It's a $3M "defense fund", however that is managed. It was also afterwards to save face.
I think the hullabaloo around this immigration matter is reasonable. However, it would have been really great if the left had used the same amount of enthusiasm and vigour to protest the killing of innocent muslims civilians[1] by the united states, but i guess it's alright if their party approved of it.
[1]https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_int...
[1]https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_int...
"collaborating with the Trump administration on the one hand, while simultaneously trying to be seen as moral."
So is Musk, and many others.
Cook was just at dinner with Ivana a few days ago.
So is Musk, and many others.
Cook was just at dinner with Ivana a few days ago.
WarmToaster(2)
Everything is about optics. What world do you think you live in?
EDIT: I don't know what to tell ya, but downvoting doesn't make it less true.
EDIT: I don't know what to tell ya, but downvoting doesn't make it less true.
Right, and on Sunday he followed up by unambiguously calling the ban "wrong and unjust".[1] Which was also a fumble because it sounded like a reaction to the blowback.
Also interesting: Uber pledged $3M to help drivers right now. Lyft pledged just $250K/year.. to the ACLU (annual budget: $133M). But Uber lost that one too. People want war with Trump, not diplomacy.
As for turning off surge pricing, clearly it was after the strike and meant to reduce customer complaints about surge pricing after exceptional events. But it also means they were "effectively undercutting taxi drivers as they returned to work after protesting."[2] Another "Doh!" moment for Uber.
[1] https://newsroom.uber.com/standing-up-for-the-driver-communi...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/lyft-an...
Also interesting: Uber pledged $3M to help drivers right now. Lyft pledged just $250K/year.. to the ACLU (annual budget: $133M). But Uber lost that one too. People want war with Trump, not diplomacy.
As for turning off surge pricing, clearly it was after the strike and meant to reduce customer complaints about surge pricing after exceptional events. But it also means they were "effectively undercutting taxi drivers as they returned to work after protesting."[2] Another "Doh!" moment for Uber.
[1] https://newsroom.uber.com/standing-up-for-the-driver-communi...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/lyft-an...
> People want war with Trump, not diplomacy.
The man just unilaterally stranded thousands of permanent residents outside of the country - and the departments enforcing this are disobeying legal court orders to halt the ban.
This is a fundamental attack on the rule of law. How exactly do you negotiate with that? "Please, sir, could you stop destroying lives?"
Do you think that he is too stupid to understand the consequences of his actions?
The man just unilaterally stranded thousands of permanent residents outside of the country - and the departments enforcing this are disobeying legal court orders to halt the ban.
This is a fundamental attack on the rule of law. How exactly do you negotiate with that? "Please, sir, could you stop destroying lives?"
Do you think that he is too stupid to understand the consequences of his actions?
I'm not endorsing the tactic of joining Trump's advisory board. IMHO people who speak truth to power are talking to the wrong people. I'm just observing why people are responding better to Lyft's messaging than Uber despite Lyft also operating during and after the strike.
I will however point out that if you're boycotting Uber over joining the advisory board then you should do the same for all the others, including Elon Musk's companies. Maybe you should even boycott Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and all the others that took a meeting with him, since they are also taking a diplomatic route.
Oh, and this is fun: Trump advisors Peter Thiel and Carl Icahn are part-owners of Lyft.
I will however point out that if you're boycotting Uber over joining the advisory board then you should do the same for all the others, including Elon Musk's companies. Maybe you should even boycott Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and all the others that took a meeting with him, since they are also taking a diplomatic route.
Oh, and this is fun: Trump advisors Peter Thiel and Carl Icahn are part-owners of Lyft.
Can this app store download bump be judged independently of the fact that Lyft just expanded to a bunch of cities[1]? Lyft being available in all these cities would obviously give it a large bump.
Not sure why techcrunch doesn't mention that this may have NOTHING to do with the #deleteuber campaign.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/25/lyft-expands-to-40-new-u-s...
Not sure why techcrunch doesn't mention that this may have NOTHING to do with the #deleteuber campaign.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/25/lyft-expands-to-40-new-u-s...
All true, but Kalanick has built and traded on a reputation as a 'baller ' (his words, not mine) with a combative attitude, so he has himself to blame for people jumping to conclusions.
Uber used to be spot on with their messaging, at least at in New York City. I wonder if this would have happened had David Plouffe's not left [1].
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/10/yes-z-can/
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/10/yes-z-can/
OT: Someone I know this past year called themselves a (former) "baller". They used to be a big time partier and drug user -- a (mostly, distortedly) functioning addict. A lot of coke, among other things.
I initially thought of "eight ball", which does feature in one of their more dramatic stories. But apparently the term has other or mixed provenance. And things like the urban dictionary provide multiple definitions.
Just what is a "baller?" From origins perhaps in basketball to urban street culture to drug culture... to modern day "hard ass", type A or whatever? Just what do people mean when they call themselves or someone else a "baller"?
I initially thought of "eight ball", which does feature in one of their more dramatic stories. But apparently the term has other or mixed provenance. And things like the urban dictionary provide multiple definitions.
Just what is a "baller?" From origins perhaps in basketball to urban street culture to drug culture... to modern day "hard ass", type A or whatever? Just what do people mean when they call themselves or someone else a "baller"?
I was thinking of the more general sense of being showing off your wealth and connections to gain social status. I don't have strong opinions about his person, I just think his public persona has been a liability this time because it led people to assume the worst.
Yes, thanks. :-) But I recall at the time looking at multiple definitions in Urban Dictionary, and definitions elsewhere, and they varied significantly.
It seems to be one of those terms that depends significantly on the specific context within / to which it is applied. Yet people will just say "baller" -- like my acquaintance -- and leave you to fill in the background. In other words, you have to be in the know, to know what they are really saying.
Which, IIRC, per some of the definitions I encountered, is actually part of its definition. :-/
It seems to be one of those terms that depends significantly on the specific context within / to which it is applied. Yet people will just say "baller" -- like my acquaintance -- and leave you to fill in the background. In other words, you have to be in the know, to know what they are really saying.
Which, IIRC, per some of the definitions I encountered, is actually part of its definition. :-/
A baller is someone who spends a lot of money, lives lavishly, etc.
An eight ball is 3.5 grams of coke, AKA an 1/8 of an ounce.
An eight ball is 3.5 grams of coke, AKA an 1/8 of an ounce.
Are you sure eight ball is related? OED thinks "baller" comes from the wealth of sports figures: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/06/ballin-for-real/
Another possible factor:
If Uber had 'picket-lined' a location (like JFK) against all pick-ups for a time period, that level of driver control could work against the preferred independent-contractor characterization of their driver-relationships. Whether the employer dictates the exact places, times, and manner of service is a part of that evaluation.
It also seems odd to have an employer dictate to its contractors (or even wage employees) to participate in a labor action, or political protest.
Shouldn't that be the workers' decision? Uber didn't force anyone to either do, or not do, JFK pickups.
If Uber had 'picket-lined' a location (like JFK) against all pick-ups for a time period, that level of driver control could work against the preferred independent-contractor characterization of their driver-relationships. Whether the employer dictates the exact places, times, and manner of service is a part of that evaluation.
It also seems odd to have an employer dictate to its contractors (or even wage employees) to participate in a labor action, or political protest.
Shouldn't that be the workers' decision? Uber didn't force anyone to either do, or not do, JFK pickups.
The strike was nonsense anyway. Why were drivers striking -- punishing the innocent residents and visitors (and protestors/allies!) of New York (a sanctuary city!), in an attempt to punish Donald Trump?
You don't understand protest.
Sure, one thing you can do is disrupt the specific people doing something bad. But that's pretty rare. As MLK explains, the point is to create a more general disruption so that everyone has to take notice of an issue they might otherwise ignore:
"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."
From his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
The whole thing is worth reading. In particular, this bit always wakes me up: "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a'"more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
Sure, one thing you can do is disrupt the specific people doing something bad. But that's pretty rare. As MLK explains, the point is to create a more general disruption so that everyone has to take notice of an issue they might otherwise ignore:
"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."
From his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
The whole thing is worth reading. In particular, this bit always wakes me up: "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a'"more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
The injustice is the negative peace we have been living in. At some point the Executive sins of the Bush/DNC dynasties has to be rolled back. I mean, it's not like he invaded a country and got people killed. It's fantastic that Trump's small steps have lit a fire, albeit misdirected. Maybe it's just a side effect of the massive unemployment married with the social phenomena.
Trump did actually already invade a country and get people killed, so you'll have to stop using that tired rhetorical trope: http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/an-8-year-old-girl-died-in-t...
But racial injustice isn't just a side effect. It is quite often the point. If you read Loewen's Sundown Towns, you can see that quite often white people just don't like to see black people doing well, especially doing better than themselves. You can see the same thing echoed in Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Lands", although people have mainly learned not to say it out loud.
But racial injustice isn't just a side effect. It is quite often the point. If you read Loewen's Sundown Towns, you can see that quite often white people just don't like to see black people doing well, especially doing better than themselves. You can see the same thing echoed in Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Lands", although people have mainly learned not to say it out loud.
> Trump did actually already invade a country
You're playing with words to fit a narrative, which doesn't match reality. At the same time, the Trump tropes are not about invasion of another country, so now you're being disingenuous just to argue. Good luck with that.
I'll continue to assert most of the outrage is misdirected.
You're playing with words to fit a narrative, which doesn't match reality. At the same time, the Trump tropes are not about invasion of another country, so now you're being disingenuous just to argue. Good luck with that.
I'll continue to assert most of the outrage is misdirected.
> As MLK explains, the point is to create a more general disruption so that everyone has to take notice of an issue they might otherwise ignore
The problem with this approach is that unless you do it in a way that's relevant to the original issue, you're just dragging innocent people into your fight and victimizing them. Depending on how much of an asshat you are to them (like, say, stranding them for several hours at an airport when they've just got off a flight), there's a good chance you'll push them to be less sympathetic to your cause.
The problem with this approach is that unless you do it in a way that's relevant to the original issue, you're just dragging innocent people into your fight and victimizing them. Depending on how much of an asshat you are to them (like, say, stranding them for several hours at an airport when they've just got off a flight), there's a good chance you'll push them to be less sympathetic to your cause.
To the extent that that's true, I'm not sure what the standard for "relevant to the original issue" should be. Taxi drivers are disproportionally Muslim and Sikh and disproportionally immigrants. (noted here: http://democracynow.org/stories/17050 ) Does that count as relevant enough? If not, what would? If so, what else would?
I think that protestors should be careful about their tactics, but I don't think they should have to invent ways to tie a protest's theme to its objective. We protest when our moral values are offended, and that's enough of a reason.
I think that protestors should be careful about their tactics, but I don't think they should have to invent ways to tie a protest's theme to its objective. We protest when our moral values are offended, and that's enough of a reason.
I felt the London Tube strikes went this way. The arguments put forward for each strike never seemed convincing enough to be causing everyone so much inconvenience.
The media coverage plays a good part in this. At least here in Brazil it's very common for them to evade the motivation of the protesters 'bigly' and put a big focus on how it's disturbing others and etc... The result is predicable.
Innocent people are already being harmed. Here, refugees and Muslims. The protest is to call attention to that harm.
But let's run with your notion. Suppose there is somebody who says: "I guess I didn't know about the civil rights violations and the deaths that this policy will result in. And I guess it's terrible that these refugees have been waiting years in limbo trying to rebuild their lives. But what's really important is that I expected to be home on time for dinner, so now I won't help them."
I don't think a person like that was every going to be sympathetic to the cause. They weren't going to do anything. They were going to ignore it.
And that's exactly the point of MLK's style of protest. It is to make a problem for some into a problem for all. It is to make it impossible for comfortable people to keep ignoring the problem.
But let's run with your notion. Suppose there is somebody who says: "I guess I didn't know about the civil rights violations and the deaths that this policy will result in. And I guess it's terrible that these refugees have been waiting years in limbo trying to rebuild their lives. But what's really important is that I expected to be home on time for dinner, so now I won't help them."
I don't think a person like that was every going to be sympathetic to the cause. They weren't going to do anything. They were going to ignore it.
And that's exactly the point of MLK's style of protest. It is to make a problem for some into a problem for all. It is to make it impossible for comfortable people to keep ignoring the problem.
> Innocent people are already being harmed.
So the solution is to harm more? That's not a peaceful protest, that's terrorism.
Raise awareness. Be loud. Be visible. But if you base your protest around screwing up someone else's day the response you get will more likely be "hey maybe you deserved it" than "wow we should help these people."
So the solution is to harm more? That's not a peaceful protest, that's terrorism.
Raise awareness. Be loud. Be visible. But if you base your protest around screwing up someone else's day the response you get will more likely be "hey maybe you deserved it" than "wow we should help these people."
Ok. If you really can't tell the difference between "hour late for dinner" and terrorism, then either you're trolling or you're beyond hope.
If you think you know a better way to lead protests, by all means show us how. But I have no time for armchair experts whose only contribution is "u r doin it rong bcuz I dont lik it".
The people who would say, "maybe those refugees deserved it" because something was mildly inconvenient for them were never, ever going to stir themselves to do the compassionate thing. Ditto the people who value a sliver of comfort over helping legal residents arbitrarily ejected from their homes.
Your claims here are those of the white moderates that MLK called the greatest stumbling block to black freedom. Apparently you haven't yet bothered to read his "Letter From A Birmingham Jail". But I'm done trying to spoon-feed it to you, so if you'd like to pursue this further, take it up with him.
If you think you know a better way to lead protests, by all means show us how. But I have no time for armchair experts whose only contribution is "u r doin it rong bcuz I dont lik it".
The people who would say, "maybe those refugees deserved it" because something was mildly inconvenient for them were never, ever going to stir themselves to do the compassionate thing. Ditto the people who value a sliver of comfort over helping legal residents arbitrarily ejected from their homes.
Your claims here are those of the white moderates that MLK called the greatest stumbling block to black freedom. Apparently you haven't yet bothered to read his "Letter From A Birmingham Jail". But I'm done trying to spoon-feed it to you, so if you'd like to pursue this further, take it up with him.
You sir have a lot of patience. I read the "arguments" as "the children don't want to be bothered". That thing about order x justice sums it up. They don't give a shit.
