[MaxikCZ]

Which may not be a bad thing. As other commenter shared anocdote, him getting cut off because of bogus accusation is not nice. If Uber had to eat the loss, instead of carelessly impossing it on their "employees", they could probably do more thorough screening of onboarding employees, which would benefit the customer as well.

[noirbot]

Earnestly not trolling, but would that actually benefit the customer? Part of the benefits of a service like Uber is having a lot of people willing and able to drive to/from places all over. If they're rejecting more people and increasing cost due to more thorough screening, the service likely gets worse and costs more, which means less people use it, so less people want to drive for it, and that starts to spiral.

I'm willing to believe that outcome may be better in the abstract, since I'm not a big fan of Uber in the first place, but it's not clear that the average user of Uber wants that trade.

[polygamous_bat]

See: slippery slope fallacy [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[noirbot]

I don't see how it's a fallacy to accept the parent's premise that Uber should be screening more people out of being hired by them, which then necessarily leads to less people driving for them, and that that would reduce the availability of the service. Making the service less available doesn't tend to increase usage of it.

Pointing out that Decision A will likely lead to Outcome B, which may in turn cause Outcome C doesn't automatically mean it's a fallacy. It certainly doesn't mean that you snarkily posting wikipedia articles accusing me of bad-faith argumentation is justified.

[polygamous_bat]

Stating A may lead to B, which may lead to C, without any justifiable argument for why we should believe C is the most likely (or even highly likely) outcome is the textbook definition of slipper slope fallacy in arguments.

In this case, it's not patently obvious that fewer, higher quality drivers is a net negative.

[noirbot]

I don't think it's obvious that more screening leads to "higher quality" drivers or that customers care. That's the premise of my original post. More screening leading to less drivers feels like it's not a "may" in this case, since the original post was essentially saying that there were undesirable people who had gotten through current screening and should be driving.

From there, sure, it's unclear if less "better" drivers are a business positive, but either way, that's an interesting discussion worth more than just "haha you did a fallacy". Claiming that it's likely that having less drivers that are "higher quality", whatever that means, will improve the service overall is just as much of a guess as what I put forward.

Either way, to go back to my original post, it's unclear to me that the users of the service are, on average, that upset about the quality of their drivers. The alternative is taxis, which certainly aren't better on average at screening their drivers for anti-social behavior in my experiences.

[whimsicalism]

Nothing about what the parent commentator said is fallacious and leaning on pattern identification -> fallacy doesn’t really work because we are not making formal logic arguments.