[param]

I skimmed through the article fast, so here is what I gleaned:

1. Donald Trump is bad, Thiel is bad for supporting him.

2. There are problems at Uber

3. ... ?

4. Lets punish ALL shareholders, and YOURSELF, by not using the service.

5. ... ?

If some law has been broken, I would prefer that the guilty person(s) be held accountable. I am not sure why I have to pay more for taxis at this time

[vwcx]

Why do the shareholders deserve to be immune from the company's reputation, however fairly or unfairly this reputation is earned?

[param]

Because that's what shares represent. I 'give you money' to try to add wealth to the economy. If you do anything illegal, you burn. Not me.

Economics and law 101

Edit - just want to clarify - if the company execs do something ILLEGAL, they should go to jail. Shareholders WILL get punished beause shares will get a hit. But how is it fair to start punishing the company overall with consumer activism just because there are allegations of misconduct?

[Xylakant]

Because as a shareholder you own and share part of the well or ill-being of a company. You can pressure the CEO directly since the shareholders control the company. So shareholders can and should set the ethical framework in which the company acts. If that framework doesn't attract business, then that's their loss.

[brown9-2]

But how is it fair to start punishing the company overall with consumer activism just because there are allegations of misconduct?

How is it fair to always assume the best? This is not the first story of Uber's misdeeds.

[param]

Sure, but it could also be confirmation bias. Why is it that there have been so many stories of misdeeds and they still haven't been punished?

In your world, it could be because they are an evil monster, and they bought off the cops and the plaintiff.

In my world, it is possible that none of them were instances of breaking the law and worth going after.

PS: read up on confirmation bias.

[vertex-four]

If shareholders were held accountable in a much more direct way, perhaps they would spend more effort ensuring that the companies they invest in didn't break the law?

[param]

I agree with you. But that's not the world we live in today.

[vertex-four]

It could be. Consumer action affects the company which affects shareholders, so when there's consumer action over what are at the very least unethical practices, shareholders are affected. Both the company and the shareholders get punished - the company for what it's done, and the shareholders for funding the company without a care for its practices.

[param]

Point taken. That's why I am here to sort of point out a counter argument to DHH. He seems to be calling for consumer activism without making a serious case (at least for me) so as to WHY.

There have been allegations of misconduct, fine. Latest there is a sexual harassment claim... Those are VERY attractive to certain class of lawyers. Why not let law take its course? Why do WE, who know nothing of what happened, have to PRE-JUDGE and punish the company upfront?

[mjmsmith]

There's ample evidence of what kind of company Uber is and consumers are under no obligation to give them the benefit of the doubt yet again, even if it does negatively affect selfless attempts to "add wealth to the economy".

[mhluongo]

So you're against boycotts and people voting with their dollars? This is a core part of capitalism. If you don't like something, don't support it.

[param]

Yes, and my original comment was that DHH didn't do a good enough effort to convince me. And I was saying that I won't support it.

[toomanyrichies]

> I am not sure why I have to pay more for taxis at this time

You don't. He's saying "delete Uber", not "delete all ridesharing apps". Find another such app made by a less odious company.

[jressey]

I think the point of the article is to ask yourself: Are you really 'paying more' for not using Uber, or are the rising moral/ethical questions of their operations a greater cost to humanity as a whole (which includes you)?

[zipwitch]

Careful there. If you start really thinking about long-term tradeoffs and the real costs of externalities you might fall into a bottomless pit of despair and rage. (And not just at Uber.)

[chinathrow]

Worldwide, riders pay 41% of the cost of transportation with Uber.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/uber-true-cost-uh...

"Investor reports reveal riders only pay 41 percent of the full cost of each ride, with investors footing the remaining 59 percent."

That is reason enough for me not to use it. It's bankrupting whole industries/families/incomes with VC capital.

[hyperbovine]

But this is exactly why I do use it (or did, until this latest stuff came out) -- if some clueless VC wants to burn their unicorn giving me subsidized rides, I'm more than happy to supply the fuel. And let's be honest: the taxi industry is/was just terrible.

