Uber undermining the taxi strike [1] yesterday was pretty visible -- at least in my social circle here in Seattle -- and when Lyft made this announcement we all deleted our Uber accounts.
Will that have a material impact on anyone's bottom line? Who knows, but I'd love to see the graphs for new account signups/account deletions.
[1] Taxis were not servicing JFK in support of those who were being detained there.
Here's the great & intense statement from the New York Taxi Workers Alliance on their JFK strike:
"NYTWA STATEMENT ON MUSLIM BAN:
Professional drivers are over 20 times more likely to be murdered on the job than other workers. By sanctioning bigotry with his unconstitutional and inhumane executive order banning Muslim refugees from seven countries, the president is putting professional drivers in more danger than they have been in any time since 9/11 when hate crimes against immigrants skyrocketed.
Our 19,000-member-strong union stands firmly opposed to Donald Trump's Muslim ban. As an organization whose membership is largely Muslim, a workforce that's almost universally immigrant, and a working-class movement that is rooted in the defense of the oppressed, we say no to this inhumane and unconstitutional ban.
We know all too well that when government programs sanction outright Islamophobia, and the rhetoric of hate is spewed from the bully pulpit, hate crimes increase and drivers suffer gravely. Our Sikh and other non-Muslim brown and black members also suffer from anti-Muslim violence.
Today, drivers are joining the protest at JFK Airport in support of all those who are currently being detained at the airport because of Trump's unconstitutional executive order. Drivers stand in solidarity with refugees coming to America in search of peace and safety and with those who are simply trying to return to their homes here in America after traveling abroad. We stand in solidarity with all of our peace-loving neighbors against this inhumane, cruel, and unconstitutional act of pure bigotry."
Well, it's not a "Muslim Ban" for starters. Look up the countries with the highest Muslim populations, then cross ref to the list of countries that have a 90 day (to start) ban.
It is a Muslim ban. It's just how you do it politically. You start with the goal of banning Muslims, then you see how to implement it in a way that gives you plausible deniability. You couldn't get away with just saying, "No Muslims allowed." That is way too overtly racist and illegal. So you look for existing groupings of countries that align with your goals.
You find a list of countries banned on the visa waiver program made by the previous administration, and it covers many Muslim nations that are in the international spotlight right now. They're hot topics and it fits your criteria well. (Also they conveniently don't intersect with your business interests, so that's another plus.) You ignore Indonesia and India because they aren't in the news for terrorism, so it doesn't fit your narrative. Now you can get away with banning these "previously chosen" countries, by saying it's for national security, while you wink to your more explicitly racist supporters. You achieved their racist goal, de-facto, while having a non-racist "legitimate" excuse.
This is how institutional racism works. You have a racist goal in mind, and you implement it through actions that are under the guise of something more reasonable. It has the same effect as if you just made some overtly racist policy, but you can do it legally and with plausible deniability.
Also, if it helps, Rudy Giuliani said on national TV that Trump told him to do literally exactly this.
I agree that we should ban whites from this country, since they commit the vast majority of murders here in America. So many innocent lives have been lost to white murderers that own guns.
I mean, if we're going to be bigoted and ascribe negative traits to entire groups based on the actions of a few, shouldn't we do that to protect our safety by ascribing whites as murderers based on them committing the vast majority of the 17,000 murders that happen in our country every year?
America needs to defend themselves against whites, who are placing carnage into our peaceful country with their murderous ways.
If whites can't find a way to make peaceful journey in the world, then they have to go. Moderate whites need to step up and completely denounce their violent sub-groups. COMPLETELY DENOUNCE -- not quietly bolster or nod knowingly to.
(this is how bigotry works, and remember, it can go both ways. Do you want this kind of bigotry to happen to whites? I get that it's hard to not be bigoted when it's so much easier mentally to associate a race with the actions of a few, but that's what it takes to be smart- you have to actually think instead of being mentally lazy)
I think the point is comparing stats of violence across demographics in the US, in particular comparing Muslims with other groups. Replacing whites with Christians will likely provide similar results for stats within the United States. I think it's reasonable to compare threats if that's a motivating criteria for supporting the ban.
There are a lot of orthogonal issues involved in the discussion of immigration, its effects on society, violence, identifying direct and indirect causes. And they touch on a lot of sensitive topics. So much of the discussion gets politicized and shrill. It's difficult to trust each other enough to have the nuanced discussion that's required.
Look at the language being used in this thread. Are people legitimately trying to understand each other? Or telling each other what the truth is? How subtle are the points being made? How much of it is expressed in absolute, general terms?
'battlebot is claiming that Islam, a violent ideology, is harming American citizens, and that there have been many attacks, and that they're fine with the Muslim ban.
'mozumber is claiming that most violent attacks in the US are perpetrated by white gun owners.
'jakeogh (you) are claiming further upthread it's not a Muslim ban
'lifeformed is claiming it's a crypto Muslim ban Trump is trying to slip in.
One could roughly put the four of you into two groups in terms of who each is arguing against (note, not who they agree with) Yet I really don't see any of you talking with each other, trying to find some understanding of each other, if not agreement. There doesn't appear to be any faith that the others may actually be rational people who have different values and reasons for their positions, even if they don't agree. No attempt to honestly understand another's position.
And I'm probably misunderstanding all of you, to boot!
Opposing an ideology necessary involves individuals. Pretending it's skin color that motivates this will continue to result in endless defeats on the 'everyone is welcome' side you appear to be trying to defend.
"Rudy Giuliani said Donald Trump came to him for guidance on implementing a so-called “Muslim ban” and from that, he helped construct the controversial order crippling international travel from predominantly Muslim countries."