Thanks. I have some compassion, because none of us really wants to be bothered. I too would like to stay in my comfortable bubble. But sometimes people wake up.
It was only 1 hour.
Doesn't anyone ever protest in America? It feels like this concept is so new to you.
Yes - some people might be less sympathetic, those are not the people the protest set out to influence. It's the people who haven't made up their minds yet, the people who think that "This will all blow over soon" and want to get on with their lives in their bubble. They NEED to be inconvenienced to react, to make up their mind that this is something they can't ignore. Only then when you engage the apathetic can the protest grow, and protests must grow otherwise most of them fizzle.
Yes - some people might be less sympathetic, those are not the people the protest set out to influence. It's the people who haven't made up their minds yet, the people who think that "This will all blow over soon" and want to get on with their lives in their bubble. They NEED to be inconvenienced to react, to make up their mind that this is something they can't ignore. Only then when you engage the apathetic can the protest grow, and protests must grow otherwise most of them fizzle.
It seems it's pure misdirection at this point. I also notice that people sort of become "trained"(unconsciously) to be incredibly sensible to anything that may deligitimize any sort of critical action or against the status-quo in general but then using a whole different weight for other stuff(maybe because they're "normal"). Results seems to be: demobilization, immobilization.
It's not only to influence the people directly affected, it's also to generate news coverage which will get the greater population talking about the cause of the protest. Which is what is currently happening obviously.
WarmToaster(2)
I think you ignored his point or misunderstood. The majority of NYC already is on their side.
It would be like MLK advocating for equal rights protests in a majority-black church.
It would be like MLK advocating for equal rights protests in a majority-black church.
Neither.
NYC residents being hazily "on their side" in a broad political struggle is distinct from actively doing something to oppose the EO. Again, read the Letter.
And no, it wouldn't. Although that is something that he did quite a bit of, given that he got his start as a Baptist preacher, so I'm not sure your analogy works.
NYC residents being hazily "on their side" in a broad political struggle is distinct from actively doing something to oppose the EO. Again, read the Letter.
And no, it wouldn't. Although that is something that he did quite a bit of, given that he got his start as a Baptist preacher, so I'm not sure your analogy works.
He didn't intentionally disrupt people already supporting him. As in, he didn't block a group of people trying to get to a church that was about to preach about black rights.
Actually, MLK has much to say about "inconvenient" protests. https://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2014/12/31/mlk-on...
He disagrees with the white moderate proclaiming "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action." You are committing that error.
He disagrees with the white moderate proclaiming "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action." You are committing that error.
>You are committing that error.
No I am not. I am fine with disruptive protests, but they should be disrupting the people who need their minds changed. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that we are talking about protesting in the wrong place entirely?
The analogy is MLK protesting in an all-black church to prevent the constituents from hearing a sermon from a civil rights activist.
This has nothing to do with "inconvenient" protests so much as idiotic protests disrupting the very choir to which they are preaching.
No I am not. I am fine with disruptive protests, but they should be disrupting the people who need their minds changed. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that we are talking about protesting in the wrong place entirely?
The analogy is MLK protesting in an all-black church to prevent the constituents from hearing a sermon from a civil rights activist.
This has nothing to do with "inconvenient" protests so much as idiotic protests disrupting the very choir to which they are preaching.
> they should be disrupting the people who need their minds changed
No. You continue to fail to understand MLK's theory of protest. If you have read his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, you give no sign of it.
If the people being disrupted are already active in a movement to change things, they will not mind the protest. But if they are merely people who say "I agree with you in the goal you seek" without active support, then they are the very moderates that MLK was addressing here: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate [...]".
No. You continue to fail to understand MLK's theory of protest. If you have read his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, you give no sign of it.
If the people being disrupted are already active in a movement to change things, they will not mind the protest. But if they are merely people who say "I agree with you in the goal you seek" without active support, then they are the very moderates that MLK was addressing here: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate [...]".
To make a statement and show solidarity. If you live and work in NYC it's very difficult to protest in a place that is not New York.
[deleted]
Virtue signalling
All of the people involved in the protests from top to bottom are just virtue signaling. The CIA went into Syria in 2006 and started funding and training opposition forces leading to the current civil war. The Obama administration is responsible for a quarter million deaths in Syria alone. And that doesn't include the use of cluster bombs, an act considered a war crime in most of the civilized world, on several of the countries listed in this "ban." And yet now that a relative hand full of people can't travel here... that's the real monstrous act. Don't get me wrong, I think the "ban" is pants on head stupid, but the people protesting don't give two shits about Syrians or the citizens of any of the other 6 countries we're bombing.
Many of those protesting are objecting to green card holders being blocked entry into the country they are permanent residents of.
People will always protest against things that are more immediately visible to them than things they read about in infrequent news articles. That's just human nature.
People will always protest against things that are more immediately visible to them than things they read about in infrequent news articles. That's just human nature.
No, people protest against things that the media manipulates them into protesting for. The inflammatory language has been scandalous at best. The media didn't encourage people to protest when Obama and Clinton proudly funded a wall between the US and Mexico in 2006. But now we've had "No Wall" protests in quite a few places and traditional leftists making right-wing supply side economics arguments against renegotiating NAFTA... yet another thing both Clinton and Obama campaigned for in 2008. Make no mistake, this is the butt-hurt media's doing.
I'm glad something is finally happening over there. After watching the second Iraq war happen with the media doing pretty much nothing, I can tell you that I could not agree more with what you said. But it will blow over and then it will be back to business as usual.
[deleted]
Me too. What's happened over the last year (more really, starting with the RP revolution) should be viewed as evidence that it's really not business as usual.
This makes sense, they can see their friends or friends of friends not being able to travel freely as they can.
Some of them, sure. Maybe even most, though I don't think so; all of the people I know who are involved in this stuff are very well aware of Obama's militarism. But all of them? That's just lazy. And wrong.
You don't have to protest every cause to protest any cause. You can even protest things that, taken together, demonstrate you hold ideologically inconsistent views, if you want. That's on you.
You don't have to protest every cause to protest any cause. You can even protest things that, taken together, demonstrate you hold ideologically inconsistent views, if you want. That's on you.
>all of the people I know who are involved in this stuff are very well aware of Obama's militarism.
That doesn't help your argument. They were aware Obama killed a quarter of a million people and did nothing. Meanwhile Trump inconveniences some travelers and somehow he's the monster worth protesting. Get real.
That doesn't help your argument. They were aware Obama killed a quarter of a million people and did nothing. Meanwhile Trump inconveniences some travelers and somehow he's the monster worth protesting. Get real.
You have no idea what my friends may or may not have protested, or otherwise done, in the past.
I'll thank you to reconsider your projections of people you've never met.
I'll thank you to reconsider your projections of people you've never met.
>Don't get me wrong, I think the "ban" is pants on head stupid, but the people protesting don't give two shits about Syrians or the citizens of any of the other 6 countries we're bombing.
This in a nutshell is why things will get worse stateside. There will be those who write off the circumstances behind where we find ourselves today as human nature (an absolution of sorts, a moral line item to be paid when the circumstances are brought to their attention, not too dissimilar from the likes of HSBC et al when they pay penance in the form of monetary notes for aiding and abetting criminals as defined by a given state) and join the protest, and there will be those who apply the tools refined during war agaisnt their "own" at such protests.
Either way, only those who come out ahead outside of any virtue signaling will probably be the suppliers of such tools.
This in a nutshell is why things will get worse stateside. There will be those who write off the circumstances behind where we find ourselves today as human nature (an absolution of sorts, a moral line item to be paid when the circumstances are brought to their attention, not too dissimilar from the likes of HSBC et al when they pay penance in the form of monetary notes for aiding and abetting criminals as defined by a given state) and join the protest, and there will be those who apply the tools refined during war agaisnt their "own" at such protests.
Either way, only those who come out ahead outside of any virtue signaling will probably be the suppliers of such tools.
What a lazy criticism. What form of public protest is not virtue signalling by this standard?
The drivers sacrificed their income to make a public statement.
The drivers sacrificed their income to make a public statement.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
If we stop thinking of it as deleting Uber and start thinking of it as install lyft, I think it makes more sense.
Lyft took a very public opposition stance and committed to give 1 000 000$ to support an advocacy group.
And this isn't necessarily a stance against Trump, but just this particular executive order.
Lyft took a very public opposition stance and committed to give 1 000 000$ to support an advocacy group.
And this isn't necessarily a stance against Trump, but just this particular executive order.
That still doesn't justify it though. Uber also took a public opposition stance against Trump [1][2]. Having a seat at the table doesn't mean they agree with Trump on EVERYTHING. It just means a chance to voice their opinions.
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/29/uber-creating-3-million-fu... [2] Travis's facebook post
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/29/uber-creating-3-million-fu... [2] Travis's facebook post
I wouldn't care about Lyft or any other company that only posted a message of support. If you don't put your money where your mouth is, I don't care what you say, but Lyft did, 1000000$ of it. That's the key differentiator.
If Uber starts to walk the walk and not just talk the talk, I'll reinstall it.
Edit: Eh =D, I replied before reading your link. Looks like I can reinstall Uber, good cause I like having the options. I still hope that companies realize my above point going forward.
Edit: Eh =D, I replied before reading your link. Looks like I can reinstall Uber, good cause I like having the options. I still hope that companies realize my above point going forward.
Peter Thiel is a direct investor in Lyft. And Thiel donated $1M to Trump and was part of his transition party.
People keep saying that and it's just not a good point. I'm sure there's a lot of Republicans involved with every company. Peter Thiel is just yet another one of them. I wouldn't let him investing in Lyft turn you away- everyone including him is learning that Trump is bad for business.
If you go off 1 guy's name to avoid a company rather than their actual business practices, no partisan from either side could buy anything.
I'm a registered independent whose compass is science rather than ideology, (at least since the Bush Jr era, prior to which I was a registered Republican)- and I'm still deleting Uber and will use Lyft instead.
If you go off 1 guy's name to avoid a company rather than their actual business practices, no partisan from either side could buy anything.
I'm a registered independent whose compass is science rather than ideology, (at least since the Bush Jr era, prior to which I was a registered Republican)- and I'm still deleting Uber and will use Lyft instead.
If the argument is delete Uber because the CEO supports Trump because he's a part of Trump's advisory board, then it is a good point. Thiel directly helped Trump win and was a part of the transition board.
If you just want to delete Uber not because of Trump, then it's not a big deal then.
If you just want to delete Uber not because of Trump, then it's not a big deal then.
I don't really care who supports whom. If you vote Trump and use your company resources to feed the orphans then I'm going to patronize you anyway. Results, not intentions.
Assuming that you already know that Lyft also "broke the strike" in exactly the same way as Uber, Uber is paying for the earnings of Uber drivers trapped out of the US by the ban, and also set up a $3M legal fund to directly help any drivers that have troubles. How does that stack up vs the $250k/yr for 4 years that Lyft donated to ACLU?
You're right about that[0] but I'm holding Uber to the fire nonetheless to send a message. It's a positive one. The same link also has plenty of reasoning why Lyft > Uber. This will be a big lesson for everyone, Peter Thiel notwithstanding. Trump is bad for business and now Uber is going to take the hit.
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
...and Lyft have taken $1m of his money and donated it to the ACLU. The situation is confusing to say the least.
For clarity, it helps to realize that all parties involved are business entities which do whatever it takes to maximize profit. That is the main theme. There is no philosophical or moral consistency to be found. Don't look for something (is x or y pro or anti-z) which isn't there. Uber and Lyft are both for-profit enterprises answerable to pushy shareholders. They both have their hands dirty with Trump. They both keep their hands dirty while trying to appease their liberal customers. Everything else is implementation details.
I think that's a little reductive.
Everything you say is true, but those "implementation details" aren't just implementation details. You say that like the actual implementation of a thing is immaterial. That's the meat of the thing; that's its substance. The stuff you're enumerating is more structural.
Everything you say is true, but those "implementation details" aren't just implementation details. You say that like the actual implementation of a thing is immaterial. That's the meat of the thing; that's its substance. The stuff you're enumerating is more structural.
How substantive is it, in the grand scheme of things, whether Uber lifts its surge pricing at 7pm or 4pm or 1pm or never. That truly is an implementation detail. I am not hand waving or being reductive -- do you really think that that anything Lyft does to show its solidarity with immigrants holds any weight with Thiel being where he is?
There is no meat to the bandstanding outrage at Uber. It's all posturing. Boycott Uber for breaking the strike (sic) and also boycott Lyft for its Trump ties.
That's hard though, let's just boycott the black Uber brand. The pink moustache is kinda cool.
There is no meat to the bandstanding outrage at Uber. It's all posturing. Boycott Uber for breaking the strike (sic) and also boycott Lyft for its Trump ties.
That's hard though, let's just boycott the black Uber brand. The pink moustache is kinda cool.
I think the issue people have isn't the surge pricing so much as the fact that Uber didn't participate in the strike, and thus profited from it.
So? I have a hard time understanding why a multinational company needs to participate so deeply in the politics and labor strikes of a single city.
New York is big, but I'd imagine the CEO had a focus that included LA, Chicago, London, etc. and that would take away from coordinating with any taxi-strikers in NYC.
Addendum: Did the taxi union contact Uber before the strike to coordinate this action?
I mean it's a 1 hour strike. Is there any real meaning to this? The trains have stopped working for far longer than that.
New York is big, but I'd imagine the CEO had a focus that included LA, Chicago, London, etc. and that would take away from coordinating with any taxi-strikers in NYC.
Addendum: Did the taxi union contact Uber before the strike to coordinate this action?
I mean it's a 1 hour strike. Is there any real meaning to this? The trains have stopped working for far longer than that.
Worth noting that 3 collective entities "broke" the strike.
1) Uber drivers by responding to pickups.
2) Uber customers by requesting those pickups.
3) Uber the company by facilitating those pickups.
I am not sure we can claim high moral ground and label (3) immoral while staying oblivious to (1) and (2).
1) Uber drivers by responding to pickups.
2) Uber customers by requesting those pickups.
3) Uber the company by facilitating those pickups.
