[EdHominem]

> You need to believe that there is some merit to the government or people's position,

We've seen them invent the fear ("You'll be raped") and spend tax money freaking people out with that idea, as well as the thoroughly useless idea to fingerprint drivers. It's a bad solution to a fake problem.

If taxi-rape really was a problem (as opposed to a statistical anomaly) they'd realize that Uber and Lyft are already an order of magnitude better. (They log so much more!)

> I think you're missing my point about perception. The world runs on perception. When presented with the same facts, even two identical twins may come up with a different conclusion. They each lead different lives.

They both live in the same world, where the same number of people have been abducted and raped. It's ultimately a factual issue.

> and that they might have reason to believe that the public perceive a government background check is more secure than a private one, and would vote accordingly (as they did).

We know why they believe the public thinks this - they spent time and money creating and advertising it.

The public might also think they have an opinion on the brand of police car, or the type of transformers used in their electrical system, etc, but without relevant data their opinions would be meaningless.

If the politicians spent months lying about one company's transformer as being a "kiddy cooker", do you think the discussion would be meaningful?

> The facts about background checks are useful to present on U/L's website or in media, but the only thing that matters to the politician will be public perception.

Right, the only thing that matters to a politician will be their own propaganda and the money they can make from it. Facts are those thing you use to judge actual effectiveness and if we tried that we'd see there isn't a problem to try to fix.

> Whether the fingerprint-based background check is better or not becomes irrelevant at the negotiating table.

Right, it's about the graft. The issues are lies and nonsense; you can't meet in the middle because there is no middle. There's common sense and there's a cash grab and there isn't a way to reconcile those.

When you realize you're being railroaded, the best solution is to not play.

If they stayed the best they could accomplish would be paying some graft for some useless services which would then become standard. (Well, if Austin needs that, so do we!) That'd make their service worse for everyone, everywhere.

> Barney Frank says, (paraphrased) ["I've never seen a politician who didn't decide what to say by seeing what would pay the most."]

They see a potential new tax base and jobs they can claim to have invented. (Fingerprinting drivers and checking that. Both require new workers, etc...) And none of the politicians care about the services offered because they already have limo service. There's no downside for them in ruining it for others.

> I think you have to come to the table with a mindset other than "you're out to get us".

So when they are out to get you, you should be delusional and refuse to admit it?

No, Uber and Lyft did the right thing. They walked away from the scammers.

[studentrob]

> No, Uber and Lyft did the right thing. They walked away from the scammers.

And Fasten is walking in to work with the scammers, which may make U/L irrelevant in 6 months to a year.

I accept your viewpoint. It is different than mine. Personally I don't think operating based on public perception is as bad as you paint it -- it's merely an acceptance that the people do not all perceive facts in the same way, and an acceptance that they can be educated for better or for worse. Which way is better, and which is worse, is subjective.

> If the politicians spent months lying about one company's transformer as being a "kiddy cooker", do you think the discussion would be meaningful?

I do strongly believe in the effectiveness of discourse, regardless of how much the participants have disagreed, leveled accusations, or made war in the preceding period. Leading figures in opposing countries can and do meet to find common objectives, even during or immediately after wartime. There are many examples of this in history. A PR squabble over taxi regulations is nothing compared to making up after a world war. Japan's economy, for example, had a great recovery following WW II without further conflict, largely thanks to good diplomacy after the war.

> When you realize you're being railroaded, the best solution is to not play.

Isolation is an absolute. Perhaps U/L need a break from dealing with Austin. There is a saying, only a sith deals in absolutes. I expect U/L will come back to the discussion table.

> If they stayed the best they could accomplish would be paying some graft for some useless services which would then become standard. (Well, if Austin needs that, so do we!) That'd make their service worse for everyone, everywhere.

Other ride sharing services like Fasten have filled the gap. Perhaps this is a temporary pill to be swallowed by the tech companies. Fasten is ahead of Uber in Austin because it is putting faith in building a relationship with Austin first. Later, with the good relationship in place, Fasten can still work on lifting the fingerprint requirement. This may hurt U/L, and U/L may wish businesses like Fasten did not exist. Wishing doesn't make them go away. They need to play the cards that are dealt.

> So when they are out to get you, you should be delusional and refuse to admit it?