Trump’s campaign in 2015 said it wanted “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”
DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected.
I think you're being flagged for being needlessly argumentative and uncivil.
The DHS list of countries on that waiver ban is indeed the same as those listed in the Executive Order. I haven't seen a reference that this list was indeed the basis for the countries listed in the Executive Order. If you know of one, please do share. I'm happy to be corrected.
Guiliani is widely reported in an interview on Fox News just yesterday to have confirmed that at least initially the goal was to create a Muslim ban:
I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.
"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"
Giuliani said he then put together a commission that included lawmakers and expert lawyers. "And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger," Giuliani said.
"The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."
Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."
Perhaps the claim that resulting Executive Order is indeed purely based on risk assessment is true. I think reasonable people can understandably question whether this is indeed the case. To deny that it at least initially was motivated by the desire to create a Muslim ban is disingenuous at best. Accusing people of relying on "fake news" if they bring this up is clearly unfair.
Giuliani 'It's based substantial on evidence people are sending terrorist into our country'[0]. If christian terrorist would be coming in to US with evil intention from certain countries I don't think anyone would oppose them being banned temporarily while their organisation is taken care of. Trump is looking to attack ISIS in the next 30 days if someone wasn't paying attention and wants to lower risk of attacks happening by people coming in. It's easy to misrepresent what someone is saying as we have seen the last year.
Obama has been bombing these countries killing innocent people and now people are upset that Trump doesn't let army age men to come from these countries while he is taking care of the terrorist Obamas action created? Where were the marches against Obamas warmongering policies?
You're cherry-picking one quote from Giuliani rather than looking at the larger conversation he had during the Fox News interview. And then shifting the discussion to Obama.
The fact that people didn't protest more about Obama is a separate argument. The fact that Bush invaded Iraq is a separate argument. The fact that the US supported the mujahideen during the Soviet Afghan war is a separate argument. The fact that the US helped overthrow the Iranian government and install the Shah in 1953 is a separate argument. The fact that European powers divvied up the Middle East following World War I is a separate argument. Want to go back to the Crusades? Abraham?
Or you can tie them all together. They're all ultimately related. Which do you want? Where do you want to draw the line? What do you want to take responsibility for? Drawing in all manner of related topics doesn't help us move forward. I don't think any of that is useful.
What people are discussing now, today, is Trump's Executive Order, and what to do about it now.
Again, semantics. It's being called a Muslim ban because it _only_ affects Muslims. Sure, it doesn't affect _all_ Muslims, but it still singles out one religious group.
It's being called a Muslim ban because Trump called for a Muslim ban, shifted the definition many times, and then issued this order with similar justification and overlapping provisions to many versions (though not identical to any version) of the Muslim ban.
It neither effects all Muslims nor (since it includes a temporary complete ban on all refugees) only Muslims, but it's still overtly targeted first and foremost at Muslims.
One person said they were implementing a Muslim ban, and the other... well, he didn't (not to mention his policy was materially different from the current one). I don't need to read fake news to understand the difference.
We've already asked you to please stop using HN primarily for this kind of political battle. We have to ban accounts that continue to abuse the site this way.
I think there's a pro-Uber case to be made here. Uber suspended surge pricing at a time when many people were trying to get to the protest at the airport, and while the airtrain was shut down which is what connects the subway system to the airport. Furthermore Uber offered to compensate its drivers who are affected by the ban, if they get stuck outside of the country.
Edit: Maybe Uber mis-stepped by honoring requests for rides FROM the airport, but given the above I don't think they're doing this to grab money. It's actually a little sad to see the knee-jerk response by people lashing out at a company that is trying to help, in this instance.
Travis Kalanick, Uber's CEO, made public statements indicating that Uber must work with the Trump administration. Four days later Uber stepped up as scrubs while the rest of the New York's taxi service protested Trump's deplorable racist actions. It's hard to pretend this is a coincidence.
I have heard this called racist a few times and at risk of sounding like a pedant or an apologist I respectfully object.
Creating abusive policy targeted at people from certain countries seems xenophobic, isolationist, draconian, cruel, stupid.
Racism is a far more evil concept than any of those.
Abusing and rationalizing the abuse of people because you have made a generalization based on their geography, ideology or culture is certainly wrong.
Abusing and rationalizing the abuse of people because you believe they are genetically inferior is on a different level of depravity.
When we use "racism" as a catchall term for all bigotry and bias, we do it at the peril of diluting its power when that particular flavor of shitheaded thinking needs to be classified.
Question: when the USA refused to take in many Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany, was that merely isolationist and cruel? Or racist too? After all, anti-Semitism was rife in the 1930's USA--plenty of businessmen like Henry Ford were more than happy to republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which certainly played a role in American willingness to help the Jews.
Or does it even matter? I don't see how you can try to create a ranking of "minor evil" or "far more evil."
There is nothing in the Constitution that supports your assertion. You have been tricked--a radical, violent ideology, wrapped in a religion is out to harm all those who will not submit to it. How many Christians, non-believers, and generally alternative people have to be murdered until you figure this out? Also, Islam is not a race.
And please, un-American? Our self-preservation is now un-American?
"Abusing and rationalizing the abuse of people because you have made a generalization based on their geography, ideology or culture is certainly wrong." --
I'm not denying that, and I feel weird defending Uber at all, but then you'd also need to account for why they offered to compensate their drivers affected by this travel ban, and why would they lower their surge pricing. I'm okay with saying that they're trying to play both sides of this.
