[Phlarp]

You seem really intent on defending Kalanick here so I will only post this as a reply to one of the several similar comments you've made regarding this:

> Travis is right on a technicality they did not lower Uber Black prices much if any. What they did instead was coerced Uber Black drivers to take Uber X request. Yes drivers can reject Uber X request, but if you reject a certain amount of Uber rides, they kick you off their system. Probably why the driver is complaining about going bankrupt, you need a luxury car to drive Uber Black, but if you're stuck picking Uber X fares you'll lose money.

You can't force contractors to take lower fare rides and then still claim the high ground of "we didn't lower your fares to X"

[dkonofalski]

Are you certain that's the case? I was under the impression that, while this is true for the normal classes of Uber, the UberX fares for Uber Black drivers do not count against them if they reject the fare and UberX rides are only offered to them if there is not a current Uber Black fare available in the area.

[pjwal]

That's fair enough and I see that point. My intent is not to defend Kalanick, but I do instinctually defend free markets. I think Uber and its drivers found itself in a situation with falling demand amidst rising competition.

[st3v3r]

"My intent is not to defend Kalanick, but I do instinctually defend free markets."

Even when said "free markets" cause people extreme hardship?

[pjwal]

Is there another system you know in which no one has experienced "extreme hardship?" Are you saying the driver in this article is an example of that?