No, I think in that case you can acknowledge that this is what's happening and still seek some common objective. If the politician truly is better than you at pulling the wool over the public's eyes, welcome to the real world, where you have to deal with people you don't like. Scorched earth politics are no fun. Despite that, you can still find common ground. All you have to do is be aware of the situation as you've described and work from there.

I notice you didn't comment on any of the videos I linked. I found [3] particularly instructive.

Anyway, I don't think either of us has been able to convince the other, so, I suggest we agree to disagree. Thanks again for the chat!

[EdHominem]

> I notice you didn't comment on any of the videos I linked.

They didn't address the point in question. I never denied that politicians follow the crowd.

In this case they're guilty of leading the crowd first.

> I do strongly believe in the effectiveness of discourse, regardless of how much the participants have disagreed, leveled accusations, or made war in the preceding period.

There's a ton of value for the dishonest person. Literally any settling you do is payout for them. But is there any value in it for the honest person?

You're still presenting this as if the Austin politicians actually think background checks will stop rape, or that there's a rape problem to begin with.

> Leading figures in opposing countries can and do meet to find common objectives, even during or immediately after wartime.

Sure, but there they've presumably got real metrics (people dying). And they can't just walk away.

> A PR squabble over taxi regulations is nothing compared to making up after a world war.

Right, this squabble is literally over a lie to make people buy unneeded services. It's nothing like a real issue such as an armistice.

> And Fasten is walking in to work with the scammers, which may make U/L irrelevant in 6 months to a year.

Not to the residents who are denied the better service, and who are forced to pay more for worthless measures.

> Fasten is ahead of Uber in Austin because it is putting faith in building a relationship with Austin first. Later, with the good relationship in place, Fasten can still work on lifting the fingerprint requirement.

You don't honestly believe that. A requirement to pay for city services is never going to go away. Especially because it wasn't enacted with metrics in mind so there's no way to prove that it's not helping anything.

Meanwhile, Austin residents suffer stupid, demeaning, and expensive requirements for them to get work.

> No, I think in that case you can acknowledge that this is what's happening and still seek some common objective. If the politician truly is better than you at pulling the wool over the public's eyes, welcome to the real world, where you have to deal with people you don't like.

That they left shows that you don't have to. Now the only people who are stuck dealing with the politicians are the residents.

> Scorched earth politics are no fun.

Except when you're a politician and have nothing to lose. Then they're par for the course. Their favorite super-weapon, the ban-hammer.

But that's a total mischaracterization on your part. Uber and Lyft simply walked away from a crazy market. You're trying to make it seem like they burned the town down on their way out.

> There is a saying, only a sith deals in absolutes.

Ahh yes, because only Hitler doesn't like being railroaded. Astute political observation.

[studentrob]

> There's a ton of value for the dishonest person. Literally any settling you do is payout for them. But is there any value in it for the honest person?

By using the words honest and dishonest you're saying you believe in an objective morality. I already mentioned I don't believe in that.

The politician could be using duplicitous tactics. In a negotiation, it doesn't matter. You can always find somewhere to agree, even if it's just about the simple fact that Austin needs ride sharing. U/L could start over with an open mind, some blank slates, and see how much they can agree to with the city. Maybe invite a 3rd party negotiator. Ultimately, U/L may not agree with the city. At the very least, they'd have made their positions a bit more clear.

> You're still presenting this as if the Austin politicians actually think background checks will stop rape, or that there's a rape problem to begin with.

I do think successful politicians need to be as hard on security as can reasonably be expected on issues like this. It only takes one incident to destroy his or her political career. For example, let's say there's a hole in the road and I tell the city. Then, they don't fix it in a reasonable amount of time. Then, someone gets into an accident. The city is liable. In the case of U/L fingerprint checks, the politician won't be held liable for failure to clamp down on security in a court of law. However, he may be held liable in the court of public opinion. All it takes is one crime committed by a person who would've been filtered by the fingerprint background checks, but wasn't filtered by the private checks.

I'm not sure you appreciate how much people value their security, and how much Americans are willing to press for getting the best care possible. Once someone suggests that fingerprints are the best way to manage security going forward, it's difficult to backtrack and convince the public that's not necessary. Doing so is a risk for the politician, and since people don't like flip flops, once he or she speaks out in support of fingerprint checks, they'd also have difficulty going back on it, so it's full steam ahead until new information comes in.