Which in the context of a strike, isn't possible. The purpose of these kind of labor actions is to force a clarification about with whom one holds solidarity, in this case refugees and immigrants.
Breaking the strike is breaking the strike. They did not hold with refugees and immigrants, even after the taxi drivers explicitly asked them to do so. Everything else is just trying to mitigate damage to the point where people forget/engage in apologetics to obfuscate the choice they made.
Turning off surge reduces supply. That's not "nullifying the strike" - quite the opposite. It's weaker than it could have been, but it's also exactly what Lyft did.
Well, I'm glad you said what you said even though, as you admit, you feel weird defending Uber. Actions are much more louder and substantive than words and if Uber does good things, I am glad that this forum still has members who will rightfully point that out (instead of it devolving into an echo chamber)
Everything uber does is about money and they aren't afraid to flout the law / custom and "disrupt". They swooped in during a strike. They are scabs. They are obviously doing it to grab money. Their CEO is buddy buddy with Trump.
Considering that Musk is competing against the entire petroleum industry (major supporters of Trump) with SolarCity and Tesla, I'd be surprised if the "friendship" was anything other than convenience.
Please don't throw out generalizations like this, particularly as you're a member of the HN community yourself. If you feel strongly about this particular issue, write up a blog post making your case, and submit it to HN, or have someone submit it for you.
I think this sort of protest requires organization. Uber's surge pricing (which I assume drivers didn't know would be suspended in time to plan a protest) basically guarantees seamless scabbing, so the opportunity cost of the protest becomes unreasonable.
The taxi strike was part of the protest at the airport. Offering reduced pricing was a way to hurt the taxi workers who were losing money to show solitary with the protest.
If Uber was trying to help, they should have said so.
edit: Re-reading this, and I realize I missed your point. You're absolutely right -- they did not say "we are cutting surge pricing in support of the protest".
This was my original post for posterity:
"They did say so. This was their tweet:
'Our CEO's reaction to immigration order: "We'll compensate drivers impacted by the ban pro bono for next 3 months." http://ubr.to/standingup'"
They're helping their own workers. While a good thing, the rest of ther message is complete PR and sending ubers to JFK undermines the strikes, because it's such an easy way for them to make a profit.
Someone else in this thread pointed out that the headlines would be really bad for Uber if they said something like "Uber surges 500% while breaking airport taxi strike". It seems like they were trying to cover themselves, while not outright joining the strike, as if to triangulate towards the center.
>"NO PICKUPS @ JFK Airport 6 PM to 7 PM today," the union wrote in a subsequent tweet that was retweeted over 10,000 times. "Drivers stand in solidarity with thousands protesting inhumane & unconstitutional #MuslimBan."
No it's not. The union encouraging != the taxi companies somehow forcing it.
The union and the taxi companies are not the same thing.
> Uber reduced their prices to undermine the strike
Uber reducing prices to normal levels means fewer drivers anyway! Fewer rides! This makes no sense! Why would Uber even bother with some Machiavellian scheme to get a hundred or two extra rides? Makes no sense!
>Why would Uber even bother with some Machiavellian scheme to get a hundred or two extra rides?
Getting that first install is critical, because once someone installs the Uber app they are unlikely to go back to taxi cabs. 200 extra riders might not be a big group, but they tell their friends and family and it spreads. This is especially true if the rides are discounted since everyone loves to talk about how much money they saved by taking an Uber instead of a taxi. Think of the ride sharing market in NYC, more than half the cars on the roads are taxis.
tl;dr Uber has employed viral marketing like this for years and it works.
Offering normal pricing means drivers get paid less, reduces opportunity cost of joining in strike. Or, drivers who participate in strike get paid $0 either way so it doesn't affect them. Uber drivers who don't participate in strike will get sent to JFK less often because of lack of extra incentive due to surge pricing.
Things were moving so fast at the time, I guess I had my doubts that Uber was even aware of the strike, but I suppose that may be naive and that the taxi association probably contacted Uber about this.
I'm definitely coming around to the idea that Uber is simply playing both sides of this, and that it gives them too much credit to assume good intentions of them removing surge pricing.
They lowered prices in response to the strike. They were aware it was going on. If they had left surge pricing in effect that could be argued to be ignorance of the strike, but they didn't.
The whole Uber paying drivers stuck outside the country came after the perhaps well-intended surge pricing debacle. To me, that move is textbook Crisis Management. And having driven for Uber, their SOP is to never do anything that favors drivers. They don't even think of drivers, who pay to use their network, as customers.
Both Lyft and Uber didn't suspend service to JFK last night because both are 24/7 platforms for anyone to drive and make money. Uber lowered/suspended surge pricing to make it affordable in/around the protests, while Lyft did not.
Worth noting is that active drivers on both platforms were likely protesting at airports all over the world.
Doesn't operate in as many locations, but pretty much the same, and often the same drivers. Informally it appears drivers I've talked to have preferred Lyft (have asked even when they were driving for Uber). Most of course demur, but I've never heard a driver say something nice about Uber while I have had several praise Lyft.
Just to give you a counter point, I was in India recently, and most drivers I spoke to loved Uber. That could be a combination of the alternative sucking, general employer treatment of employees not being great, etc.
It's an inferior service: Much longer waits for a ride, higher fares, tipping, awkward interactions, fewer ride options, buggy (in my experience) phone apps.
I don't get it. How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport? How about the Uber drivers trying to make a living? Just because they were not part of your protest you'll give them hate?
Question: during the Civil Rights movement, people of all sorts disrupted white people just trying to eat breakfast; just trying to get an education; just trying to get to work.