I am not sure we can claim high moral ground and label (3) immoral while staying oblivious to (1) and (2).
Failing to boycott is not the same thing as breaking a strike. If this whole incident has revealed one thing, it's the extent to which the labor movement has lost cultural and moral mindshare. Forty years ago, everyone knew what scabbing was, what it wasn't, and had social/political/moral ideas about it.
Now that the labor occupies a much less central place in our society, these common norms and knowledge have been lost. I happen to be appalled by this because of my own political views, but good or bad it's certainly a sign of the times.
Now that the labor occupies a much less central place in our society, these common norms and knowledge have been lost. I happen to be appalled by this because of my own political views, but good or bad it's certainly a sign of the times.
But the people claiming Uber was stabbing don't even understand it. Scabbing is something done by individuals, in this case the Uber drivers.
>these common norms
Common to union supporters.
Also, abusing a unions' power to make a political statement rather than fight for the workers' rights is only weakening the union further. It's now less of a self defense mechanism and more of a mafia-esque bullying mechanism.
>these common norms
Common to union supporters.
Also, abusing a unions' power to make a political statement rather than fight for the workers' rights is only weakening the union further. It's now less of a self defense mechanism and more of a mafia-esque bullying mechanism.
Don't you have to agree to a strike (or agree to be part of an organization that strikes) to be considered to be "breaking the strike"? Wasn't it taxi unions or collectives that decided to strike? Aren't Uber drivers (and Uber the corporation) not beholden in any way to the organizations which chose to strike? When the writer's guild decided to strike in 2007, that only applied to members of the WGA, not everyone who happened to do any work in that industry or a similar industry. Were bus drivers "breaking the strike"? How about pilots? Train engineers? Surely the fact that taxi organizations decided to strike doesn't mean that anyone involved in human transportation at the time was "breaking the strike."
Well, six entities: the three you mention plus each one with s/Uber/Lyft/, since Lyft was also picking up people from the airport during that time.
Your point still stands, of course. (Though I choose to avoid taking the moral high ground not by condemning all of those entities, but by refusing to condemn any of them, since I don't see any fault here.)
Your point still stands, of course. (Though I choose to avoid taking the moral high ground not by condemning all of those entities, but by refusing to condemn any of them, since I don't see any fault here.)
They don't have to but their customers are similarly free to opt to not use Uber and, even, to call for other customers to do the same.
[deleted]
Lyft didn't participate either. Switching to them because of this strike is irrational.
It's not irrational. It might be unfair, but it sends the intended message.
If businesses associate pro-trump practices with a loss of revenue, this protest has been effective.
If businesses associate pro-trump practices with a loss of revenue, this protest has been effective.
So Uber's choices are (a) Do nothing and be accused of profiteering from the strike, (b) Forgo profit and be accused of breaking the strike, or (c) Recognize that they're in a hostage situation and be forced into joining the strike.
I'm no Uber fan but those are pretty lousy choices to force on anyone.
I'm no Uber fan but those are pretty lousy choices to force on anyone.
But Uber drivers in New York were free to strike if they wanted, no? Did uber threaten to fire anyone who didn't drive during the strike?
That's not how Uber or Lyft works. Drivers drive whenever they feel like it.
Isn't it the same for taxi drivers? Couldn't any NYC taxi driver break the strike just as easily as an Uber driver? Or do they have to deposit their cars in some common depot?
/activate the taximeter?
To me its clear its about the surge pricing. Because it means they weren't neutral, they picked their side against the taxi-drivers solidarity when they opted to undercut the strike by making a promotion for the passengers. How is this hard to understand? Lyft may have not joined they strike and nobody expects a business to not behave like a business(in the sense: make some press release stating a position or something but operate normally or just don't get involved or do it indirectly like Lyft did of making a donation etc) but they did remained neutral instead of going the disgusting-profitteer-pig-Ill-try-to-win-some-regardless-of-anything way of uber. It's so damn simple.
Do we know there was an attempt to collaborate with Uber on the strike?
So far we have no evidence that Uber attempted to take part in the strike but we do have evidence that Uber knew about the strike (temporary cessation of surge pricing) and didn't take part in it.
The end of the surge pricing wasn't until after the strike.
the timeline provided does not confirm this tho
lol it completely confirms it. The strike ended at 7pm, surge was lowered at 7:36pm.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Definitely a pox on both their houses. Doesn't help Lyft that Peter Thiel is an investor.
[deleted]
i don't like this 'democracy by silencing those you disagree with' attitude.
So when was surge pricing actually shut off? Also I was more pissed about Uber's shit PR stunt that day than what happened at JFK.
Uber has pulled out of many cities rather than comply with their regulations(which cabs already had to follow) and left tens of thousands of drivers without jobs, sometimes overnight. The notion that they care about anyone stuck overseas is a joke.
Messaging indeed... Uber has sent a message that they give no fucks about their drivers a long time ago. This isn't the first or even the hundredth time Uber has done something terrible.
Let the tide of public opinion sink this shitty soulless company before were stuck with another Comcast for 20 years
Uber has pulled out of many cities rather than comply with their regulations(which cabs already had to follow) and left tens of thousands of drivers without jobs, sometimes overnight. The notion that they care about anyone stuck overseas is a joke.
Messaging indeed... Uber has sent a message that they give no fucks about their drivers a long time ago. This isn't the first or even the hundredth time Uber has done something terrible.
Let the tide of public opinion sink this shitty soulless company before were stuck with another Comcast for 20 years
well if they failed on messaging I think it's because
1. they've done a lot of questionable things over the years so when they did something that looks a little off on something that a lot of people are upset about then all those things they did in the past came back to haunt them.
2. if the message is we consider this a bad policy and we don't support it, they mumbled that message low enough that people might have thought they were saying something else.
1. they've done a lot of questionable things over the years so when they did something that looks a little off on something that a lot of people are upset about then all those things they did in the past came back to haunt them.
2. if the message is we consider this a bad policy and we don't support it, they mumbled that message low enough that people might have thought they were saying something else.
[deleted]
Wow, people who engage in hashtag activism don't pay attention to facts? Stop the presses!
The current political climate is such that there is so much blind anger on the liberal side about Trump that there is little room for nuance. Everything is either fighting for justice or is a tool of the Trump hate machine.
Completely stolen from https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5r2apd/lyft_sur...
This is all a consequence of bad messaging on Uber's part here; they're not in the wrong.
Uber's Surge system is all automatic--if demand goes way up, and supply doesn't follow suit, prices will increase in the app. Unfortunately, demand goes way up during catastrophes like terror attacks, so Uber has had a few bad instances where, in the wake of a crisis, surge goes up, simply because of the way the system is set up.
People who don't know about how Surge works might assume that Uber is deliberately raising prices in these crisis zones to gouge people in peril, which obviously isn't the case. To address cases like this, Uber put into place a surge shutoff system so that people in these positions aren't charged extra.
What happened here was that Uber, in the interest of avoiding another PR disaster, turned off surge to allow protesters (identifying with a cause which their CEO has openly supported) to get to the venue without extra charge. This backfired because that wasn't made clear in their announcement, and they instead came off as strike busters because the NYC taxi firms stupidly chose to express solidarity by shutting down the ability of protesters (not to mention uninvolved travelers) to get to and from the airport via their services.
I don't envy Uber--they're in a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't position. It's maddening to see the #deleteUber hashtag get this much traction, especially given that Lyft also continued to operate during the strike, but c'est la vie.
This is all a consequence of bad messaging on Uber's part here; they're not in the wrong.
Uber's Surge system is all automatic--if demand goes way up, and supply doesn't follow suit, prices will increase in the app. Unfortunately, demand goes way up during catastrophes like terror attacks, so Uber has had a few bad instances where, in the wake of a crisis, surge goes up, simply because of the way the system is set up.
People who don't know about how Surge works might assume that Uber is deliberately raising prices in these crisis zones to gouge people in peril, which obviously isn't the case. To address cases like this, Uber put into place a surge shutoff system so that people in these positions aren't charged extra.
What happened here was that Uber, in the interest of avoiding another PR disaster, turned off surge to allow protesters (identifying with a cause which their CEO has openly supported) to get to the venue without extra charge. This backfired because that wasn't made clear in their announcement, and they instead came off as strike busters because the NYC taxi firms stupidly chose to express solidarity by shutting down the ability of protesters (not to mention uninvolved travelers) to get to and from the airport via their services.
I don't envy Uber--they're in a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't position. It's maddening to see the #deleteUber hashtag get this much traction, especially given that Lyft also continued to operate during the strike, but c'est la vie.
I don't think the pricing is the extent of people's concerns, or even the majority.
I'm not a fan of Kalanick, personally, but I was prepared to have been wrong about him when I saw his Facebook post about taking care of the drivers who were stranded by this idiocy.
Then, I saw they were taking fares to JFK during the taxi strike — effectively breaking it. To my eyes, and those of many others, that is an ugly repudiation of the gesture.
It was one hour. Having someone on the president's Business Council thing take a public stand like that in solidarity with the very industry he's trying to destroy would have sent a powerful message, and pretty cheaply.
More to the point, turning off surge pricing hours after the strike — that was announced to last one hour — was over is moot.
I'm not a fan of Kalanick, personally, but I was prepared to have been wrong about him when I saw his Facebook post about taking care of the drivers who were stranded by this idiocy.
Then, I saw they were taking fares to JFK during the taxi strike — effectively breaking it. To my eyes, and those of many others, that is an ugly repudiation of the gesture.
It was one hour. Having someone on the president's Business Council thing take a public stand like that in solidarity with the very industry he's trying to destroy would have sent a powerful message, and pretty cheaply.
More to the point, turning off surge pricing hours after the strike — that was announced to last one hour — was over is moot.
As someone who is only just finding out about all this, I don't fully understand why the cab drivers stopped picking people up. I think the fact that people were using Uber (and Lyft) to leave the airport means they needed to (which is ESPECIALLY if true if surge was in place for some period of time and people still willingly took it). As poetic as they might think it is, taxi drivers not welcoming people into the country is, practically speaking, very similar to the airports not welcoming people into the country.
All I'm saying is that it would really suck to be someone caught at the airport in the mess, maybe with a few kids you've had to endure protecting/managing for a 5-10 hour flight, and the cabs aren't going. I'd be pretty upset at the cabs, even if I stood with the protesters (which I do). (Keep in mind, this would also include people coming from the many other countries not called out in the EO.)
Side note: I think it's crazy how quickly so many different SIGNIFICANT articles are hitting #1 on HN and Reddit. The ban, the judicial pushback, the firing...I think I'm all caught up, I sit down at home, throw open HN, and there's an entire sub-story that went down about cabs, Uber, and Lyft sitting at a new #1. It's all too much for me...
All I'm saying is that it would really suck to be someone caught at the airport in the mess, maybe with a few kids you've had to endure protecting/managing for a 5-10 hour flight, and the cabs aren't going. I'd be pretty upset at the cabs, even if I stood with the protesters (which I do). (Keep in mind, this would also include people coming from the many other countries not called out in the EO.)
Side note: I think it's crazy how quickly so many different SIGNIFICANT articles are hitting #1 on HN and Reddit. The ban, the judicial pushback, the firing...I think I'm all caught up, I sit down at home, throw open HN, and there's an entire sub-story that went down about cabs, Uber, and Lyft sitting at a new #1. It's all too much for me...
> All I'm saying is that it would really suck to be someone caught at the airport in the mess...
Then imagine how it must feel to be one of the people affected by the ban.
That's the point of the strike: "Oh you think this is inconvenient?"
Then imagine how it must feel to be one of the people affected by the ban.
That's the point of the strike: "Oh you think this is inconvenient?"
Shouldn't we be angry at the subway too for letting people leave the airport?
That's specious. The subway is a utility provided by the city.
Taxis, if regulated by the city, are effectively a utility provided partially by the city.
Regulation of a private service does not obligate the operators of that service to offer it, unless those regulations specifically require it.
Same with public services, right? Some states prohibit strikes, but as far as I know that just means fining the unions. I'm not aware of any US jurisdiction that compels individuals to perform labor (excepting things like military conscription and community service sentences for crimes).
In Seattle the police shut down the light rail to avoid protests. There were no taxi strikes at Seatac though afaik.
When has this strategy ever worked? This is not how you appease or bring about change.
How do you think the two-day weekend and the forty-hour week was created? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
By an hour long unplanned "strike" called for with hours worth of notice?
Yeah, didn't think so. This conversation is getting absurd at this point.
Yeah, didn't think so. This conversation is getting absurd at this point.
"Appease"? Whom?
When has appeasing ever worked as an instrument of social change?
Perhaps that was the wrong word. "To bring about peace" is the definition I was going for.
Either way, this is not going to solve anything.
Either way, this is not going to solve anything.
Go re-read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". The relevant bit has been quoted elsethread.
If you're talking about civil disobedience, then this taxi strike is not an example and ultimately not of much importance or purpose.
Immigration and customs officials refusing to follow the ban order would be actual disobedience and far more effectual in signal and lives changed.
Immigration and customs officials refusing to follow the ban order would be actual disobedience and far more effectual in signal and lives changed.
Civil disobedience is not a zero-sum game, and there are huge network effects in people protesting, striking, etc.
This happens all the time with people unused to protest. "Protests doesn't do anything", "Other things are more efficient", "Their demands are vague", "People should work on making policy instead of protesting", etc.
Network effects, people, network effects.
This happens all the time with people unused to protest. "Protests doesn't do anything", "Other things are more efficient", "Their demands are vague", "People should work on making policy instead of protesting", etc.
Network effects, people, network effects.
What network effects? Awareness was an issue before the internet but we have instant global news coverage now, so what does this particular strike (which is not civil disobedience) do?
Ironically, if the court order to put a stay on the ban had come in during the strike, it would have made it even harder for those poor people to get home. How's that for "inconvenience"? The strike was a bad plan.
It's not ironic because that didn't happen. I'm sure the strike could have been called off very quickly if that happened.
Instead of a gesture, Uber chose to allow immigrants from the countries in question to keep earning money. Uber made it easy for protesters to get around the police blockade of the AirTrain.
There were no ideal options on the table. Joining the strike would have meant hurting a sizable number of immigrants and hurting the protests.
