[TeMPOraL]

> The ‘algorithm’ in this instance doesn’t discriminate on skin colour, handsomeness, or the side of the bed it woke up on.

But the drivers do, which is a source of complaints in places where taxi service is considered to be an extension of public transport. Uber-like companies (it's not just Uber, MyTaxi/FreeNow suffers from this as well) are notoriously unreliable if you live in or want to go to places further away from the city center or otherwise inconvenient for the drivers, or if your start or destination suggests you might be inconvenient to handle. For instance, I've had trouble getting a ride to a maternity hospital in the city center, and only got one after I switched the destination to a nearby beauty salon. I confirmed this when talking later with the drivers over other rides - they see the requests to/from hospitals, they just skip them.

In this way, an algorithm is fairer than dispatcher for the drivers, but the dispatcher is fairer for the passenger.

[lotsofpulp]

> In this way, an algorithm is fairer than dispatcher for the drivers, but the dispatcher is fairer for the passenger

The algorithm is the dispatcher, and theoretically, would weed out drivers that discriminate after a certain number of incidents. I don’t see why a human dispatcher has less reason to discriminate than a driver. Presumably, discrimination is to maximum use revenue, which is in both the driver and dispatcher’s interest.

[TeMPOraL]

In the places I've ordered taxis via a call, human dispatchers don't usually know who the passenger is and where they want to go, so they don't get to discriminate on those.

[lotsofpulp]

I imagine if a taxi driver refused to give someone a ride, who was already told they would get a ride from a dispatcher, because it would lower their revenue, the dispatcher would not penalize them in any way.