Well, you are asking about “cool” in the sense of “socially/morally acceptable,” as opposed to “intellectually stimulating.”
That is an interesting distinction, because historically, the hacker ethos has been about the pursuit of the latter at the expense of the former.
For example, phone phreaking. Or the Morris Worm.
Stealing scooters and reselling them is just theft. Hacking a scooter for the pleasure of finding out how they tick, or for fun, is still stealing, but it’s also hacking in the original sense.
That doesn’t justify it, but given that we are arguing this point on a forum named after hackers and which celebrated the hacker ethos in its early days...
I suggest we at least understand and appreciate the second definition of “cool,” even if we aren’t going to let go of recognizing that it doesn’t meet the first definition.
I think the hacker ethos mostly is about intent, not about consequences. Teaching people how locks work and about lock picking, for example, is within the hacker ethos, even though that knowledge can be used for stealing stuff.
Giving people a device they can use to pick locks without having any understanding as to why it works, on the other hand, is not considered part of hacker ethos.
The original hackers typically shared hacks freely. It just happened that, in their circles, people were way more interested in satisfying their curiosity than in money.
How is it cool when these scooter companies steal a public good in terms of space on sidewalks?
I don't recall my town voting on a bill allowing companies to park their fleet on public land free of charge.
If you are making a living by stealing(and yes I equate using public land without a license as the same thing as stealing), then it's pretty hypocritical to complain that others steal from you
I don't personally use these things, but I can understand for some people that try to get by in the city it makes most efficient way to get from A to B. These things take space, but much less of it that cars would take and especially if you had to park the car somewhere. If taking a scooter is the fastest way to get from A to B you might be inclined to leave your car at home or outside city center and use public transport + scooters in the most congested parts of cities.
Now, I think it is beneficial for companies to be allowed to try different things and then regulate once we learn a little bit. Just straight banning companies from using sidewalks would result in us never knowing if this is or is not a viable idea.
Once we learn a little bit we can always regulate it. Companies might for example be forced to chip in to keep sidewalks in order or there could be regulation fining people for leaving stuff outside designated areas.
Draw a comparison: would it be OK to hack / steal cars because they take up space?
I mean sure, scooters being dropped left and right is a problem - something Bird and co need to address, e.g. by fining anyone not leaving their items in designated areas - but transportation needs somewhere to stand. Whether said transportation is owned by a company or an individual is a moot point.
> Draw a comparison: would it be OK to hack / steal cars because they take up space?
You mean like towing cars that are parked illegally? One can not just put a car wherever one likes, renting a spot can cost quite a lot depending on where you live. When I was living in Oslo I didn't have a car but i rented my spot that came with the apartment to the neighbour for $200/month.
Towing a car is not the same as stealing a car. If someone parks illegally you are not suddenly allowed to smash the window and take it for a joy ride. Even simpler, I'm not allowed to tow anyone else's car that has parked illegally.
I don't agree with Bird's practices, but that doesn't give anyone some moral right to steal their scooters.
Even if they would be 'stealing' public land, which is up to discussion (I wouldn't call it like that for example and law doesn't look at it that way either), justifying a crime by pointing to others 'they are doing it too' is pretty pathetic attempt to justify it. We can and shall do better than that
How is it up to discussion? Did they get a license or pay for it through some other avenue? Can I just park my car in your driveway without your permission? Can I use your property without permission?
If these scooter and bike companies aren't stealing by just taking land to use, I don't see how using your driveway to let my friends all park for a party could be construed as stealing.
>I wouldn't call it like that for example and law doesn't look at it that way either
That's a very general claim without merit. My municipality views it as such and has confiscated all the bird scooters and like bikes last I saw
Edit: to be fair, youre correct that a wrong doesn't justify another wrong. That doesn't mean I'm not gonna roll my eyes when one thief cries about the injustice of someone else stealing from them _as they continue to steal from me and my community without hesitation_. I do not pay property taxes and parking permit fees to maintain the roads so that some VC funded startup can use them free of charge and funnel the profits into their pocket.
Personal bike? Technically probably not, but it's a known personal use nobody frowns about unless the bike is obstructing other traffic (whether foot or vehicle), at which point it'll be taken away. Commercial bike? Same as scooters.