There were no ideal options on the table. Joining the strike would have meant hurting a sizable number of immigrants and hurting the protests.
Did you miss that the strike was only against picking up fares at the airport?
No. I'm just struggling to imagine why anyone thought Uber would join this and why nobody seems to care about Lyft.
It's not about joining. It's about Uber intervening by turning off an automated feature of their platform. People are pissed about that. Not me, but people. Me, I'm driving Lyft for a stint and enjoying non-stop ride requests.
What if Uber (and Lyft; by your definition they broke the strike too) didn't agree with the reason for the strike, or found it counterproductive? It's well within their rights to do so (and I'd agree with them). Just because your "transportation brethren" decide to take some action, it doesn't mean you should play lemming and take the same action in solidarity, especially if you think that action is in poor taste, or is harmful.
I mean, c'mon. During the time of the strike, people needed transportation to and from the airport more than ever, given the protesters coming in and out. And hell, if detainees had been able to clear CBP during the strike, the strike would have actively made it harder for those poor people to get home. I'd say the taxi workers union should be ashamed for picking that time to strike.
I mean, c'mon. During the time of the strike, people needed transportation to and from the airport more than ever, given the protesters coming in and out. And hell, if detainees had been able to clear CBP during the strike, the strike would have actively made it harder for those poor people to get home. I'd say the taxi workers union should be ashamed for picking that time to strike.
You clearly and literally do not seem to understand how strikes work.
Standing in solidarity by preventing the people who are protesting from getting to and from the protest is inane.
Without the lipservice they paid, I'd have actually believed the taxi union was rallying against the the protesters.
Without the lipservice they paid, I'd have actually believed the taxi union was rallying against the the protesters.
If you're going there to protest, take the subway. It's not like you've got luggage or anything. And the work stoppage was only against picking up fares, anyway.
what can Uber do? They can't update their app just for a strike. Apparently they could turn off a surge and that's what they did.
I interpreted the disabling of surge to reduce the incentive for drivers to make an extra buck off of the strike. Does Uber have the ability to nullify an area temporarily so that pickups can't be made? I mean, obviously, it's technically possible, as they set up special zones for airports. But I wonder if they have app behavior to handle a situation in which they need to tell users that pickups are temporarily disabled in an area on an impromptu basis.
They did it when they were negotiating their license with some airports. Back in the days LAX was geo-fenced and you had to take a shuttle to a random hotel to get a pick-up. As soon as their licensing (and proper pick-up spots) were up, LAX went live in the app.
I have a friend at Uber. We have had conversations involving the word "geofencing".
> This is all a consequence of bad messaging on Uber's part here; they're not in the wrong.
For me it wasn't the bad messaging around the JFK thing, it was that this incident brought focus to the fact that Uber had earlier expressed sympathy for Trump. This is more than enough for me to switch my business to a competitor.
I believe this might have been the case for others too. They had simply been closet Trump supporters in my view, but suddenly they were called out as such.
For me it wasn't the bad messaging around the JFK thing, it was that this incident brought focus to the fact that Uber had earlier expressed sympathy for Trump. This is more than enough for me to switch my business to a competitor.
I believe this might have been the case for others too. They had simply been closet Trump supporters in my view, but suddenly they were called out as such.
How do you know Surge is automatic?
> People who don't know about how Surge works might assume that Uber is deliberately raising prices in these crisis zones to gouge people in peril, which obviously isn't the case.
They could collect an extra few cents from normal fares and store it to compensate drivers during peak time, without fluctuating the fare price for customers. It would work like insurance, and have the same effect with surge pricing while not generating bad PR.
They could collect an extra few cents from normal fares and store it to compensate drivers during peak time, without fluctuating the fare price for customers. It would work like insurance, and have the same effect with surge pricing while not generating bad PR.
how does that make more drivers come to a specific place/time where demand is outstripping supply?
By paying drivers more. Surge pricing would work only for drivers, and be averaged out for customers so they don't see a change in rates. It would encourage more people to use Uber, that are turned off by surge pricing. But maybe Uber doesn't want to have them as clients during surges, depends on the ability to scale to demand.
So you make riders that intentionally ride during off times subsidize riders that want to go home during peak times. Pretty lame solution if you ask me.
The thing that I like about dynamic pricing is that it forces people to think about what they are doing in a broader context. "maybe it's selfish of me to expect a $3 ride home at 1AM on Jan 1st"
The thing that I like about dynamic pricing is that it forces people to think about what they are doing in a broader context. "maybe it's selfish of me to expect a $3 ride home at 1AM on Jan 1st"
Yes, if your main concern is to protect Uber against surges, you're right. But customers also perceive this as an attempt to extract more money from them when they are in a bad position, such as during a crisis.
Why not take the "insurance policy" style and average out these surges?
Why not take the "insurance policy" style and average out these surges?
If you want regulated prices, why not use taxis?
Being an Uber customer and complaining about surge prices is beyond hypocrite.
Being an Uber customer and complaining about surge prices is beyond hypocrite.
It's funny to me how Lyft positions itself like the poor little underdog that deeply cares about humans. People are so susceptible to marketing it's crazy.
They provide the exact same service, and Lyft cloned most of uber's features once uber had achieved the unbelievable mindshift of changing people's behavior.
Whatever people think, in a few years if Lyft is popular enough, guess what: they too will become the "big evil capitalistic entreprise" and some new venture backed company will send a christmas email to their users telling them they love them and should all dance together on the beach.
They provide the exact same service, and Lyft cloned most of uber's features once uber had achieved the unbelievable mindshift of changing people's behavior.
Whatever people think, in a few years if Lyft is popular enough, guess what: they too will become the "big evil capitalistic entreprise" and some new venture backed company will send a christmas email to their users telling them they love them and should all dance together on the beach.
Neither company has any stickiness with me. By that I mean, I can switch between them willy nilly with no real affect on my life. I like to tip when my work picks up the bill, so I most often use Lyft... If either of them offered a rewards program (like frequent flyer miles) I would probably use that one exclusively. I have no idea why neither has implemented that yet.
I find this kind of strange, given that both of them seem to be sinking massive amounts of money into subsidizing rides. Like, they're going to be all about user retention when people are only going to care about which option is cheapest. Google, or somebody, is gonna come in and mop up on the ecosystem they've created. They won't even have this huge ethical problem of laying off thousands of drivers.
Because its still about building an overall market for Uber to capitalize on later. Lyft is burning through their own VC money helping Uber build that mass with little possibility of actually beating out Uber in the long run.
Not aquiring Lyft was such a masterful move that I completely missed at the time.
Not aquiring Lyft was such a masterful move that I completely missed at the time.
FYI Capital One Quicksilver gets a free $15 credit after every 9 rides (it was 20% back last year, pretty great.)
Also if you link SPG you'll get 1 Starpoint per $2 spent on Uber (2/$1 when staying at a SPG hotel).
Also if you link SPG you'll get 1 Starpoint per $2 spent on Uber (2/$1 when staying at a SPG hotel).
Unfortunately when I ride for work I have to use my company Amex, so I get no benefits... Maybe my situation is weird so they have not bothered making a program for people like me. It works well for the airlines and hotels though because while I do not spend my money, I can decide WHERE I will spend it.
Bummer, the Starpoints are earned no matter the payment card but may not work if you are using the Uber for business thing where you charge it to the company's account rather than their card directly.
Something like 2k points will get you a night in a low category Sheraton, 20k will get you the W in Singapore.
Something like 2k points will get you a night in a low category Sheraton, 20k will get you the W in Singapore.
To be fair, either Uber copied the idea of ride sharing from lyft or both copied it from sidecar. Uber wasn't the first.
Zimride (Zimmer founder of Lyft) started the first carpooling site. I used it many times to offer rides to Tahoe.
Uber started their service with black cars.
Later Sidecar started the first service to allow non taxi/black car drivers the ability to drive their car and pick up passengers.
Uber started their service with black cars.
Later Sidecar started the first service to allow non taxi/black car drivers the ability to drive their car and pick up passengers.
BlaBlaCar was first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlaBlaCar
Who is the first doesn't matter. Who does it best, though? That is the real question.
Unless they're perfect substitutes with no meaningful network effects, in which case the real question is: who is cheapest?
touche!
Edit: Well, I slightly disagree. Even if the product doesn't require mass-adoption to be useful, it could surely benefit from branding/marketing and viral adoption to make it the desired product, in which case, it does still depend on who does all of that better. Even if Starbucks or Macbooks are more expensive, they have won their audience and increased their effective marketing force.
Edit: Well, I slightly disagree. Even if the product doesn't require mass-adoption to be useful, it could surely benefit from branding/marketing and viral adoption to make it the desired product, in which case, it does still depend on who does all of that better. Even if Starbucks or Macbooks are more expensive, they have won their audience and increased their effective marketing force.
And Thiel and Ichaan, both Trump supporters, have massive stakes in...
Lyft.
Lyft.
Lol, a $5.5B company not "big evil capitalistic enterprise" for you?
So that I understand, if you were at the head of a $1bb company, would it by default become "evil"? Further, do you feel that capitalism is intrinsically bad?
You forgot some details... dancing on the beach naked banging on bongo drums and singing Kum ba yah.
Lyft sent me a political message in an email so I deleted Lyft and now don't have either one. I used them, because I thought they were nicer to the drivers and allowed me tip. And I support the refugees and think this is a stupid and dangerous ban. Oh and I was a bit in the same boat as some of them and on a few occasions was not allowed board the plane with a ticket in hand, and was not able to get home to US.
But Lyft is just a driving app nothing else. There are also a few games, a spectrogram utility and other crap. Should I expect my chess game to start sending me "OMG we so hate Trump, stand with us".
This is getting ridiculous. We and our allies have bombed the crap out of those countries. Destabilized, them turned them into failed states. (Iran is probably the only sane one who arguably has a functioning government). We bombed hospitals, civilians, funded ISIS. Obama alone, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient just last year managed to drop over 26k bombs but but there is a stupid travel ban and the apps on my phone start emailing me political support statements...
But Lyft is just a driving app nothing else. There are also a few games, a spectrogram utility and other crap. Should I expect my chess game to start sending me "OMG we so hate Trump, stand with us".
This is getting ridiculous. We and our allies have bombed the crap out of those countries. Destabilized, them turned them into failed states. (Iran is probably the only sane one who arguably has a functioning government). We bombed hospitals, civilians, funded ISIS. Obama alone, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient just last year managed to drop over 26k bombs but but there is a stupid travel ban and the apps on my phone start emailing me political support statements...
> This is getting ridiculous. We and our allies have bombed the crap out of those countries. Destabilized, them turned them into failed states. (Iran is probably the only sane one who arguably has a functioning government). We bombed hospitals, civilians, funded ISIS. Obama alone, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient just last year managed to drop over 26k bombs but but there is a stupid travel ban and the apps on my phone start emailing me political support statements...
I'm really confused by this. Are you mad because the political climate is encouraging people to wake up and go, "Oh wait maybe I will not be complacent with this?"
If you're interested in a more proactive electorate but then mad that that touches your life, I'm not sure what you're actually asking for. If you'd like a pro-Trump ridesharing app I bet you can get a lot of reddit gold thrown your way to start one...
I'm really confused by this. Are you mad because the political climate is encouraging people to wake up and go, "Oh wait maybe I will not be complacent with this?"
If you're interested in a more proactive electorate but then mad that that touches your life, I'm not sure what you're actually asking for. If you'd like a pro-Trump ridesharing app I bet you can get a lot of reddit gold thrown your way to start one...
> I'm really confused by this. Are you mad because the political climate is encouraging people to wake up and go,
I am mad that an app on my phone is now sending me emails about what I think is a fake outrage and jumping on a bandwagon.
> Are you mad because the political climate is encouraging people to wake up and go,
People should wake up. And one can argue, a good thing about Trump is perhaps we'll see a start of a new party and a new generation who is more involved and will be successful next time during election. But I don't want apps on my phone to wake up. They should keep quiet.
> but then mad that that touches your life,
But my life is already touched. Don't need Lyft to touch me more.
> I'm not sure what you're actually asking for.
A taxi app that doesn't send emails every time Trump does something stupid. I imagine that is probably too much.
I heard there is a "support Starbucks" thing now as well because they vowed to hire 10k refugees. So I should make an extra effort to get some of that tomorrow. I remember when they were the corporate burnt coffee and independent-suppliers crushing overlords. Then I should enable G+ because Brin was in the news protesting at SFO. I am sure there is a longer list I can find on how I can "support the refugees and squash Trump by buying these 10 great services and products.
I am mad that an app on my phone is now sending me emails about what I think is a fake outrage and jumping on a bandwagon.
> Are you mad because the political climate is encouraging people to wake up and go,
People should wake up. And one can argue, a good thing about Trump is perhaps we'll see a start of a new party and a new generation who is more involved and will be successful next time during election. But I don't want apps on my phone to wake up. They should keep quiet.
> but then mad that that touches your life,
But my life is already touched. Don't need Lyft to touch me more.
> I'm not sure what you're actually asking for.
A taxi app that doesn't send emails every time Trump does something stupid. I imagine that is probably too much.
I heard there is a "support Starbucks" thing now as well because they vowed to hire 10k refugees. So I should make an extra effort to get some of that tomorrow. I remember when they were the corporate burnt coffee and independent-suppliers crushing overlords. Then I should enable G+ because Brin was in the news protesting at SFO. I am sure there is a longer list I can find on how I can "support the refugees and squash Trump by buying these 10 great services and products.
I don't disagree with your point, whatsoever, but I did see another perspective that I might not have otherwise considered while working with a larger company recently.
During the public debates regarding marriage equality, the company showed a very public display of support for marriage equality. They updated their branding and I assume their marketing as well to show that support.
From the inside, it was clear that this was to ensure the people who worked for the company could be proud of where they worked. From my perspective, it seemed the affect on the customer was second priority to the affect upon the employees, and that seemed to do well for all parties involved.
During the public debates regarding marriage equality, the company showed a very public display of support for marriage equality. They updated their branding and I assume their marketing as well to show that support.