Is that "giving them hate"? Should MLK have made fastidiously sure to go to cordoned off areas where no one would have been inconvenienced in the slightest?
The question asked wasn't whether the Civil Rights protesters shouldn't have inconvenienced people. It's whether a company should force its workers to join a protest.
How many companies donate to super-PACs, the DNC, RNC, etc.?
In this case, the mechanism of political action is constricting the labor supply instead of giving cash to politicians.
It seems crazy for a company to force workers to join a protest, until you think about how they force workers to turn a profit and then donate to politicians that would happily oppress those same workers.
So two wrongs do make a right? What other abuses of worker's rights should we demand they do, for "good reasons"?
Companies also collectively fire people to bolster their profits, maybe we should demand they do some mass firings for a good cause. Trump supporters, maybe?
American companies will run a series of layoffs JUST below the limit to avoid the reporting mandates! Kind of like structuring deposits of $9,999 to avoid the reporting requirement at $10k. Interesting.)
You're asking an unrelated question. The morality or advisability of engaging in disruptive protests is completely separate from the morality of Uber allowing its drivers to choose to work while taxi drivers are protesting.
How is it unrelated? The comment I was replying to said, "How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport?" Implying that Uber shouldn't be condemned for scabbing and helping them get to the airport because the protests were disruptive and they were just providing a public service by making them less disruptive.
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean every disruption on our side deserves our unconditional support. It's worth discussing whether disrupting travel further helps or hurts the cause.
In most professions, there's a feeling of unity. Taxi companies and drivers will either stand with striking drivers, or be respectful enough to not disrupt their action.
Then comes Uber, the vulture that swoops in all in the name of disrupting the market. They're allowed to do it, sure. Whether it's morally right is another thing.
"Some protestors are unhappy" is a really interesting way of phrasing "the federal government is embarking on a concerted attack on 1.7% of the population for reasons at best murky."
Come on. Trump is doing lots of bad things, but if he weren't people would still be striking. The largest protest in American history happened before he even took office. Let's not pretend that people's emotions are less of a driving factor than the facts. Get over yourself.
Or maybe you should "get over yourself". If you care so much for the facts perhaps you should make sure to get them right. I suppose you're referring to the Women's March, which took place the day after Trump assumed office.
And it's remarkable if your claim is that without Trump's Muslim Ban there would still be protests at JFK this weekend. Are you really arguing that?
It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours before Trump was sworn in. Stop pretending that it was a reaction to anything he did in office.
I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the result of emotion, not facts.
Also, you seem to be confused about the phrase "get over yourself" means. It targets self importance such as "be better please", it makes no sense whatsoever as a response to my comment.
That's a skillful evasion of facts you just executed, going from your previous claim that the protest occurred before the inauguration to just that it was planned before then. Well played.
Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious."
Is it an evasion of facts to focus on facts that are relevant? If a protest was planned before Trump took office, that logically excludes actions taken by Trump as motivation for the protest. That is "overwhelmingly obvious" to anyone who isn't confused by the concept of causality.
I don't think anyone claimed that the Women's March wasn't planned before January 20th, that would be absurd. However it was still clearly a reaction to Trump's words and actions, and that doesn't require him being a sitting president first.
But it's worth noting the difference between that protest and the one at JFK, which I think it's pretty clear was a direct reaction to a specific policy created by President Trump. Using the Women's March as some sort of catch-all "haters gonna hate" dismissal of the valid concerns that many Americans have about the sitting president's actions is, to put it simply, a remarkable argument.
I never used the women's march as a "hater's gonna hate" dismissal. I never even dismissed the concerns of protesters. My point was that protests are based on emotion. I only felt that need to make that point because eropple took some weird offense to me saying that the cause of protests was people being unhappy. It is fine with me if you want to defend him, but don't pretend that context doesn't exist.
I took offense to your cavalier dismissal of some real shit as "being unhappy". You trivialized it, and you knew what you were doing, and it was lousy behavior. And you shouldn't do that and you should be better.
Everyone's trying to get on with their lives. However, everyone getting on with their lives crucially depends on other people doing their jobs. When a grave injustice is being committed the purpose of a strike is to say "we refuse to keep an unjust society running". A strike is an act of solidarity between people and the point specifically has to be to disrupt daily life. If a strike does not inconvenience anyone, then it isn't a strike.
By undermining the strike, Uber is saying that their profits are more important than the injustice being protested. They are saying that they are perfectly happy to help society function while it is committing such a grave act of injustice against a vulnerable minority. It is organizations and people like Uber who are perfectly willing to make money and let life go on as authoritarians destroy the lives of their fellow citizens that allow evil to persist and thrive. It is people who get on with their lives while those of their neighbors are being disrupted and destroyed that most threaten freedom.
I don't get it either. Given the status of Uber drivers as independent contractors, I'm not convinced it's Uber's place to call an action like a strike. Such a decision should come from the drivers. On the taxi side it sounds like there were unions who clearly have the representation to make this sort of decision.
>How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport?
Inconveniencing those sort of people is exactly the purpose of protesting. It's supposed to make regular everyday people who aren't directly affected by Trump's actions feel their impact. If you disagree with the protesters that's one thing, but complaining about it affecting "normal people" is really missing the point.
I'm a bit confused by the backlash at Uber. I saw the tweet saying they were suspending surge pricing to JFK. To me that make trips there less likely since drivers would make less.
Wouldn't that be a show of solidarity with the temporarily striking taxi drivers union?
I guess my question is, how does suspending surge pricing to JFK suggest Uber supports the executive order?
They could have disabled all pickups at JFK in true solidarity.