Negotiation with U/L might help the city official find their way back towards a way to lead people to feel that fingerprint checks aren't necessary. The ball is in U/L's court and it isn't the mayor's job to convince people that he or she was wrong. That's U/L's job, and U/L can get there by making the mayor look good. Just like making your boss look good in the office, the same can be said of businesses and city officials. If U/L isn't willing to go there, it seems Fasten is.

We haven't talked about Fasten much. What do you expect will happen there? Fasten will be unprofitable? Or Austin will become upset with itself before other ride-sharing apps can fill the void left by U/L?

> Sure, but there they've presumably got real metrics (people dying). And they can't just walk away.

China walked away for ~20 years from 1949 to the 1970s. They had pulled back their diplomats from overseas and nobody was allowed in or out. 1 billion people were locked in. A lot of people died. Their heads of state didn't approach anyone. The US approached them, very carefully, because although they didn't want to completely turn their backs on Taiwan, they did want to have economic relations with China. China wanted to have relations with the US too. Neither party was certain where they could find common ground. Through a series of meetings, they found a way to work together, despite China being communist and America being anti-communist. I don't know of any more diametrically opposed ideologies working together than those two, and if they can do it, anyone can.

> Not to the residents who are denied the better service, and who are forced to pay more for worthless measures.

Something is better than nothing, no? The vote happened, and now Austin has Fasten instead of U/L. U/L doesn't seem like an option to riders at the moment.

> A requirement to pay for city services is never going to go away

Maybe you're right. Maybe Fasten disappears and is unsustainable. My guess is, if they were in dire straits, the city would work with them to lower costs, lest the city appear to be pushing away all ride sharing service providers. I'd guess that is 6 months or a year down the road, if ever. Austin could elect a mayor who thinks differently, and, by that time Fasten or someone else may be well established.

Maybe U/L weighed all the risks and decided Austin isn't worth it. But if Fasten is able to sustain for a year under the fingerprint system, I think that gives other cities leverage to push for the same. In the public's eyes it's about security and that's all that counts. Leaving the negotiating table in Austin could backfire on U/L. If I were them I'd rather be involved in setting policy with which the public agrees, and being a part of that discussion rather than being viewed as opposed to the public. Politicians are elected the same way products are sold. It's all about perception. The materials in different Apple watch bands all cost the same. Companies sell products for what people are willing to pay, etc etc.

> But that's a total mischaracterization on your part. Uber and Lyft simply walked away from a crazy market. You're trying to make it seem like they burned the town down on their way out.

I don't mean to say that. I mean to say they have many options in front of them. Stay away, come back, talk more in the media, approach city officials directly and try to build a relationship (legally! ;-) ), or any number of other things. They have many options.

[EdHominem]

> By using the words honest and dishonest you're saying you believe in an objective morality. I already mentioned I don't believe in that.

I'm referring to facts, which you also said you don't believe in.

I agree that there is subjectivity in everything - is it an elephant, or a tree, etc.. But if you think tree and say tiger, you're lying.

> The politician could be using duplicitous tactics. In a negotiation, it doesn't matter.

Uh, yes it does. An upfront person should never negotiate with someone they feel is duplicitous. They'll take every olive branch from and offer you nothing real in return.

> You can always find somewhere to agree

Not with someone playing a game, you won't. They won't give you the time of day unless they can manipulate it.

> even if it's just about the simple fact that Austin needs ride sharing.

Obviously it doesn't. And even if it did, it's not Uber or Lyft's job to provide it if it's not also in their best interests.

> U/L could start over with an open mind, some blank slates, and see how much they can agree to with the city.

They don't at all. There's no middle-ground in the fundamental issues at all.

There's probably a low enough price where it wouldn't be worth arguing, but there's a world full of other cities so that price is pretty low.

> At the very least, they'd have made their positions a bit more clear.

Do you think the problem is that they haven't been understood?

> We haven't talked about Fasten much.

Right, it's almost irrelevant. The issue is the dishonest city driving out businesses that won't pay graft.

> What do you expect will happen there? Fasten will be unprofitable?

Because of this interference? No. They'll pass the costs on to the consumers. Consumers will be paying for worthless security measures designed to mitigate imaginary risks.

Also if they're the consolation prize for having chased Uber away, the city will give them concession after concession to make it appear that they made a good choice.

> But if Fasten is able to sustain for a year under the fingerprint system, I think that gives other cities leverage to push for the same.