[chinathrow]

No, not all taxi industry is/was just terrible worldwide. That might be the case for some regions or even large countries, but you're oversimplificating things.

[plinkplonk]

So isn't the right move then to keep using Uber, forcing them to absorb a loss with every trip you take, bringing their day of apocalypse nearer with every ride you take? Investor money is not infinite.

[chinathrow]

No - not taking any part within such a setup is what I rather choose. Not as a customer, not as a driver, not as a regular employee.

[plinkplonk]

sure, that is a valid choice. I personally think deleting the app etc is an overreaction, and I intend to continue using Uber till there are comparable alternatives. (I'm not in the USA). If doing so helps deplete their funds, I can live with that.

[hyperbovine]

You know, actually reading the article could go a long way towards filling in those ellipses.

[ipedrazas]

I don't want to jump into cause/effect but perhaps the fact that he didn't read the article and made those comments are somehow related...

[param]

Why don't you tell me, and why don't your respond to my core argument - which is - why don't we let the law take its course?

Why do we need consumer activism all the time? Are you saying the laws are insufficient? Then tell me which specific laws those are.

[hyperbovine]

Your argument has no core. It's a bunch of dots. If you want to participate in the discussion, take five minutes of your ultra-important time and RTFA.

[havetocharge]

The laws ARE frequently insufficient though. We do not live in an ideal world.

[allanmacgregor]

You are 100% right, let me grab my torch and pitchfork; a much better system!

[param]

Again, lets keep subjective opinions out of the picture for a second.

Specifically, In Uber's case, tell me what they did that SHOULD be illegal and we can talk about it.

[vertex-four]

They have allegedly repeatedly discriminated on the basis of sex, and caused a hostile work environment. Both are civil complaints, not criminal - this means that in order to pursue it, Susan J. Fowler would have to find a lawyer willing to take it, and likely pay that lawyer. And all she could get out of it would be money.

If she took it to court, here's what would happen: the company's lawyers would go through all her online communications, track down all her exes, and find anything at all to do with sex or relationships, with the intention of finding something to paint her as an untrustworthy slut. Court cases are public, and a court case against Uber would have significant media interest, so some significant amount of people would hear about this and believe them - to the point of harassing her online. Once the court case is over, she'd have significant trouble finding work, since she's proven herself willing to stand up against her employer.

Alternatively, she could move on with her life and write a blog post about it which'll be forgotten in a few months. Companies are willing to give a little more leeway when all that falls out of it is needing to write up some PR, and you don't get your irrelevant dirty laundry dragged up in public. I know which one I'd do.

[param]

A couple of thoughts come to mind when I read this paragraph:

1. If there is meat in her story, I am sure there are multiple lawyers who will be willing to work for a share of the settlement - i.e. she never pays out of pocket.

2. It seems we have a society where the "plaintiff" is wronged bad enough to go to court, but is wronged enough to complain about it and have society decide and punish on her behalf! Even when society doesn't know enough about the case.

This reminds me of the doctor who shot that lion in africa... society punished him really really bad - he lost patients, lost ability to work, and what not. Later, it turned out he had done everything by the book, and is not slated to be punished/held accountable either in US or zimbabwe. Same thing here... idiots on the internet feel they KNOW uber is wrong, and they are willing to punish the company by #deleteuber, and willing to go on a downvote spree towards people like me on online forums.

What happens if 6 months later it turns out Susan was lying? Will all of you come back to upvote me?

[hyperbovine]

That would open them up to discovery, which all companies -- and Uber in particular, if half of what she says is true -- go to great lengths to avoid. No, Uber's lawyers would dig up whatever dirt they could find, present it to her legal team, a pre-trial settlement would be reached, and none of this would ever see the light of day. I actually find it quite noble what she's done here; she passed up an easy five- or six-figure payday for the opportunity to tell her story.

[havetocharge]

I didn't mean to imply that the company did something illegal. Supporting Trumps of this world isn't, and the CEO's response to harassment allegations was positive.

On the other hand, the legislative system is slow, and the application of law can be subjective. That's why we have civil disobedience and protests.