Stroller? If you tried, somebody would probably call a bomb squad. It's not something you do with strollers.
Isn't that amazing that people could justify and rationalize everything?
You take the worst thing people can do, like assassinating people and you find always a rationalization that the criminals construct.
Hitler took absolute power because of the Reichstag fire and the communist menace and did kill people on the way to absolute power, always pointing to the bigger communist threat.
The rationalization of communist for assassinating people on the way to absolute power? They were fighting the fascist, they said.
Obviously if you could rationalize the worst it is easier to rationalize less damaging things like stealing, raping, kidnapping or hitting people.
Stealing is bad.
Scooters take way less space than cars. More than 30% of the street is taken by them. They weight 1500 kilos, several meters long and move just one person most of the time.
A scooter moves one person, weighting 20, 30 kilos at most and occupies noting compared to cars.
You're doing essentially the same, but in reverse.
The issue with scooters is twofold - one, tragedy of commons. A morally bankrupt company decides to abuse public space to avoid having to pay costs of arranging parking space for their scooters.
Secondary issue is that the whole business is based on having people dropping these scooters wherever, with no regard to other users of the sidewalk. And people do just that, as incentivized, and then accidents happen - for instance, people with visual impairments trip over them.
(Tertiary issue is that these scooters reach dangerous speeds. Within six months of the deployment there were already scooter-caused fatalities in Poland. Fortunately, my country is about to regulate them as motor vehicles, forcing them to use the roads. As they should.)
We had/have about 10 active free-floating scooter companies in Paris. Names like Bird, Lime, Flash, Voi, Volt, Dott, Wind, Jump, Hive, Tier, ...
Even if you don't take into account the gigantic safety hazard that these vehicles represent, this is absolutely insane. Sidewalks are small. In this situation, each scooter that you can take off the street is a step in the right direction for the public interest.
No thanks, they aren't paying for my time, and I don't work for them.
Also these scooters are a serious public nuisance where I live. I cant skateboard, ride a bike, or rollerblade on the sidewalks downtown because of pedestrian traffic. it's literally against the law.
yet these scooters are zipping past/through people and sometimes hitting them, and are littered all over the streets and sidewalks, how is that ok?
It's not ok and chances are just as illegal as biking on a sidewalk. Don't blame the company for citizens bad behavior and governments lack of enforcement. It would be like blaming BMW for aggressive drivers breaking traffic law.
We have a metro, that would allow you to cross the capital from west to east in 40 minutes. A network of overused suburban trains that electric scooters can't and won't try to fix.
It's just a fad. An opportunity that was made available when the city council decided to switch the public bike provider. It required to change all existing bike stations, and severely crippled the existing service. So, they tried to seize that opportunity. First, free floating bikes [0], and now electric scooters. The overall disrespect for non-users is so present that it will make worse any problem they're trying to fix.
The actual problem was a timing gap in biking infrastructure. You don't solve that by putting unregulated transportation vehicles on streets, especially when the needed infrastructure is being constructed.
It’s not it’s counterproductive. People want alternative transportation but also encourage undermining the effort. It’s like they don’t think things out.
Now, I’m totally fine with the secondary market and repurposing used scooters the companies dispose of after 100 hours or whatever it is. But encouraging theft is that same old saw of why we can’t have nice things. These companies should have programmed to sell their used scooters to the public.
The companies don't maintain them at all as it is. Service life is like 30 days. As it stands lots of people steal and ride them unpowered or rip them apart for scrap all around LA.
That is an interesting distinction, because historically, the hacker ethos has been about the pursuit of the latter at the expense of the former.
For example, phone phreaking. Or the Morris Worm.
Stealing scooters and reselling them is just theft. Hacking a scooter for the pleasure of finding out how they tick, or for fun, is still stealing, but it’s also hacking in the original sense.
That doesn’t justify it, but given that we are arguing this point on a forum named after hackers and which celebrated the hacker ethos in its early days...
I suggest we at least understand and appreciate the second definition of “cool,” even if we aren’t going to let go of recognizing that it doesn’t meet the first definition.