[yummyfajitas]

No, they didn't play us. They did exactly what they promised. Thanks to Uber, I don't get racially discriminated against on a daily basis. Before Uber I did.

Some folks may hate them because of Susan Fowler, but that doesn't change the fact that they've drastically improved the world for consumers.

[TeMPOraL]

They're still giving us exactly what they promised - promised not by just words, but actions.

Initially, Uber set itself out as the hero of the day, riding on a shining horse to fight the Evil Taxi Mafia. Anyone who looked closely at how they did that could easily predict that what they want to become is the new, but worse, Taxi Mafia. They've been assholes almost from the start, they continue to be assholes now. That so many people only got angry after sexism accusations, of all the things, only makes me sad about the state of humanity.

[yummyfajitas]

How are they a worse taxi mafia? They provide more convenient service with fewer ripoffs and far less racism at lower prices.

As a consumer, what exactly should I be angry about?

[TeMPOraL]

As a homo economicus blindfoldus - nothing. Cheaper and better service here right now? Yay, party time!

As a responsible citizen of a civilized society however, one should be interested in how such a service comes to be, and what it means to people involved and the society at large.

--

BTW. I'm founding a biotech startup now; we provide personalized medication for free, OTC, ordered through our mobile app. We can do that because of our innovative manufacturing model, which involves doing BSL-4 level work with pathogens in our garage. I.e. we're disrupting the corrupt dinosaur regulations to provide a cheaper and better service.

[yummyfajitas]

That's a lot of nice sounding platitudes, but it doesn't really tell me anything concrete beyond "TeMPOraL dislikes Uber".

[TeMPOraL]

You're a HN regular, so you've probably seen pretty much every single Uber misbehaviour over the last few years. I don't think there's more to be added.

[gotothedoctor]

I found that to be true at the beginning. But now, Uber drivers are Lyft drivers are taxi drivers. They all use apps now. And evidence suggests drivers adapted and found new ways to discriminate. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/uber-ly... The only difference now is who is taking how much out of the driver's paycheck--and whether or not that company is paying taxes or just extracting wealth from any given city.

[yummyfajitas]

Read the study cured by the Atlantic. Uber is vastly less racist than traditional taxis.

[gotothedoctor]

I have read the study; there is just no longer a difference. "Traditional" taxis now use apps & drivers now drive for Uber, Lyft and local taxi companies.

[yummyfajitas]

Of course there's a difference.

In a taxi you can rip off a firangi or fail to pick up a black passenger at your leisure. With Uber, this will cause your ratings to drop below 4.3, or your acceptance rate/cancellation rate to drop below/above whatever threshold they use. Then you get kicked off the platform.

Uber is providing the necessary regulation of the system that governments fail to provide.

[gotothedoctor]

Since taxis also operate via apps & the drivers are the same people, this is simply no longer true.

While I'll agree that Uber used to provide a higher quality experience (nicer cars etc), this is no longer the case. The rating system is also broken-eg it now offers too much power to drunk customers. Uber now operates only to benefit itself-not its customers, not the drivers and certainly not the public. Perhaps you'd prefer to be regulated by the whims of a corporation & their pursuit of profit extraction rather than the democratic legitimacy of government, but thankfully, most of us would not. Hence, even if its taken some time for local & national governments to get up to speed, Uber is being banned, taxed, and forced to abide by the public & workplace safety rules every other company must follow.

[yummyfajitas]

Perhaps you'd prefer to be regulated by the whims of a corporation & their pursuit of profit extraction rather than the democratic legitimacy of government, but thankfully, most of us would not.

On the contrary, most of us would prefer this. That's why yellow cabs are losing market share everywhere that men with guns don't take away their right to choose.

[rmxt]

Were you racially discriminated against by your pre-Uber taxis, or were you simply discriminated against because you are rich relative to your peers?

[bogomipz]

Yet there's also been plenty of allegations of racism with Uber as well:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/uber-ly...

[yummyfajitas]

Read the actual study cited by that clickbait article. Racism at Uber is vastly smaller than racism via traditional taxis.

[bogomipz]

>"Racism at Uber is vastly smaller than racism via traditional taxis."

And that makes racism more acceptable?

Also I guess you are not familiar with The Atlantic.

It is a 160 year old institution, it is very well-respected. Past writers include Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Harriet Beacher Stowe. It does not trade in Clickbait.

[snakeboy]

They in no way said it was more acceptable. Just that to the individual, it is more pleasant to have to deal with a company which is less explicitly racist. Certainly there is still room for improvement.

For reference on the logical fallacies used in your comment, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy.

[yummyfajitas]

Yes, a small amount of racism that I don't even notice is far more acceptable than a large amount which inconveniences me daily.

Racism isn't like homeopathy, where any quantity at all has the same effect. More is worse, less is better.

In that study, the median black taxi rider is passed by 2 taxis before being picked up, vs 0 for the median white (see fig A.6). The difference for Uber is not remotely as large.

[cmdrfred]

A lesser quantity of racism is more acceptable than a greater quantity in my opinion.

The rest of your comment is basically the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.

[bogomipz]

Oh the tired old accusation of "that's just a ______ fallacy", the rest of my comment is simply pointing to that fact that the publication is not one whose business model is clickbait a la Buzzfeed. There is no claim of "authority" in that.

[cholantesh]

A venerable institution can fall on hard times and make decisions that reflect poorly on it, but generate revenue. And even in the best of times, a dud can slip through the editorial cracks.

[areyousure]

> It does not trade in Clickbait.

When I just opened up the Atlantic now, it showed me ads -- err, "content" -- from Revcontent, which is some of the worst clickbait on the Internet.