I don't think disabling surge pricing is a show of solidarity. With Taxis striking, surge pricing would have skyrocketed. This feels more like Uber just wants to preempt an inevitable news story about how surge pricing hit 10x or something during the taxi strike, which would be bad PR.
The article did say that Uber is working with its affected drivers to provide legal assistance. So, again, they're just protecting themselves. The company has practically no moral compass.
Did their workers agree to share that solidarity? Or are you saying they should have forced their workers to join the protest? Were taxi companies prohibiting drivers from picking up passengers?
This is a great point that should be made more loudly: the taxi strike was, as far as i can see, the action of the drivers and the union. No taxi company, including uber, was disallowing traffic to or from JFK.
If Uber's drivers declined to participate in the strike, that's on the drivers, not Uber.
Uber has actively fought against allowing its drivers to unionize. The drivers' inability to organize and participate in strikes (esp. on such short notice) is in large part because of these actions.
I would have liked to see solidarity, but I am extremely uncomfortable vilifying any individual or company for simply choosing to not participate in a protest.
I heard about the SFO protests yesterday, and I largely support the cause, and I could have made it there in time to join. I didn't. Do you question my moral compass? Did I do something wrong? I know people who largely support the issues of the women's march, yet did not attend, or attended only part of the rally or march. Should they be vilified?
I think this is a scary idea. Not everyone can or has to actively join every protest to "prove" that they support the platform or "have a moral compass."
Kalanick spoke out against that EO and condemned it but I think people are angry at him because he was on Trump's advisors team to lobby the admin for favorable economic policies for his interests.
He miscalculated and discounted all the far-right baggage that comes with the Trump admin and therefore he has no one to blame for this misstep except himself.
Drivers don't know where they're going till the ride starts. I also don't think they can refuse to go to a destination without repercussions (i.e. Getting kicked out of Uber).
If anything, disabling surge pricing lessens the impact of a taxi strike as going to/from the airport is more affordable and convenient then having zero or pricier options.
It doesn't matter whether Uber actually supported the executive order any more than Lyft did. The idea is out there that they did, well-connected people are loudly talking about how they deleted their Uber accounts and you should too, and going against that marks you out as an evil Trump supporter. Welcome to post-truth politics. Even other claims that're clearly and unambiguously untrue has been winning out over the truth if it fits the narrative better. (For example, as someone pointed out on HN the list of countries elsewhere in favour of explanations that are outright contradicted by it like Trump's business interests.)
A taxi strike is intended to inconvenience people. Uber reducing prices for riders directly contradicts that. (But if I had to guess, I would guess that they were just trying to avoid stories like "Uber profits from Muslim Ban", not making any kind of political statement about it.)
Zero taxi drivers, if it was a strike organized by taxi companies or taxi unions. The presence of Uber drivers, or bus drivers, or train engineers, etc. does not contradict or minimize a taxi strike. And a taxi strike does not obligate or even sugges that all other employees in the human transportation industry should strike. And lastly, Uber choosing to not strike does not imply that Uber or Uber drivers do not support the taxi strike or the cause of protesters.
There is no "supposed to". A strike is just people expressing there opinion through action. It is admirable, but there is no guarantee of success or support just because you a striking.
I don't see why Uber needs to be beholden to a taxi strike, since they're not taxis, that holds no meaningful purpose except hurting a large number of people trying to get to and from the airport. Since when do taxis get to unilaterally dictate what the moral way to protest is?
Will taxi companies join Uber and help financially support the taxi drivers who are stuck out of the country because of Trump's ban? Are they immoral if they don't follow Uber's lead?
It doesn't matter if they're entitled or not, they did it, and then Uber did what they did, and people are now evaluating those actions based on the facts and their values. You don't have to agree with every protest. There isn't a universal rule that says all protest is good. But every protest can be judged on its merits, which is what people are doing, not reducing the motivations to "just because they are unhappy".
Implying that this protest was started "just because they are unhappy" is disingenuous and refuses to engage with the issues in good faith.
My point isn't whether this particular protest is "good" or "bad". Even knowing relatively little about this protest, I think that I would likely agree with the protesters. My issue is that I don't see any reason why Uber should be obligated to stop service just because there is a protest going on. A lot of people in this thread seem to feel that having a protest entitles you to ruin other peoples' day and anyone who helps the people you are screwing is a bad guy. I see no good argument that supports that mentality.
The history of direct action and protest which disrupts daily life is argument enough: It works. History also shows us that when people ignore injustice and just get on with their day, that allows the injustice to grow and fester. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated while the majority of people who could have stopped it did nothing.
The word entitlement is so charged and vague, what do you mean by it? No one is legally entitled to disrupt peoples' lives, but the reason why people choose to protest and disrupt society until their demands are met is because they believe that society does not deserve to go on undisrupted while it allows some injustice to continue.
Let's be real. If no one protested this ban on muslims, very few peoples' lives would be disrupted. It would be a slight hiccup to just discard these people from society and replace whatever function they played. We are all disposable. That is why people protest, because otherwise injustice would go unpunished.
The abstract reasoning is this: If society is structured in such a way that an injustice can occur and persist with no disruption to society, then people are morally obligated to disrupt society when that injustice occurs in order to remedy it and prevent it in the future.
The justification is empirical: Evidence demonstrates that when most people can go about their day without hindrance while atrocities are being committed, they will gladly get used to and accept those atrocities as a fact of life.
If you want to claim that the justification is empirical, you are going to need some real empirical evidence.