From the inside, it was clear that this was to ensure the people who worked for the company could be proud of where they worked. From my perspective, it seemed the affect on the customer was second priority to the affect upon the employees, and that seemed to do well for all parties involved.
> From the inside, it was clear that this was to ensure the people who worked for the company could be proud of where they worked. From my perspective, it seemed the affect on the customer was second priority to the affect the employees, and that seemed to do well for all parties involved.
I'd like that, and it is a good way to support a cause and it makes employees feel good too. It would also be more impressive if they did it in a time or place where it would be have been unpopular or dangerous because of general prejudices. But I am sure they didn't push emails to customers every-time some politician did something against marriage equality.
I'd like that, and it is a good way to support a cause and it makes employees feel good too. It would also be more impressive if they did it in a time or place where it would be have been unpopular or dangerous because of general prejudices. But I am sure they didn't push emails to customers every-time some politician did something against marriage equality.
That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
Another perspective is that Christian and Muslim employees of those companies were told that the management's official policy is that certain aspects of their religious beliefs are wrong. Can you imagine those employees weighing speaking up for themselves vs. their need to keep their jobs?
I've seen employees in that situation, and their morale was definitely not boosted.
Another perspective is that Christian and Muslim employees of those companies were told that the management's official policy is that certain aspects of their religious beliefs are wrong. Can you imagine those employees weighing speaking up for themselves vs. their need to keep their jobs?
I've seen employees in that situation, and their morale was definitely not boosted.
Given that their opinion was the law of the land until recently, yeah. I can imagine some of them are mad that they've lost the ability to project their beliefs onto others.
I was raised a militant protestant. I don't use that term lightly; I was told I was "God's soldier" daily. I know exactly the depth of conviction people have about controlling others.
Companies that accept mixed gender marriages were complying with the law of the land at the time, but were also actually making the neutral statement. "I don't know who is right or which God wants what, but we'll try and support our employees with health care for them and their family because that's how they are free to do good work."
A very small but vocal segment of Christian society and Muslim society wants to forbid that. Not because they have any real standing to, but because they want their specific sect of their religion to be dominant. They connect the success of their sect in affecting policy with the success of their beliefs.
In practice we see it all over the place from many actors. And why I appreciate how frustrating it is to have a belief system somewhat at odds with the world, ultimately these people are not damaged in any material OR spiritual way by the presence of dissent or secularism. They still get access to financial and social benefits that other minority cultures almost never get (e.g., complete immunity to taxation, special consideration in law's for education, a huge amount of political consideration). That they're dissatisfied is disturbing, because it means they've lost perspective on how much better off they are than most groups in America.
I was raised a militant protestant. I don't use that term lightly; I was told I was "God's soldier" daily. I know exactly the depth of conviction people have about controlling others.
Companies that accept mixed gender marriages were complying with the law of the land at the time, but were also actually making the neutral statement. "I don't know who is right or which God wants what, but we'll try and support our employees with health care for them and their family because that's how they are free to do good work."
A very small but vocal segment of Christian society and Muslim society wants to forbid that. Not because they have any real standing to, but because they want their specific sect of their religion to be dominant. They connect the success of their sect in affecting policy with the success of their beliefs.
In practice we see it all over the place from many actors. And why I appreciate how frustrating it is to have a belief system somewhat at odds with the world, ultimately these people are not damaged in any material OR spiritual way by the presence of dissent or secularism. They still get access to financial and social benefits that other minority cultures almost never get (e.g., complete immunity to taxation, special consideration in law's for education, a huge amount of political consideration). That they're dissatisfied is disturbing, because it means they've lost perspective on how much better off they are than most groups in America.
> Another perspective is that Christian and Muslim employees of those companies were told that the management's official policy is that certain aspects of their religious beliefs are wrong.
How so? To my knowledge, the modern "Christian" marriage (and marriage rites) are dogmatic and have no basis in the either the old nor the new testament. Those whose sensibilities were offended were creating, to use your words "fake outrage". Would they be offended if the Government passed a law that allowed non-believers to pay a tithe?
How so? To my knowledge, the modern "Christian" marriage (and marriage rites) are dogmatic and have no basis in the either the old nor the new testament. Those whose sensibilities were offended were creating, to use your words "fake outrage". Would they be offended if the Government passed a law that allowed non-believers to pay a tithe?
Attempting to disentangle modern faiths from their culture and social controls is a fundamentally flawed idea and gives no one pause. Everyone is primed by even decades of training to dismiss one aspect of holy text for another. And even if you could win that argument, a "personal" relationship with their deity (actually: their status within their religious community) will still reinforce their position until their rationalizations can be drafted.
Trust me on this. I spent years learning how to call Catholics hypocrites while dismissing every book in the new testament. We were very good at it, and they were very good at pressing us.
Trust me on this. I spent years learning how to call Catholics hypocrites while dismissing every book in the new testament. We were very good at it, and they were very good at pressing us.
> Attempting to disentangle modern faiths from their culture and social controls is a fundamentally flawed idea and gives no one pause
Thanks for spelling it out plainly! I had not considered that "religious beliefs" can be anything one wants it to be, it doesn't need to be rooted on any theology. I guess it serves me right for my arm-chair sociology.
Thanks for spelling it out plainly! I had not considered that "religious beliefs" can be anything one wants it to be, it doesn't need to be rooted on any theology. I guess it serves me right for my arm-chair sociology.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Fake outrage? I don't understand. Must I preface any complaint about a current event with a list of every historical event that I think was worse? A general argument against unsolicited emails is fine, but you seem to be making a much more specific complaint than that.
Yes its very simple, he is complaining about hypocrisy and opportunism manifesting as unsolicited notifications from his ride sharing app.
Wait... Starbucks indicated they'll take nation of origin and immigration status into consideration when making hiring decisions?
Wouldn't that be illegal in the U.S.?
Wouldn't that be illegal in the U.S.?
> I am mad that an app on my phone is now sending me emails about what I think is a fake outrage and jumping on a bandwagon.
I assure you a lot of the outrage is real, but yeah. Lyft was and is just as bad as Uber.
It's so silly that we talk about banning "politics" or that such and such is "too political" because we're at a point where there is no escape from radical restructuring. People are reacting to the new impositions and regulations the government is throwing at them.
Companies are too. Some are doing it for better reasons than others. But everyone wins and losses in politics, so the implication that "they are doing this because it is beneficial to them" rings pretty hollow to me.
If this were just anger over the silliness of promoting Thiel-backex Lyft as a counterpoint to Trumpism I'd agree. But it's not. You're mad that these companies share their policies and goals.
I don't understand that at all. You've spent more time dwelling on the imposition than it takes to delete and ignore the email.
I assure you a lot of the outrage is real, but yeah. Lyft was and is just as bad as Uber.
It's so silly that we talk about banning "politics" or that such and such is "too political" because we're at a point where there is no escape from radical restructuring. People are reacting to the new impositions and regulations the government is throwing at them.
Companies are too. Some are doing it for better reasons than others. But everyone wins and losses in politics, so the implication that "they are doing this because it is beneficial to them" rings pretty hollow to me.
If this were just anger over the silliness of promoting Thiel-backex Lyft as a counterpoint to Trumpism I'd agree. But it's not. You're mad that these companies share their policies and goals.
I don't understand that at all. You've spent more time dwelling on the imposition than it takes to delete and ignore the email.
> I bet you can get a lot of reddit gold thrown your way to start one...
Probably not. Many Trump supporters on Reddit have a thing against buying reddit gold.
Probably not. Many Trump supporters on Reddit have a thing against buying reddit gold.
>I bet you can get a lot of reddit gold thrown your way to start one...
That shade!
That shade!
I think that tech companies are being expected to be vocal about politics (in this specific climate) because of all the rhetoric tech companies spew about "making the world a better place," agree with it or not.
Condemning opposition to bad things because worse things have happened in the past is something I do not even remotely understand.
I bet when Bannon dissolves Congress or completes his mission of "destroying the state" in some other way the Facebook feeds will still be full of "But Hillary..." posts
I'm in the same boat. I'm against the ban but deleted Lyft because they got political.
don't worry, things are going to get a lot more inconvenient before they get better.
This is an example of the economic principle of goodwill. Uber has a poor reputation that leads to actual losses, but the negative value of the reputation is difficult to quantify. Conversely, Lyft has fostered positive goodwill that strengthens it in indirect ways.
This controversy will likely blow over with a small amount of damage, but it's a reminder of the vulnerability that Uber's management style brings to it. I think they should pay careful attention to how much people really want to hate them.
This controversy will likely blow over with a small amount of damage, but it's a reminder of the vulnerability that Uber's management style brings to it. I think they should pay careful attention to how much people really want to hate them.
I think this is the only interpretation that makes sense, really. If you dig down into what actually happened regarding the taxi strike, then none of the reactions make a lick of sense. This is more that people are looking for reasons to hate Uber and like Lyft. That's a battle Uber has been losing for quite a while.
This is a great take. Honestly, Travis seems like he is a competent CEO and for a pure technology company, he should be admired. The problem is that Uber's interactions with the broader public are so strained.
Quite the PR coup by Lyft, since they were doing the exact same scabbing at JFK. In this waning neoliberal order, I hope the best protest people can muster is better than being deceived by most cunning brand.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
Another reminder that emotion trumps (unintentional pun) reasoning on social media. I find it depressing that people don't spend any time verifying stories and separating facts from fiction. I would classify the #deleteuber event as a form of fake news.
You know what would be a good personal assistant or bot to build (using ML)? One that detects and informs users about fake news. Apparently the vast majority of people are pathetic at detecting fake news and this fact has real implications.
You know what would be a good personal assistant or bot to build (using ML)? One that detects and informs users about fake news. Apparently the vast majority of people are pathetic at detecting fake news and this fact has real implications.
>I find it depressing that people don't spend any time verifying stories and separating facts from fiction. I would classify the #deleteuber event as a form of fake news.
The worst part is, this problem will only continue. It's so easy to fake news these days, and lets say a bot was built to vet authenticity...which bot do you trust, the one made by CNN or breitbart? it just feeds back to the original problem, except a bot doing it would just increase the volume of bias news stories that are "vetted" by their version of the truth.
The worst part is, this problem will only continue. It's so easy to fake news these days, and lets say a bot was built to vet authenticity...which bot do you trust, the one made by CNN or breitbart? it just feeds back to the original problem, except a bot doing it would just increase the volume of bias news stories that are "vetted" by their version of the truth.
Considering that the user base of HN can't even agree on what is and isn't fake news, I'd say your fake news bot is an AI-complete problem.
It's worse than that - people don't care. I've seen people admit that something they post is fake, then say that they'll go on spreading it anyway. Even respectable, well-known members of the tech industry whose names most people here would recognize.
The problem with fake news is not the fake news itself. Fake articles have existed for a long time.
The real problem is people becoming idiots and sharing stuff they want to believe even though they question whether it's fake or not.
The real problem is people becoming idiots and sharing stuff they want to believe even though they question whether it's fake or not.
It's unfortunate that such a literal instance of hashtag activism was based on pure speculation by random people on Twitter. Uber definitely botched the messaging, but they were in a no-win situation.
Their surge pricing algorithm will raise prices in times of low supply and high demand, which a protest coinciding with a taxi strike will definitely hit. I can understand why they would want to announce that they're going to turn off surge pricing, to make it clear they're not trying to profit off of this situation.
In retrospect, they would've been better off not saying anything, and perhaps refunding some portion of the ride price later. By making a public post devoid of context or justification, they invited fired-up commenters to arrive at their own interpretation. Some felt that Uber was trying to break the taxi strike, some felt that Uber was incentivizing protesters to clear the airport quickly (as some have pointed out, rides to JFK were not discounted).
This coupled with impassioned public largely powerless to react against government action, made a private company which has stoked people's frustrations for a while an easy target for hashtag activism. Lyft's marketing was ingenious -- they quickly capitalized on this unexpected development by donating a million dollars to the ACLU -- actions that are commendable on their own, but definitely appealed to large segments of the population.
Their surge pricing algorithm will raise prices in times of low supply and high demand, which a protest coinciding with a taxi strike will definitely hit. I can understand why they would want to announce that they're going to turn off surge pricing, to make it clear they're not trying to profit off of this situation.
In retrospect, they would've been better off not saying anything, and perhaps refunding some portion of the ride price later. By making a public post devoid of context or justification, they invited fired-up commenters to arrive at their own interpretation. Some felt that Uber was trying to break the taxi strike, some felt that Uber was incentivizing protesters to clear the airport quickly (as some have pointed out, rides to JFK were not discounted).
This coupled with impassioned public largely powerless to react against government action, made a private company which has stoked people's frustrations for a while an easy target for hashtag activism. Lyft's marketing was ingenious -- they quickly capitalized on this unexpected development by donating a million dollars to the ACLU -- actions that are commendable on their own, but definitely appealed to large segments of the population.
Yes. And then, Uber's CEO reminded everyone that he wasn't the only one working with the Trump administration, and Musk and others had too, and the dumb Twitter mob started running around accusing him of "snitching", as if that list wasn't already publicly available. It's so preposterous how gullible and hateful mobs are.
I'm no fan of Uber but come on, this is so stupid, and dangerous for Lyft, because now they are stuck into this kind of pandering. Do they really think these customers will be loyal? at the first political blunder, with enough outrage, they are done. They are pandering to a crowd that is never happy with political posturing. They'll learn it the hard way. Uber absolutely did the right thing here. They chose not to play with fire and play the long term game.
In the end, what really differentiates these companies? There aren't many reasons to pick one over the other. Any opportunity that Lyft has to say "Hey! We're different" is good for business.
Seems like Uber didn't really do anything wrong here other than fail on their messaging. Perhaps worth asking why so many people assumed they would be doing the wrong thing though and had little faith in Kalanick's explanations. Flocking to Lyft instead implies people make a distinction between the two in terms of ethics (which Lyft capitalized on) though probably not for any good reasons.
This doesn't seem like a good reason to delete Uber but there have been plenty of those in the past so I don't find myself very sad to see them lose business.
This doesn't seem like a good reason to delete Uber but there have been plenty of those in the past so I don't find myself very sad to see them lose business.
> This doesn't seem like a good reason to delete Uber but there have been plenty of those in the past so I don't find myself very sad to see them lose business.
