[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.

[bogomipz]

How did you come to the conclusion that the Atlantic has fallen on hard times?

An article being a "dud" is highly subjective, even if you yourself haven't found an article to be a worthwhile read does not qualify qualify an article as "clickbait".

There is nothing sensational in the article, it is simply discussing findings in a study.

The Atlantic has actually fared pretty well:

[1] "The Atlantic saw the highest increase in circulation, expanding slightly by 2% in 2015."

http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/news-magazines-fact-she...

This 2016 is the most recent data available.

[cholantesh]

>How did you come to the conclusion that the Atlantic has fallen on hard times?

I haven't. I'm simply pointing out that their venerability doesn't guarantee that everything they put out is of the highest caliber. The bevy of think (or whine) pieces it has published about millennials and safe spaces speaks to that, I feel.

>There is nothing sensational in the article, it is simply discussing findings in a study.

Which is sufficient as a rebuttal to the claim that it is clickbait.

[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.