With respect to the word entitlement:
I mean ethically. When someone is angry (like the people in this thread promising to delete Uber) that something didn't happen, then it seems like they felt entitled to have it happen.
Yes. You've realized the point of a strike. You may also notice that they usually don't happen too often because the goal is to make you realize that either their current situation isn't livable anymore, or because there's a message to be spread. Do it too often and people turn against the protesters.
It lasted one hour. Get over it. Social change doesn't happen without inconvenience.
You seemed to have missed the point. They are free to assemble, but I see no reason why it is wrong for someone else to help the people getting screwed by a protest.
I deleted my account, too, but I wonder if that was the most effective way to register my discontent with Uber. It was estimated in December that Uber spends about $1.55 for every dollar of revenue they take in [1], so refusing to use Uber isn't exactly hurting their bottom line.
On the other hand, I've yet to talk to an Uber driver that doesn't also accept fares via Lyft, and if we can convince drivers to abandon Uber by shifting our consumer dollars to Lyft, then the Uber brand and platform will lose value.
Kudos to Uber and Lyft both here. I had to travel to SFO yday and I managed to find an Uber. Despite protests and all, we need transportation people. I donated money to ACLU.
I think instead of commending Lyft for what could be seen as marketing (they also did not stand in solidarity with the JFK strike, we should be discussing ways that ride-sharing technology can be used to support unionized drivers. I admittedly don't know much about the details, but apps like Curb http://gocurb.com/ at least claim to be working with licensed cabbies. I'd love more information on alternatives to the big ride-sharing apps that are more overtly focused on workers rights, instead of calling a fleet of contractors "disruptive."
Lyft operates in Malaysia, where Israelis are banned from entering unless they get a letter of approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is nearly impossible for the average Israeli. I'm curious if Lyft has any qualms about operating in Malaysia? I understand their disgust with Trump's action but I do hope they're consistent with their views.
To clarify, lyft does not operate outside of the states. They partner with Grab and DiDi.
For lyft to stay consistent with their views, they'd have to cease partnership with Grab. With the claimed $1MM donation they paint a positive picture for us(fellow HN users reactions show they are more likely to use lyft, lyft will thus earn off us), but it would simply be loss of potential revenue in the case of Malaysia.
Why is a company that is losing money and having what's left of their lunch taken by a gorilla of a competitor (Uber) throwing away $1M like this? If I were an investor in Lyft I'd sue them.
Keep in mind that the American election system is such that only 20% of Americans (or 30% of eligible voters) voted for Trump in order to get him into office. So it really does not follow that a move against Trump would anger half the country. Trump famously lost the popular vote as well, and he has one of the lowest approval ratings on entering office of any President in modern history.
Finally, who's more likely to use Lyft? Trump's support base is shockingly hard to truly pin down, but certainly a lot of his base resides in rural areas, not cities -- areas where Lyft (and Uber) may not even operate or, if they do, the volume of rides is far, far lower. My impression, in fact, is that there's almost an inverse correlation between number of heavy Uber/Lyft users and Trump support in the area -- it'd be interesting to see someone actually try to verify/debunk that impression with real data.
In 2012, turnout was 57.5%, of which Obama won 51.06%. That makes 29.36% of all eligible voters.
The problem is that it's really, really hard to get numbers on the question "how many people did not register themselves for voting rights, even if they could legally have done so?".
You can usually get stats on turnout as both % of registered voters and % of voting age population. Neither of those is exactly % of legally-eligible population, but together they bracket it.
I can only comment anecdotally, but I went to like six bars in a conservative southern town last night (long bar hop, don't drink, so don't judge too harshly) - people were discussing this at every single one
Deserved or not, Uber has (and perhaps even takes pride in) a reputation for being amoral and Ayn-Rand-inspired. And this is a topic which has a strong moral component. Lyft would have been fools not to capitalize on the moment.
(FWIW I think Uber deserves that reputation and I consider the strike a legitimate protest against an immoral action. But my statement above is dispassionate and should stand even if you have the completely opposite opinion on these issues)
Personally, I had already been favoring Lyft over Uber for just that reason for long-term consumer self-interest and this issue as well as Ubers involvement with the Trump administration just personally justifies doubling-down on my preference.
A little less than half, assuming the popular vote is representative. And considering that the top 3 largest cities were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary it seems very sensible, given that I assume that's who their target consumer is.
Overwhelmingly liberal is not 99%. It's more like 66-80%. For example,in very liberal San Jose, Trump got 20% of the vote. It's still a large percentage of the potential customers.
> Why is a company that is losing money and having what's left of their lunch taken by a gorilla of a competitor (Uber) throwing away $1M like this? If I were an investor in Lyft I'd sue them.
To oppose those who would intentionally conceal and obscure objective fact from the public. The administration has publicly claimed a connection between these countries and the attacks of September 11th [1]. This is demonstrably false.
I am not asking for opposition for the sake of opposition; I am asking for opposition because the claims of the administration are factually, demonstrably false.
Yeah again, Lyft's board is appointed with obligations to the company and the shareholders. Companies can have an ethos of social responsibility, but the board isn't there with an obligation to social responsibility, or to oppose politicians. When a non-profitable company is spending company funds based on the board's personal moral code...I'd have significant issues.
The only moral code here is fact: contrary to the administration's claims, the September 11th attacks did not originate in – or have a material connection to – these countries. Citing the September 11th attacks as a reason to restrict immigration from these countries does not follow logically, and therefore must be opposed on a factual basis. The claim is not true.
It depends on the purpose of the company. Companies have purposes beyond simply increasing shareholder value: they have goals as to how they're going to run their business, which the board understands. I don't know what the details are in this case. But the argument that everything boils down to pure, unrestrained pursuit of profit is ultimately hollow and soulless and results in all manner of abuses.