That's how I felt about the situation. There were plenty of reasons already that I should've deleted Uber. It doesn't really matter if this was the reason to delete Uber, so much as it was a reminder to finally get around to it.
That's how I felt about the situation. There were plenty of reasons already that I should've deleted Uber. It doesn't really matter if this was the reason to delete Uber, so much as it was a reminder to finally get around to it.
This is ridiculous.
There is no reason to punish or berate some person/entity/company for NOT participating in a strike. It would only make sense if the company openly tried to take advantage of the strike or attempted to stop or disturb the strike.
Inaction should not be considered as malice
There is no reason to punish or berate some person/entity/company for NOT participating in a strike. It would only make sense if the company openly tried to take advantage of the strike or attempted to stop or disturb the strike.
Inaction should not be considered as malice
It was the Taxi Worker's Union that participated in the Strike, not Cab companies.
Is it really fare for Uber to force their contractors to stop working and making money in "solidarity" with this union? If Uber drivers wanted to support the strike, they could have stopped doing pick ups.
What do the people flying into the airport have to do with the Muslim ban?
The taxi industry is sickening, they feel no empathy towards the people travelling, then why should I feel any empathy towards them?
If angry taxi drivers want to do protests, there are ways to do it without harming innocent people travelling in. If they resort to such a thing, how can they claim moral high ground?
The taxi industry is sickening, they feel no empathy towards the people travelling, then why should I feel any empathy towards them?
If angry taxi drivers want to do protests, there are ways to do it without harming innocent people travelling in. If they resort to such a thing, how can they claim moral high ground?
Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.
This has always been the logic of the strike as a means of protest - sure, it's unfair, but its also the way labor politics works. And honestly, with a strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more symbolic than a real hardball days-long strike.
This has always been the logic of the strike as a means of protest - sure, it's unfair, but its also the way labor politics works. And honestly, with a strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more symbolic than a real hardball days-long strike.
> This has always been the logic of the strike as a means of protest - sure, it's unfair, but its also the way labor politics works.
Except this has nothing to do with labour politics, the controversial "Muslim ban" had nothing to do with taxi laws. Using a labour union to push a political agenda is basically abuse of power. Imagine if pro-Trump police would start striking...
> And honestly, with a strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more symbolic than a real hardball days-long strike.
If you are visiting the US for the first time, you probably won't know that, and you might not even be able to get off the airport.
They could have had their protest in an area where people would have noticed them and in a way that does not harm innocent bystanders.
> Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.
Any amount of power they have, the state has more of it. The only way they can achieve something is if they get the public on their side.
Except this has nothing to do with labour politics, the controversial "Muslim ban" had nothing to do with taxi laws. Using a labour union to push a political agenda is basically abuse of power. Imagine if pro-Trump police would start striking...
> And honestly, with a strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more symbolic than a real hardball days-long strike.
If you are visiting the US for the first time, you probably won't know that, and you might not even be able to get off the airport.
They could have had their protest in an area where people would have noticed them and in a way that does not harm innocent bystanders.
> Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.
Any amount of power they have, the state has more of it. The only way they can achieve something is if they get the public on their side.
Labor unions and labor movements push political non-labor agendas all the time. For example, general strikes led by labor movements are standard tools of nationalist and anti-colonial independence movements, and Western labor unions have gone on strike to demand better environmental policies.
>> Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.
> Any amount of power they have, the state has more of it. The only way they can achieve something is if they get the public on their side.
This is an argument over tactics, where I believe the left-wing outpouring of support has vindicated the decision to strike. They've drawn attention to their cause, and brought to mind a productive sector of the economy dominated by immigrants (particularly from the Middle East and South Asia). People are often persuaded by the depth of feeling shown by others, and strikes (since they damage your own income) are a good way of proving your dedication in a material way.
>> Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.
> Any amount of power they have, the state has more of it. The only way they can achieve something is if they get the public on their side.
This is an argument over tactics, where I believe the left-wing outpouring of support has vindicated the decision to strike. They've drawn attention to their cause, and brought to mind a productive sector of the economy dominated by immigrants (particularly from the Middle East and South Asia). People are often persuaded by the depth of feeling shown by others, and strikes (since they damage your own income) are a good way of proving your dedication in a material way.
This has nothing to do with "angry taxi drivers". This is about making "the innocent people traveling" feel as stuck as the innocent people affected by Trumps order.
So people visiting the US need to feel the vendetta of the people who don't like Trump's latest policies? Is that the moral high round? Ends justify the means?
So if I'm negatively affected by something happening in the world, I'm allowed to channel my anger on anybody?
So if I'm negatively affected by something happening in the world, I'm allowed to channel my anger on anybody?
[deleted]
"The Taxi Workers Alliance had asked all drivers, Uber included, to not pick up at JFK"
Uber isn't a driver. What does the taxi workers alliance have to say about taxi dispatchers? Did cab companies participate in the strike? For a company to do this might very well be illegal collusion. Individuals can strike, companies aren't as well protected.
Uber isn't a driver. What does the taxi workers alliance have to say about taxi dispatchers? Did cab companies participate in the strike? For a company to do this might very well be illegal collusion. Individuals can strike, companies aren't as well protected.
I'm curious about how taxi drivers are viewed in the US or this specific region. In Turkey, they're mostly hated, because they will go to any length to extort money out of the customers. This ranges from picking longer roads if they detect that the customer doesn't know the area well to asking for 500 euros to even pick them up after terrorist attacks. So, Uber was seen as the savior as their drivers wouldn't try to do any of this and were generally nicer in people's experience (it really doesn't take much to be nicer than a taxi driver here).
In the southwest they're generally someone you'd only hire once or twice around an airport on a vacation. They're around public restrooms for favorability.
That perfectly timed million dollar donation to ACLU was marketing genius. I can't imagine how you go about making a decision like that and quickly pull the trigger in such a fast paced volatile environment.
which is enough reason for me never to use Lyft.
#hasta-la-lyfta-baby (work in progress delete Lyft hashtag).
#hasta-la-lyfta-baby (work in progress delete Lyft hashtag).
Can I ask why donating to the ACLU made you delete your account? It may be a waste of VC money, but they do stand up for civil liberties.
You signed up to ask me that? Maybe you're from Lyft or ACLU?
Today I'm interested in the gritty details of social media manipulation, political marketing and celebrities using their Twitter power to influence customer loyalty.
I was replying to guelo, who suggested the 1 million donation from Lyft was well-timed marketing genius.
I'm surprised so many people think that money is the answer to everything. Money and hashtags. The more money ACLU gets the more they can apparently fix all these nasty issues.
I'm fatigued by the moral high-ground of social media megaphone hissy fits. Viral wisdom for all to follow or else suffer more hashtags.
What happened to the business model of simply providing a good reliable service? Investing time and energy into consistency, reliability and the primary business mission? Instead we have companies setting up whiteboards, mapping out the risks vs rewards of viral stunts relating to issues completely removed from their purpose.
I don't like hearing that Susan Serandon tweets "delete Uber" and the media picks it up and it goes viral. Not cool. Uber didn't deserve that attack, nor its drivers.
Today I'm interested in the gritty details of social media manipulation, political marketing and celebrities using their Twitter power to influence customer loyalty.
I was replying to guelo, who suggested the 1 million donation from Lyft was well-timed marketing genius.
I'm surprised so many people think that money is the answer to everything. Money and hashtags. The more money ACLU gets the more they can apparently fix all these nasty issues.
I'm fatigued by the moral high-ground of social media megaphone hissy fits. Viral wisdom for all to follow or else suffer more hashtags.
What happened to the business model of simply providing a good reliable service? Investing time and energy into consistency, reliability and the primary business mission? Instead we have companies setting up whiteboards, mapping out the risks vs rewards of viral stunts relating to issues completely removed from their purpose.
I don't like hearing that Susan Serandon tweets "delete Uber" and the media picks it up and it goes viral. Not cool. Uber didn't deserve that attack, nor its drivers.
these types of events usually blow over in a month or so. but it does confirm what everyone already knows: ride hailing apps have no stickiness. at the end of the day no one cares what service provides the car.
Can someone please help me understand why traditional taxis haven't adapted the same tech as Lyft and Uber? You're right, there really is no moat. Tech is mostly a big ol database. Is it due to disjointure among small companies?
There's a startup called Flywheel that has been selling shovels to taxi cab companies -- in the form of electronic dispatch, payments, navigation and GPS-based metering.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/flywheel-expands-uber-like...
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/flywheel-expands-uber-like...
And it works fine. I've been using Flywheel since 2013. Their software started out rough, but now it's solid. It may be a bit more expensive, but the average driver I get has been driving in SF more than a decade, so they're knowledgeable and competent. Plus I know they're insured and properly regulated.
They have in a lot of markets, like Denmark and Spain.
Taxi companies are not these monolithic nimble entities, and have multiple parties involved with any transaction - actual driver (independent contractor "renting" the vehicle"), medallion owner, vehicle owner, dispatch service. None have a very strong incentive to differentiate or enough financial resources to break from the pack.
Taxi companies are not these monolithic nimble entities, and have multiple parties involved with any transaction - actual driver (independent contractor "renting" the vehicle"), medallion owner, vehicle owner, dispatch service. None have a very strong incentive to differentiate or enough financial resources to break from the pack.
Yellow Cab San Francisco has the YoTaxi app. (I heard about it during one of the few recent times that I took a cab instead of Uber/Lyft since my phone was dead and they advertised it on the back of the passenger seat)
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yotaxi/id1046974371?mt=8
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yotaxi/id1046974371?mt=8
there are apps for this. but as a taxi you are subject to fixed prices and regulation. uber and left can undercut them thanks to our glorious fake world of VC money. you don't see taxi drivers handing out free $25 for first time riders
People will care if and when Uber figures out autonomous taxis and can continue their ridiculously low prices without losses.
Probably not even then. Plenty of companies are in the automated-vehicle race. A number of which are a) profitable, and b) worth more than Uber. Some of them also manufacture cars and have decades of vehicle experience to draw on.
Uber made a grab for dominance based mainly on brand (plus massive subsidies). Foolfoolz is right; this suggests that the market just isn't particularly sticky. Brand isn't enough.
Uber made a grab for dominance based mainly on brand (plus massive subsidies). Foolfoolz is right; this suggests that the market just isn't particularly sticky. Brand isn't enough.
At which point that tech too will be a commodity, unless you see Uber having some edge in autonomous cars, and why would they?
[deleted]
Thiel is a big investor, Icahn is a big investor. Both are closely tied to the Trump administration.
This.
Ichaan, a Trump supporter from the first day of candidacy, has a $100mm stake in Lyft... Not sure what Theil's numbers are.
If this election has taught me anything it's that people unfortunately think with their hearts to the point of being almost braindead.
Reminds me of how Whole Foods was founded by an Ayn Rand loving libertarian, but somehow people think their money goes to a hippy-dippy left leaning institution every time they shop.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a libertarian... just making a point about perception.
Ichaan, a Trump supporter from the first day of candidacy, has a $100mm stake in Lyft... Not sure what Theil's numbers are.
If this election has taught me anything it's that people unfortunately think with their hearts to the point of being almost braindead.
Reminds me of how Whole Foods was founded by an Ayn Rand loving libertarian, but somehow people think their money goes to a hippy-dippy left leaning institution every time they shop.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a libertarian... just making a point about perception.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I think this phenomenon is to be expected.
I don't know any more about the founder of Whole Foods than I do about the founder of Target, nor is it really relevant to me as a consumer. All the vast majority of people have to form an opinion on their image is the companies themselves and their experiences with them. So, we do.
I don't know any more about the founder of Whole Foods than I do about the founder of Target, nor is it really relevant to me as a consumer. All the vast majority of people have to form an opinion on their image is the companies themselves and their experiences with them. So, we do.
Why protest an issue that affects innocent people by creating another issue that affects innocent people? This is not persuasive and only leads to further disagreement against the actual movement. Creating more friction is not the way to motivate change.
Immigration/border officials going on strike and refusing to follow the ban order would be much more effective.
Immigration/border officials going on strike and refusing to follow the ban order would be much more effective.
It will be most interesting to see whether Kalanick follows through with his promise to discuss the EO with Trump [0], and whether having a seat at Trump's shiny business table actually amounts to anything. If it does not, it proves that the council only serves as a prop to promote Trump. This administration is not beyond using cheap props for marketing purposes. [1]
If the council holds no actual sway, Kalanick should then visibly and publicly resign from it if he truly stands behind his commitment to fairness. I'm withholding judgement until then.
0. http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-will...
1. http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/201...
If the council holds no actual sway, Kalanick should then visibly and publicly resign from it if he truly stands behind his commitment to fairness. I'm withholding judgement until then.
0. http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-will...
1. http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/201...
As an avid fan of Uber, I'm waiting for Kalanick's update this weekend. I'm hoping for at least a matching $1m donation to ACLU before using Uber again.
I finally took the plunge and installed Via, which some friends swear by and is more literally "ride-sharing" than either Uber or Lyft. Was pleasantly surprised to get an email a day later announcing free legal aid for drivers and passengers affected by the ban.
Useless in Queens and most of Brooklyn, unfortunately, but served in my little slice.
Useless in Queens and most of Brooklyn, unfortunately, but served in my little slice.
"The lesson for other companies is clear: no business is going to be able to ride out the Trump years without being held accountable for their actions or inaction."
Note that arguing right or wrong of the action or reaction is not relevant - this is a description of the present mood of your market.
Note that arguing right or wrong of the action or reaction is not relevant - this is a description of the present mood of your market.
It seems clear to me that by not supporting the strike,
Uber avoided choosing sides, which among Tech companies is as if it explicitly came out and supported Trump's executive order.
However, I don't understand how the strike was intended to help the victims, or change policy. A strike is meant to inconvenience a group of decision makers. If a company won't pay fair wages, the the employees stop performing work. Then the company cannot make profit and must find scabs, or give in. If university officials implement unfair or corrupt policies, then students occupy the decision makers' offices.
However, it seems like this strike was meant to inconvenience no one related to the problem. Perhaps someone can comment on what I'm missing.