And it'll still be worthless when others did it, but yes I imagine they'd be emboldened to try. There's literally no downside for the politicians to try to take everything they can.

That's like saying that if I burned down your factory and got away with it that other business owners would become wary and probably pay protection money. True, but horrid.

> If I were them I'd rather be involved in setting policy with which the public agrees, and being a part of that discussion rather than being viewed as opposed to the public.

Your only carrot is less stick. Talk to us now or talk to us when after a year of being trashed in the media.

It would be a scary threat except that this is the only reception they get.

> Politicians are elected the same way products are sold.

No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

The city is spending taxpayer dollars to lie to the people.

> approach city officials directly and try to build a relationship

Yeah, approach the city officials and, cough cough, build a relationship. "Mr-Mayor Stadium" would go a long way to making anything happen.

> They have many options.

Right, unlike the people of Austin. The ones who paid to be lied to, and paid to be denied market rate service, and (if you believe the rape-epidemic stories) paid to be stuck with the rape-mobiles we call taxis.

[studentrob]

> Do you think the problem is that they haven't been understood?

That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor.

> Also if they're the consolation prize for having chased Uber away, the city will give them concession after concession to make it appear that they made a good choice.

You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

> That's like saying that if I burned down your factory and got away with it that other business owners would become wary and probably pay protection money. True, but horrid.

Yes. I don't know how you perceive the world. In my view, it's mostly good.

> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

There was a vote..

> The city is spending taxpayer dollars to lie to the people.

People make up their own minds. Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information. At the end of the day, people decide for themselves. In America we're lucky to have the freedom to seek out other news sources. As buried as the other side of the story may be, it's better than only being allowed to read one side.

> Yeah, approach the city officials and, cough cough, build a relationship. "Mr-Mayor Stadium" would go a long way to making anything happen.

That's not what I meant. I meant, any negotiation first requires treating the other person like a person. You're a person, I'm a person, we can shake hands and even agree to disagree without even raising voices. We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts, are what drive votes. People interpret facts depending on the context. That's something on which we can agree.

> Right, unlike the people of Austin. The ones who paid to be lied to, and paid to be denied market rate service, and (if you believe the rape-epidemic stories) paid to be stuck with the rape-mobiles we call taxis.

They had a vote. Some voted for U/L, some voted against it. Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way. Politicians told voters they're intelligent enough to vote, and U/L implies that they're not. Who do you think wins that vote, even before it starts, regardless of the facts? Beginning with the intent to offend people, or thinking that you're smarter than they are, wins zero votes.

Again thanks for the discussion! I'm continuing because you seem cool with it. I'm also fine if you want to drop it, as it's been quite a number of responses and I understand if it is getting tiresome. I won't consider it a forfeit, and I respect your opinion.

I'm surprised you had no comments about the negotiations in China in the 70s. That example may not be the best since it depends on your familiarity with history of that time & place. But if anti-communists and communists working together doesn't convince you that anything's possible, I've no idea what will.

Who do you look up to? Who do you admire?

I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is. Even if a cold medicine's ingredients are the same, people are most likely to buy the one whose package says "guaranteed cure!". That's their perception acting when interpreting facts, or, as you might put it, warping facts. Either way the perception is the driving force.

[EdHominem]

> That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor.

It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people.

> You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.

I'm saying the decision is wrong because it's a bad strategy predicated on a mistaken risk analysis used because of lies. That's inefficient and will, almost by definition, be the consolation prize. Something designed as a negotiation with taxi companies who were asked "How much competition do you want?"

>> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

> There was a vote..

On a heavily propagandized and scaremongered issue which make it essentially meaningless as an indicator of the people's true feelings.

> Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information.

No, not really.

And the main issue is that they used the taxpayers own money to advertise and justify the city's side - which was actually mostly lies.

> People make up their own minds.

So no, they really don't. Not when the government itself is selling them messages of rape and terrorism.

> Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way.

That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.

My contention is that the facts are hidden, and worse, are lies from people they should be able to trust.

You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.

> We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.

> You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts

In this context (hah), context means additional facts. Yes, a bullet hole, but also IN a person.

> People interpret facts depending on the context.

And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)

> I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is.

No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.

If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.

> Either way the perception is the driving force.

Yes, and in this case the very experts we elect to help us reason about this are lying to us, intentionally shaping these all-important perceptions. Then they're polling us right after the 10-minute hate and using those results to drive decision by consensus.

It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.