Yeah absolutely. I'm guessing that "Oppose Trump" isn't in the memorandum of association though. I'm putting myself into the shoes of a large investor who isn't getting returns.
I don't think it's fair to describe Lyft's donation and letter as broadly as "Oppose Trump". The letter clearly addresses "Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin.… We stand firmly against these actions".
I agree I don't know what's in the memorandum of association. It likely doesn't specifically mention immigration issues, either. It may include language concerning ethics and human rights, which Lyft could choose to interpret as including this action. I think reasonable people can disagree on this.
I recognize that now includes two hypotheticals, so I'll stop there as ignorant speculation degenerates quickly.
Yeah I'm only speculating too, so I'll stop also. My main issue was just with a poster saying that they had an obligation to give this donation. It's really only an obligation to fund social issues if that's what their company was, effectively, somewhat set up to do.
There's every chance that this haphazard donation could blow back in their face, in which case someone will be in a spot of bother.
I really really like Lyft. It seems Trevis is kind of a scumbag, kind of like Trump in a way who wants to win at any cost and has little sympathy for people in his way.
Hearing employees at Uber crying, drivers getting scammed into leases, terrible customer support. I'm glad I didn't accept the offer.
Lots of boycotts are of the moment - like if I applied my politics and boycotted equivocally I couldn't buy gasoline or pay my utilities or work for my employer. When one breaks out (esp in a competitive market), it's easy to decide to join in (with fervor). It's always been that way.
Donald Trump is being powered by conspiracy theorist Steve Bannon, the "Breitbart News" head and board member of Cambridge Analytica, an analytics firm that used psychological profiling to cynically exploit the American electorate. Despite his inexperience and stated desire to "blow things up", he was appointed to an influential national security position, over the Joint Chiefs of Staff [1]. This is an existential threat to the American public and to the world.
Bannon is not a founder of Breitbart, but came on after Andrew Breitbart's death. But yes, he is a terrible danger to the states. This is like a bad movie.
The article wikipedia refers to states that Bannon was a board member from its foundation. That could be co-founder or just paid advisor or early investor.
Please don't use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" as a term of disparagement or to indicate a particular bias. There are many that investigate conspiracies who have the opposite views of Bannon and are very skeptical and scientific.
You are giving a tool to the unscrupulous to bury conversations by labeling their opponents "conspiracy theorists."
Would you say Edward Snowden is in the same bucket at Bannon?
When someone casts peaceful protests against immigration policy at airports as "terror tied", I classify that as conspiratorial thinking [1]. I have no doubt a conspiracy is at work here, but IMO it is not of the type that Bannon espouses.
They're referring to CAIR here and given Breitbart's journalistic integrity or the lack thereof, they went with that provocative headline to stir up their outrage-junkie audience.
That's not what Leninism means tho (it's not "smash the state" as Bannon says, it's about having a vanguard party and control of political power by the working class).
I completely understand that. But it's a term he used for himself, and I think it's funny to semi-accurately (not in terms of actual definition but in terms of someone's self-description) label a member of a Republican administration as a Leninist.
Though Bannon may be more accurate than he realizes about being a "Leninist" since he wants his faction to be the vanguard party with power derived from the white working class and voters who identify with such.
I think Bannon is an asshole and I wish he didn't have such a close position to the President. The only saving grace is that Trump is so arrogant, I don't think he will follow anything Bannon says that he already doesn't believe.
But since when is he a neo-nazi? Breitbart.com is about as pro-Israel as you can get, and Breitbart himself was a Jew. Trump's daughter Ivanka is also a Jew, as is her husband, who is now another special advisor.
There's evidence Bannon has been the chief author behind some of the recent executive orders. Especially the immigration order. Trump is arrogant but he's very easily influenced. And I'm not convinced he even understands what he is signing.
His antisemitism has been well documented. How he gets along with Kushner and Ivanka, I have no idea. I suspect they don't get along at all. There will plenty of books on Trump's Team of Rivals, though probably much less glowing than for Lincoln's similar team.
Evidence? Trump pledged all of those since the beginning, before Bannon was involved in his campaign. "Easily influenced?" You're making shit up now. I've never seen anyone so ridiculous stubborn in such a position of power. Any evidence he's "easily influenced" besides your opinions? He hasn't even given up his Twitter account for God's sake and he doesn't listen to any of his advisors to shut up, except for the day before the election.
> How he gets along with Kushner and Ivanka, I have no idea.
The obvious answer is that he's not anti-Semitic.
You can try to make up stuff, or pull one off references from divorce proceedings, but he was head of a strongly Pro-Israel website, created by a Jew. If he's anti-Semitic, he's a failure. He's working for a president that obviously supports and loves Jews, since his daughter converted to Judaism without any issue from him, and his Jewish son-in-law is his top adviser.
If you think he's some Othellian figure that can endure working for so many Jews and espousing Jewish values, all for the chance to whisper one-or-two white nationalist policies into Trumps brain, you're absolutely crazy. Okkam's razor, dude. The simplest answer is that you're wrong and he's not anti-semitic.
" Inside the West Wing, it is almost impossible for some aides to know what is in the executive orders, staffers say. They have been written by Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior White House adviser for policy, and Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, according to people familiar with the matter. Ideas for some of the Trump executive orders came from transition officials and so-called “landing teams,” "
--http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trumps-flashy-executiv...
