[ShowalkKama]

> Allowing women to make a selection based on this likelihood means that female customers that are alone can make choices to still use the service while reducing the overall risk.

I'm failing to see how anything you say could be used as a guideline to pick between "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination. The major distinction you draw between "Type II" and "Type I" is the fact that one is fueled by "arbitrary aversion" which is not a particularly useful distinction.

What if I denied entry to black people from my bar because ""they commit more crimes"" and ""are more likely to break stuff"", is it morally ok? Why not? My opinion is that no, it's not ok because the majority of people punished were never going to behave in an uncivil way.

The same logic can be easily applied to this situation. Are men more likely to behave sexually inappropriately (which ranges from verbal harassment to assault)? Sure. Is it the majority? Hell no, it's nowhere close.

(Of course it's worth nothing that the "majority" does not necessarily have 50.01%, it's just an arbitrary line you can draw as long as you are consistent about it)

[bombcar]

The point I took away is that since the normal methods of "ok discrimination" are not available and Uber refuses to do the needful on their behalf, women should be able to "use the big gun".

The reality is that if Uber rapes are an issue, and something like this is not allowed, women will just stop using it entirely.

Or special Uberpods will be developed where the driver is completely encased and the passenger has a "auto drive to police station" button.

[slowmovintarget]

If someone is presenting themselves to you in person for entry into your bar, you have far more information to make a judgement on than the color of their skin... so it is not the same.

In the case of a woman coming into contact with some driver and volunteering location information like her home address, she has little to no information to make that judgement. Providing her just that bit of information, and allowing her to discriminate based on it, makes her safer. Ideally, she'd have way more information than just whether the driver is male or female. The reputation information helps, but isn't always reliable.

[ShowalkKama]

>If someone is presenting themselves to you in person for entry into your bar, you have far more information to make a judgement on than the color of their skin... so it is not the same.

So the difference between "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination is the amount of information on which the decision is based upon?

Logically then uber could add a "white only" option, "no queer" and "no leftist". (of course this is arbitrary but you can easily come up with a reason why: if you split any group of real people in two it's only natural that one group has an higher incidence of a negative trait)

This also has a second problem: what if we let the passenger know not only the sex but also if the driver ate fish in the morning (and hundreds of other useless facts)? Does that make it discrimination because they have far more information?

I guess not but then how do you decide what information is valuable in order to decide if there is enough information to judge the individual instead of going off statistics? How can you say that our theoretical racist patron is in fact racist and not going off the only valuable information?

[slowmovintarget]

> So the difference between "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination is the amount of information on which the decision is based upon?

That's a straw-man argument.

[ShowalkKama]

No, that's a question. I imagine it's not that since the rest of my comment is dedicated to pointing out how that'd be racist. I was trying to make you explain what exactly the difference is since you didn't clearly define it in your reply.

[1718627440]

When you employ someone as a driver, you also have far more information, even more than when you determine whether to let someone in a bar.

[ShowalkKama]

Uber could ask for it but the customer does not have more information

[1718627440]

Uber is also the one deciding to offer a rideshare service where mens are banned for working for them. Uber has the choice between vetting their employees and doing discrimination based on a correlated proxy. They choose the latter, and this discussion is about whether that is legal.