However, I don't understand how the strike was intended to help the victims, or change policy. A strike is meant to inconvenience a group of decision makers. If a company won't pay fair wages, the the employees stop performing work. Then the company cannot make profit and must find scabs, or give in. If university officials implement unfair or corrupt policies, then students occupy the decision makers' offices.
However, it seems like this strike was meant to inconvenience no one related to the problem. Perhaps someone can comment on what I'm missing.
Uber didn't lose here.
They are getting all kinds of press. There's no real logic in getting rid of the app and those who have tried that have recent phones know that you can't uninstall it - at best you can disable it.
But the reality is that there are many people that need rides and they'll use the app tomorrow just like they did yesterday.
Heinz didn't take a stand. People are still eating ketchup. Why should anyone waste their time or inconvenience their lives picking on Uber?
The only thing this political stunt has done is drawn attention away from the very issue that it was hoping to highlight. It was poorly thought out from the beginning.
They are getting all kinds of press. There's no real logic in getting rid of the app and those who have tried that have recent phones know that you can't uninstall it - at best you can disable it.
But the reality is that there are many people that need rides and they'll use the app tomorrow just like they did yesterday.
Heinz didn't take a stand. People are still eating ketchup. Why should anyone waste their time or inconvenience their lives picking on Uber?
The only thing this political stunt has done is drawn attention away from the very issue that it was hoping to highlight. It was poorly thought out from the beginning.
Twitter's absurd character limit played a part in this
Companies make mistakes all the time that cost them. Uber just made one that will be talked about in hundreds of ways now. Just like Friendster, MySpace, Magnolia, Digg, etc.
It may not be fair, but it happens. Knowing how to make good decisions counts a lot regardless if you are at the top on on the way up.
In in the end, the customers decide what they feel is best.
It may not be fair, but it happens. Knowing how to make good decisions counts a lot regardless if you are at the top on on the way up.
In in the end, the customers decide what they feel is best.
Legal trailblazing costs a lot of money. Attacking entrenched establishments costs a lot of money.
Uber was never going to be able to solve the ridesharing problem for just Uber, and its competitors are going to be unhindered by the massive amount of money Uber has spent on changing regulations.
Uber was never going to be able to solve the ridesharing problem for just Uber, and its competitors are going to be unhindered by the massive amount of money Uber has spent on changing regulations.
I deleted Uber because they changed their app in a way I found distasteful. I can either A: Alow Uber to access my location data even when I'm not using the app. B: Type in the physical address whenever I need a ride. Not cool. I chose to delete the app instead.
[deleted]
Is there a word for when a mass movement rejects a service because of hype, and then comes crawling back looking like a fool later? That is what is happening here. Kind of cringe.
They did the same thing that uber did, yet some how avoided flack
I'm still going to use Uber. Keep up the good work, fellas.
Honestly I'm not sure that uber and lyft could have coordinated a strike in the timeline it sounds like they were given, short of disabling the app or something.
What a petty and pointless distraction. Use Uber or not, I don't care, but claiming that this is a protest thing is just useless feel-good drivel.
[deleted]
How does taxi airport strike help travelers?
For any employee the outcome of a labor dispute and its indirect influence on working conditions in their own industry vastly eclipses the inconvenience of being delayed at an airport for an hour, or a day.
Edit 1: Deleting unnecessary comment.
No, we had a brief experiment without politics on HN, then reverted to the rule since forever, which is that most politics are off-topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
It fluctuates. HN isn't immune to the how politicized the outside world is right now. At the same time, it's our job to make sure politics doesn't dominate the site.
It fluctuates. HN isn't immune to the how politicized the outside world is right now. At the same time, it's our job to make sure politics doesn't dominate the site.
Don't care if I get crucified for saying this, but #DeleteUber is a distraction. It's taking away valuable cycles that could be spent against, you know, that actual fuckers involved in causing this ban.
Can't delete Uber, it's installed as system app.
Seeing Americans be so against strikes is disheartening.
meh.. this will pass like grubhub ceo email episode. outrage ADD is a thing.
In 2009 Obama govt profiled Indian immigrants at NY airports. indians were massively abused and hundreds of them were deported from the airport without proper procedure. I was called a dog by an 'immigration officer'. " we will kick you out like dogs if this doesn't verify" - first sentence when i walked up to him and handed him my passport.
Now all of a sudden everyone cares about immigrants.
In 2009 Obama govt profiled Indian immigrants at NY airports. indians were massively abused and hundreds of them were deported from the airport without proper procedure. I was called a dog by an 'immigration officer'. " we will kick you out like dogs if this doesn't verify" - first sentence when i walked up to him and handed him my passport.
Now all of a sudden everyone cares about immigrants.
Kalanick and Musk are basically the only two remaining adults in SV. Musk basically said on twitter, "I'll go and talk to the guy". Everyone else is more concerned with political correctness and virtue signaling. Hundred thousand bombs dropped into five countries on that list -- not a goddamn peep from anybody. 2150 people killed by drones -- same. Iraqi refugees banned for half a year -- no one has even heard of it. Cuban refugees banned permanently -- okie dokie. But god forbid anyone gets stopped on the border, no sir, we can't have that.
I'm really tired of the "virtue signaling" meme. Yeah, there are some people out there that don't really care about their cause and only want to look good. But really, the vast majority of protesters out there are not in that category. They are alarmed, they know they only have partial information but that's part of what they are alarmed about, they know they don't have a lot of power to do anything other than "call their representatives", and still just want to do something.
Nonviolent protest is an effective tool. There are academic studies done on it [1] and how it is actually more effective than violent protest - it has real efficacy. It's not merely "virtue signaling".
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent...
Nonviolent protest is an effective tool. There are academic studies done on it [1] and how it is actually more effective than violent protest - it has real efficacy. It's not merely "virtue signaling".
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent...
A serious question: do people who leave comments like yours, and the even shorter ones that are literally just the words "virtue signalling", really believe that doing so presents a devastating critique which will convince others of the error of their ways and change their minds? Or is it something you do to demonstrate your affiliation with a particular set of beliefs and positions? Does this phrase have empirical content to you, in that there are theoretically people/positions you could disagree with which you would not use it to describe? Or is it something you will say to/about anyone who you dislike or disagree with, as a way to show that you and they are members of different tribes with different values?
Nah, a serious question wouldn't presuppose a particular answer. I think you've made up your mind long before you asked it.
But I'll oblige anyway. Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it. Their main purpose is similar to that of a Facebook "like", to communicate adherence to a shared set of beliefs, not to change anything per se. Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being. These days you have to constantly and proactively reaffirm your adherence to the latest groupthink.
This is further exacerbated by a rather severe level of hypocrisy demonstrated by those within the currently active protest group. When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation. Why? Because that wouldn't signal virtue to the socio-political group in question.
People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.
But I'll oblige anyway. Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it. Their main purpose is similar to that of a Facebook "like", to communicate adherence to a shared set of beliefs, not to change anything per se. Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being. These days you have to constantly and proactively reaffirm your adherence to the latest groupthink.
This is further exacerbated by a rather severe level of hypocrisy demonstrated by those within the currently active protest group. When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation. Why? Because that wouldn't signal virtue to the socio-political group in question.
People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.
One thing I don't understand is why America seems to have developed a sense of us vs them within their own country. Like "coastal elites", wtf?
Your biggest and most populous and useful cities are on the coast, they are also where all the immigrants are.
It's almost as if one group of people, that has no clue about anything to do with immigration are saying they are massively against it, whilst those that live with the immigrants don't have an issue with it.
America you need to sort that shit out, people that have no business caring about immigration shouldn't have a say on it. They definitely shouldn't be able to out-vote the population of your coastal cities which seems to be your only chance of relevance this century.
America you need to sort that shit out, people that have no business caring about immigration shouldn't have a say on it. They definitely shouldn't be able to out-vote the population of your coastal cities which seems to be your only chance of relevance this century.
It's always been with us, since independence.
One of the most important and difficult debates during the drafting of our Constitution was whether representation in the national government should be equal for all states, or proportional based on their populations. The makeup of our Congress (one house where every state is equal, one where they're proportionally represented), and the manner of electing the President are compromises introduced in the 1780s to assuage fears from smaller states that larger, more populous states would be able to tyrannize them.
There are also historical roots here in slavery: many southern states actually had large populations, but only when slaves were counted as part of the population. So those states wanted slaves to count at least partially, even though slaves were of course not allowed to vote (which is how we get the infamous compromise where a slave was counted as 3/5 of a person for proportional-representation purposes).
And the economies of the northern and southern states diverged very early on; northern states' economies were based more on trade and manufacture, southern states on agriculture and resource extraction (supported by slave labor until slavery was abolished, then by things which emulated slavery as closely as was legal, like exploitative sharecropping and debt slavery).
This naturally leads to a divide and a conflict of lifestyles and values, wherein there are basically two countries existing within the same set of borders. One of those countries has always had a larger (free) population and always been more urban, dense and globally connected. The other has always had a smaller (free) population and always been more rural, sparse and isolationist. The southern and now midwestern rural/sparse/isolationist faction has also consistently used the compromises of the 1780s to their advantage, since they are represented and wield power in the national government disproportionate to their percentage of the population, and can at times effectively reverse the original fear and tyrannize the majority northern and coastal urban/dense/globalist faction.
But so long as the Constitution of the United States continues to be based on those two-hundred-year-old compromises, this tension will continue to exist.
One of the most important and difficult debates during the drafting of our Constitution was whether representation in the national government should be equal for all states, or proportional based on their populations. The makeup of our Congress (one house where every state is equal, one where they're proportionally represented), and the manner of electing the President are compromises introduced in the 1780s to assuage fears from smaller states that larger, more populous states would be able to tyrannize them.
There are also historical roots here in slavery: many southern states actually had large populations, but only when slaves were counted as part of the population. So those states wanted slaves to count at least partially, even though slaves were of course not allowed to vote (which is how we get the infamous compromise where a slave was counted as 3/5 of a person for proportional-representation purposes).
And the economies of the northern and southern states diverged very early on; northern states' economies were based more on trade and manufacture, southern states on agriculture and resource extraction (supported by slave labor until slavery was abolished, then by things which emulated slavery as closely as was legal, like exploitative sharecropping and debt slavery).
This naturally leads to a divide and a conflict of lifestyles and values, wherein there are basically two countries existing within the same set of borders. One of those countries has always had a larger (free) population and always been more urban, dense and globally connected. The other has always had a smaller (free) population and always been more rural, sparse and isolationist. The southern and now midwestern rural/sparse/isolationist faction has also consistently used the compromises of the 1780s to their advantage, since they are represented and wield power in the national government disproportionate to their percentage of the population, and can at times effectively reverse the original fear and tyrannize the majority northern and coastal urban/dense/globalist faction.
But so long as the Constitution of the United States continues to be based on those two-hundred-year-old compromises, this tension will continue to exist.
[deleted]
Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social group, not outside it.
Why is this a bad thing? Are you allowing for the possibility that it's easier to eventually sway outsiders if one first builds momentum with a significant group of like-minded people? Isn't it in fact very common to start by getting like-minded people to agree on a shared platform of ideas and actions, and then move toward convincing outsiders of the correctness of that shared platform?
Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being.
"Coastal elites" is a term lacking empirical content. However, the majority of Americans who voted did not vote for Donald Trump, and there is no evidence to support your assertion that a majority of Americans in general are in favor of the immigration order; if by "coastal elites" you mean "people of generally socially-liberal political leanings who live in major urban areas", you are in fact contradicting yourself since evidence suggests such people are the majority of Americans. You are hopefully aware that the American electoral system is designed to disproportionately represent minority populations, which is why the popular-vote winner did not get elected President.
When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation.
I have yet to see an assertion of "same or worse things" being presented which A) holds up to scrutiny of the "same or worse" assertion and B) was not protested/condemned. For example, many socially-liberal people expressed condemnation of Obama's immigration and foreign policy stances, expressing regret because they hoped he would break from socially-conservative approaches. Do you ignore this fact?
People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.
If "people on the right" "don't seem to care much about protests", what is the Tea Party and its large rallies? What is the NRA and its mobilization of people? Why are there so many protests at Planned Parenthood locations, to the extent that those locations routinely need to implement strict security policies to ensure safe access to facilities?
Additionally, are all of those groups just "virtue signalling"? Do you equally condemn them, or do you only bring out such comments when a group you disagree with is protesting?
In other words: do you have a coherent position here, or are you simply engaging in the very practices you condemn?
Why is this a bad thing? Are you allowing for the possibility that it's easier to eventually sway outsiders if one first builds momentum with a significant group of like-minded people? Isn't it in fact very common to start by getting like-minded people to agree on a shared platform of ideas and actions, and then move toward convincing outsiders of the correctness of that shared platform?
Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being.
"Coastal elites" is a term lacking empirical content. However, the majority of Americans who voted did not vote for Donald Trump, and there is no evidence to support your assertion that a majority of Americans in general are in favor of the immigration order; if by "coastal elites" you mean "people of generally socially-liberal political leanings who live in major urban areas", you are in fact contradicting yourself since evidence suggests such people are the majority of Americans. You are hopefully aware that the American electoral system is designed to disproportionately represent minority populations, which is why the popular-vote winner did not get elected President.
When "their" people do the same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation.
I have yet to see an assertion of "same or worse things" being presented which A) holds up to scrutiny of the "same or worse" assertion and B) was not protested/condemned. For example, many socially-liberal people expressed condemnation of Obama's immigration and foreign policy stances, expressing regret because they hoped he would break from socially-conservative approaches. Do you ignore this fact?
People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.
If "people on the right" "don't seem to care much about protests", what is the Tea Party and its large rallies? What is the NRA and its mobilization of people? Why are there so many protests at Planned Parenthood locations, to the extent that those locations routinely need to implement strict security policies to ensure safe access to facilities?
Additionally, are all of those groups just "virtue signalling"? Do you equally condemn them, or do you only bring out such comments when a group you disagree with is protesting?
In other words: do you have a coherent position here, or are you simply engaging in the very practices you condemn?
Not the poster this comment was in reply to, but I feel they made a fair explanation that you simply chose not to consider; perhaps because of how they phrased it? Allow me to rephrase.
