[fantasticsid]

Yeah, that’s what companies do : look at the stats. And as long as stats say it’s rare enough, it’s not that bad.

People are boycotting not because there’s a higher chance of being murdered/kidnapped with Didi, but that the company was unresponsive, did not have proper procedure/policy for vetting drivers, and took way too long to get even basic info about the suspect driver.

What the stats say here, higher or lower, is moot. Because the issue is that Didi does not give a shit about passenger safety.

[dis-sys]

> Because the issue is that Didi does not give a shit about passenger safety.

Didi intentionally setup the system this way to promote its rideshare as a hook up service for its drivers. When describing the service, its top management made it clear that such a service in which drivers and passengers are locked up in a moving car provides a "sexy scenario" and thus Didi must take the opportunity and try its best to promote such hook up experience.

It is not like Didi doesn't care much about passenger safety, Didi actively puts passenger into danger for its own financial gains and knowingly denied police intervention when its passenger was in danger.

[mirimir]

That is insane. They deserve to go out of business.

I can't imagine that Lyft or Uber could have done something like this. But maybe I'm just too naive.

[nyolfen]

can you link a write-up about this?

[dis-sys]

if you google for the terms "滴滴 sexy" in which "滴滴" is the Chinese name of Didi, you get tons of reports.

[graeme]

I didn't speak clearly enough perhaps. It sounds like Didi could have prevented these murders. So, they should have, both morally and from a self interest perspective.

But when we look from outside in at the significance of this, it's nonetheless worth thinking of it in the context of its scale. That's not to justify anything, but merely to understand.