The trend this thread is related to (Lyft downloads surge because of #deleteUber) is a blatant hypocrisy. Neither company complied with the taxi boycott, and Uber only removed surge pricing after the strike was scheduled to end.
This leads more pragmatic bystanders to believe that the people involved in this trend aren’t earnestly invested in finding a rational solution. They just want to hop aboard the first petty public trend that superficially signals that they’re backing some side of a divisive debate; even when that bandwagon trend may ultimately turn out to be counterproductive to their professed ideals and objectives!
This is not a problem for one side of the aisle or the other, but both. That tribal group-think is the EXACT same problem that led to a Trump presidency to begin with.
So the only way to move forward in any meaningful sense is to stop this childish nonsense. That means calling a spade a spade (or virtue signaling) when it comes along, and not wasting time/effort with those who are only interested in self-aggrandizing (you, per your comments).
The trend this thread is related to (Lyft downloads surge because of #deleteUber) is a blatant hypocrisy. Neither company complied with the taxi boycott, and Uber only removed surge pricing after the strike was scheduled to end.
This leads more pragmatic bystanders to believe that the people involved in this trend aren’t earnestly invested in finding a rational solution. They just want to hop aboard the first petty public trend that superficially signals that they’re backing some side of a divisive debate; even when that bandwagon trend may ultimately turn out to be counterproductive to their professed ideals and objectives!
This is not a problem for one side of the aisle or the other, but both. That tribal group-think is the EXACT same problem that led to a Trump presidency to begin with.
So the only way to move forward in any meaningful sense is to stop this childish nonsense. That means calling a spade a spade (or virtue signaling) when it comes along, and not wasting time/effort with those who are only interested in self-aggrandizing (you, per your comments).
Your suggestion is impossible, because "virtue signalling" is now a thought-terminating cliché for the right. But I wish you luck in trying to negotiate and compromise and find common ground -- the past eight years demonstrated that you should be prepared to wait for the heat death of the universe before it happens.
>> Why is it a bad thing?
Because it achieves NOTHING. If the goal is to help those affected, the ONLY way to do that is by engaging with the administration. The only way you can engage with this particular administration is by not shitting all over it no matter what it does. This is what Musk is attempting to do. What the protesters are doing is ACTIVELY HARMFUL to that goal, because it makes softening of the restrictions politically unfeasible.
On the other hand if the goal is to show each other how "progressive" you are, sure, go ahead and block the airports, burn effigies, beat and torture Trump supporters, etc. But don't act all surprised when this leads to nothing of consequence.
Because it achieves NOTHING. If the goal is to help those affected, the ONLY way to do that is by engaging with the administration. The only way you can engage with this particular administration is by not shitting all over it no matter what it does. This is what Musk is attempting to do. What the protesters are doing is ACTIVELY HARMFUL to that goal, because it makes softening of the restrictions politically unfeasible.
On the other hand if the goal is to show each other how "progressive" you are, sure, go ahead and block the airports, burn effigies, beat and torture Trump supporters, etc. But don't act all surprised when this leads to nothing of consequence.
The only way you can engage with this particular administration is by not shitting all over it no matter what it does. This is what Musk is attempting to do. What the protesters are doing is ACTIVELY HARMFUL to that goal, because it makes softening of the restrictions politically unfeasible.
Ask Obama how well "engaging" with Republicans worked over his two terms. Anyone who shows up expecting Republicans to negotiate and compromise and work together in good faith is going to be waiting an extremely long time for them to do it.
Absolute hard-line "say no to everything and slander them for even proposing it" politics dominated the past eight years and seem to have been incredibly successful for Republicans. Why not adopt a winning playbook?
Ask Obama how well "engaging" with Republicans worked over his two terms. Anyone who shows up expecting Republicans to negotiate and compromise and work together in good faith is going to be waiting an extremely long time for them to do it.
Absolute hard-line "say no to everything and slander them for even proposing it" politics dominated the past eight years and seem to have been incredibly successful for Republicans. Why not adopt a winning playbook?
Tim Cook also said that it is better to have a seat at the table than the alternative.
Some of the celebrities who've been using those bombed Syrians to attack Trump did speak up before - in support of the bombing. J. K. Rowling, in particular, was quite vocal in insisting that anyone who claimed that politicians who supported to bomb them were morally in the wrong or that voters should hold those who did responsible was supporting evil misogynistic harassment because someone might take such language as justification to harass MPs, some of whom were women.
Don't forget wiretapping the whole world - - a move that would have made your every dictator jealous. You, Americans, really are crazy sometimes. And you voted for him twice.
A lot of people love Obama because of his personality, not because of his policies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168950/Rudy-Giulian...
No, they are protecting their interests even in the face of discrimination. And guess what, those bombs are continuing to be dropped and Trump wants more bombs dropped.
http://time.com/4644036/donald-trump-russia-syria-joint-stri...
No, they are protecting their interests even in the face of discrimination. And guess what, those bombs are continuing to be dropped and Trump wants more bombs dropped.
http://time.com/4644036/donald-trump-russia-syria-joint-stri...
>Cuban refugees banned permanently -- okie dokie.
That's not what Obama did [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/americas/cuba-obama...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/americas/cuba-obama...
I'm willing to cut Musk a lot more slack because, through SpaceX, he's uniquely dependent on good relationships with the government.
It's hard to understand what Musk thinks here. He believes he can influence or correct Trump's policies ?
weird.
weird.
Has there been any case in recent history (20 years) in which a president has changed anything of any consequence due to mass protest?
Musk is on the _advisory board_. It could be that this advisory board is a farce, or it could be that Trump would actually listen to a fellow "billionaire playboy philanthropist".
One thing is pretty clear to me: Trump is not going to give a shit about either the liberal press (or in fact press in general), or liberal intelligentsia protesting in the street, especially if both demonize and disparage him no matter what he does, and refuse dialogue.
Musk is on the _advisory board_. It could be that this advisory board is a farce, or it could be that Trump would actually listen to a fellow "billionaire playboy philanthropist".
One thing is pretty clear to me: Trump is not going to give a shit about either the liberal press (or in fact press in general), or liberal intelligentsia protesting in the street, especially if both demonize and disparage him no matter what he does, and refuse dialogue.
I agree with all you wrote. Hence the confusion. The only thing that might be a lever to control Trump is Musk global fame as an US visionary in Space and Cars, plus the Gigafactory (which is very much Trump-ish in gigantism) with its US jobs feel.
Other than that ..
Other than that ..
Trump is 70 years old and he's currently the most powerful man in the world. He won't be "controlled" by anyone. But he likely will listen to the advice of people he respects.
Nah man I think he is not. He cannot flip the U.S into a farce like that. The amount of absurdly ridiculous news all over is devaluing the whole nation at light speed. I don't think he will last. I hope not.
----
He just fired a justice head for disagreeing. Apparently his assistant is showing tweets at press conferences..
This is unreal, I have no words.
----
He just fired a justice head for disagreeing. Apparently his assistant is showing tweets at press conferences..
This is unreal, I have no words.
What's so "unreal" about firing an Obama appointee for blatant insubordination? Obama fired all of Dubya's people too, a Bush fired all of Clinton's people likewise. She was just keeping the chair warm for Sessions anyway.
This is what's baffling to me. _Everything_ Trump does is interpreted in the most bizarre and paranoid way possible.
I eagerly await the H1B order later this week. Once it is signed, HN will all of a sudden proclaim its unending love for H1B abuse in a paroxysm of cognitive dissonance.
This is what's baffling to me. _Everything_ Trump does is interpreted in the most bizarre and paranoid way possible.
I eagerly await the H1B order later this week. Once it is signed, HN will all of a sudden proclaim its unending love for H1B abuse in a paroxysm of cognitive dissonance.
She's a an ex head of Justice, you don't act like that with people who were in charge of your country's pillar. She is knowledgeable, and competent; even if it's 80% defiance, you know she's not the average rebel.
Trump just acts like a child removing everything that gets in its way just because he can.
I agree with you that he's seen through a biased lens, because he smells like tragedy. His past and now present actions and ideas are mostly void. Now people question the reason he didn't ban all muslim countries because he has business interests there (to be proven though).
He has no regards, no diplomacy, no sense of balance. Lots of people say he's a 5yo, I tend to agree.
Trump just acts like a child removing everything that gets in its way just because he can.
I agree with you that he's seen through a biased lens, because he smells like tragedy. His past and now present actions and ideas are mostly void. Now people question the reason he didn't ban all muslim countries because he has business interests there (to be proven though).
He has no regards, no diplomacy, no sense of balance. Lots of people say he's a 5yo, I tend to agree.
Doesn't matter who she is. She's not a judge and DOJ is not a part of the judicial branch. Only a judge can stay or overrule an EO. She was way out of line, by a mile, and she got fired for it.
Funny as well that when Obama unceremoniously fired James Mattis without even bothering to communicate his decision why, no eyebrows were raised and he wasn't called a 5yo. Mattis's fault? He didn't want us to bomb Iran.
Funny as well that when Obama unceremoniously fired James Mattis without even bothering to communicate his decision why, no eyebrows were raised and he wasn't called a 5yo. Mattis's fault? He didn't want us to bomb Iran.
You're right, it's pretty similar, I didn't hear about it until now http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/01/18/the-obama-administration...
Obama's public persona makes the difference in my eyes, he was a more respectful person all along, making weird decisions less problematic in a way. You might say it's irrelevant though.
Obama's public persona makes the difference in my eyes, he was a more respectful person all along, making weird decisions less problematic in a way. You might say it's irrelevant though.
It's not just irrelevant, it's detrimental. The US should conduct itself from a position of power, not preemptively apologize for hurting other governments' feelings like Obama did. You do not bow to any king. You insist on exiting your plane to whatever exit you want, not through the fucking back door like Obama had to do in China. You demand respect. You demand red carpet and honor guard. You make sure to communicate unambiguously that you will not be manipulated by what's "politically correct", and you can only be swayed by the cold, hard facts of the situation, and your country's interest. You make others pay their fair share. You undo obviously bad trade deals. You negotiate good (or at least better) deals. Basically all of these things is what Obama failed to deliver.
_Everything_ Trump does is interpreted in the most bizarre and paranoid way possible.
Unfortunately that's how politics works in the US. It's not about arguing your position and attempting to convince people. It's about scoring "political points" which means casting your opponent in the worst possible light, even if that means twisting the trust or being hypocritical.
Unfortunately that's how politics works in the US. It's not about arguing your position and attempting to convince people. It's about scoring "political points" which means casting your opponent in the worst possible light, even if that means twisting the trust or being hypocritical.
Not An American, but so far Trump is giving the image of someone who can get things done and tackle difficult problems with practical solutions. I don't really understand the hysteria.
I share this sentiment, partially, I said elsewhere that he might be a "coherent force" whether you agree with his decision, it can put some movement back into the system and make others move to.
That said, every morning I wake up reading the darndest thing about him and I forget my previous paragraph.
That said, every morning I wake up reading the darndest thing about him and I forget my previous paragraph.
As we all debate about this on Peter Thiel backed YC Hacker News.
Hacker News (February 19, 2007) predates Thiel's involvement in YC (Mar 10, 2015) by quite a few years, no?
Peter Thiel is a part-time partner of YC. "Peter-Thiel backed YC" is putting it a little strongly.
https://blog.ycombinator.com/welcome-peter/
https://blog.ycombinator.com/welcome-peter/
So what? I'm sure many people here support Thiel. No strikes when Obama wiretapped the whole world and was in bed with the whole tech community at the same time.
Strikes should not be a feature of free societies. What do we achieve by striking and making it hard for normal Americans to go abut their lives ? Trump and his officials probably laugh at you from their taxpayer funded jets.
An Uber or Lyft driver is poor than me and I do not want him to earn less because I want to engage in virtue signaling. I would suggest putting up donation boxes and raising more money to donate it to ACLU and other organizations instead of disrupting normal life.
An Uber or Lyft driver is poor than me and I do not want him to earn less because I want to engage in virtue signaling. I would suggest putting up donation boxes and raising more money to donate it to ACLU and other organizations instead of disrupting normal life.
Strikes should not be a feature of free societies.
Choosing not to work for whatever reason is a feature of a free society, I should think. If one wants to publicly declare the reason, that's exercising another important freedom.
Strikers understand that it's going to be an inconvenience of some sort: that's part of the way it attracts attention. They're also willing to pay the price for their actions. They understand that some will not look upon what they're doing favorably, and there may be repercussions.
Your suggestions regarding donation boxes are also very worthwhile. Some issues are important enough to warrant inconveniencing others.
Choosing not to work for whatever reason is a feature of a free society, I should think. If one wants to publicly declare the reason, that's exercising another important freedom.
Strikers understand that it's going to be an inconvenience of some sort: that's part of the way it attracts attention. They're also willing to pay the price for their actions. They understand that some will not look upon what they're doing favorably, and there may be repercussions.
Your suggestions regarding donation boxes are also very worthwhile. Some issues are important enough to warrant inconveniencing others.
"Uber has done a lot of questionable things over the years, but its actions this past weekend vis-a-vis Trump's immigration ban weren't among them. An actual timeline from Saturday, which may differ from what you saw on social media:
• 4:20pm ET: CEO Travis Kalanick sent email to employees. It stopped short of explicitly opposing the ban, but did say: (1) The company would identify and compensate affected drivers. (2) Kalanick will raise the issue of how the "ban will impact many innocent people" this Friday during the first meeting of Trump's so-called CEO Council. This email was posted a short time later to Kalanick's public Facebook page.
• 4:55pm ET: NY Taxi Workers union called for a work stoppage at JFK airport from 6pm-7pm. Uber does not suspend its own service, but also does not send out any promotions.
• 7:36pm ET: Uber NYC sends out a tweet, saying that surge pricing to and from JFK has been turned off.
The claim that Uber was trying to 'break the strike' by sending out its surge pricing tweet is belied by the timing (i.e., sent after the strike was set to end). And while it is true that Kalanick has agreed to be on Trump's CEO council, it's also true that execs from both Uber and Lyft have agreed to sit on a new automation council set up by Trump's Department of Transportation. Either a pox on both their houses, or a pox on none.”