And of course he would put up working with Jews if it meant he had a seat at the table and a chance to enact his wildest dreams. In a choice between power and principles, most people chose power. Your proposed Occam's Razor doesn't work because you're ignoring the most obvious thing: the desire of people for power. If being Trump's right hand man means putting up with Kushner, then so be it. I'm sure Kushner, as the other key figure standing beside the throne, feels the same way. He can put up with an antisemite in order to be in the White House.
Think about it. Occam's Razor is for the simplest choice. Assuming Bannon's racism, Bannon's choice here is: work with Jews and have a lot of power, or avoid Jews and go back to the mundane life as a publisher with no seat at the table. There's really no question of what he would choose.
Think about it for even a second. Your story makes no sense. Is he an anti-semite or is he not? If he is, then why would Ivanka and Jared Kushner, both devout Jews, allow Bannon to join the campaign? They are Jews, how could they tolerate having him next to them?
Nothing you suggest makes sense. The only answer that makes logical sense is that he's not an anti-semite. None of your conspiracist theories make any sense.
But then again, if you think Bush was behind the 9-11 bombings, then there's nothing really to discuss either.
"Bannon has been working on the long-term strategic vision that will shape the Trump administration’s overall foreign policy approach," Rogin reported, citing transition officials. He "is committed to working on the buildup of the military and is also interested in connecting the Trump apparatus to leaders of populist movements around the world, especially in Europe." [1]
I find this terrifying, that an untested extremist is the one in charge of our entire foreign policy approach, and that his goal is greater militarization and igniting populism. Not going to invoke Godwin's Law, but I think the parallels are obvious.
CNN also reports that Bannon feels free to over-rule DHS legal counsel on constitutionally questionable immigration actions as part of their PR strategy [1].
My point is that corporations don't start product development for even a bar of candy without extensive market segmentation and psychological profiling. This is completely run of the mill stuff in this day and age, and you can be certain that every major party in the western world does the exact same thing.
OP is presenting it as if it's an unusual affront to democracy. It's extremely disingenuous or extremely ignorant, I'm not sure which.
It is an unusual affront to democracy. Democracy depends upon a well-informaed public making rational decisions. It cannot and should not be gamed by for-profit "market makers" at the expense of the American taxpayer and the American people.
All this is, is a refinement of what politicians always did. Micro-targeting based on personality traits is just the natural evolution of the tradition of pandering to voters. Quantitative change, not qualitative.
In addition, Obama, Clinton and Trump all employed or used persuasion experts to help their campaigns (Cialdini for the former two, and Trump for himself). This is absolutely unavoidable, and again no qualitative difference between persuasion experts and the traditional PR consultants or speech writers.
You're mixing up your points. I never said that it was normal for foreign entities to influence elections, although it also is normal and you can quickly confirm this by looking at the funding received by random parties of your choice.
Your comment is nothing but alarmist rhetoric. I mean, each sentence is specifically engineered to be as negative-sounding as you can make it. People don't usually do that, even with actual dictators.
> being powered by
Donald Trump needs a supernatural explanation, presumably because you think he's incompetent. At the least, you're saying he can't do what he's doing by himself.
> conspiracy theorist Steve Bannon
The term "conspiracy theory" is supposed to discredit him. But, if he has trouble telling truth from reality, why is he enabling Donald Trump? People who make mistakes interpreting data lose elections.
> board member of Cambridge Analytica, an analytics firm that used psychological profiling to cynically exploit the American electorate.
It's called "marketing", and everyone here does it. Nothing wrong with it. Again, how's a "conspiracy theorist" going to exploit psychological profiling? They're supposed to see patterns where none exist, which means whatever analytics they're doing would be ineffective.
> This is an existential threat to the American public and to the world
You haven't actually described anything that could be an "existential threat". Examples include: Nuclear war, a large asteroid, an incurable highly contagious disease, etc. You can only call him an "existential threat" if you believe America and the world will literally stop existing in 4-8 years.
You did say it right after a comment about being appointed to a "national security" position. I imagine many people on HN get triggered by the phrase "national security", getting flashbacks to George Bush and the Patriot Act. If you think politicians have been abusing the term "national security" to push their bad policies, you should welcome the position being effectively removed from the President's advisory.
Nothing you've presented is really bad, so I'm not really sure how to respond to the facts. People might be interested in Stefan Molyneux's "The Untruth about Steve Bannon" video[1], though. He's not as bad as people are making him out to be.
His comment is rhetorically partisan, but you haven't come close to establishing with evidence that it's "alarmist". I'd direct your attention to Eliot Cohen's essay in The Atlantic from this morning:
Cohen is no liberal; he cofounded PNAC and served as a deputy under Rice in the Bush administration. And his take on Trump's last week is even more urgent than the parent comment's.
It is in fact not normal at all for the President's "chief strategist" --- an informal, non-confirmable role, created to house someone who stood a decent chance of washing out of Senate confirmation --- to replace the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of National Intelligence on the NSC PC.
Someone watching this unfold dispassionately might be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that Bannon is there because he doesn't trust Trump alone in a room by himself with a bunch of actual adults; Trump is, as has been reported for over a decade, famously impressionable.
The intended goal of my comment was not partisan – I believe that Steve Bannon's reckless disregard for objective fact represents a threat to the United States, independent of any party allegiance.
That's a partisan point, and it's unrelated to the article, so you can expect pushback. The better rhetorical strategy is to confine your criticisms as closely as you can to the subject at hand, and to take extra care in linking other concerns to it.
> an informal, non-confirmable role, created to house someone who stood a decent chance of washing out of Senate confirmation
This is a good argument. Many of these White House roles need to be confirmed; even if they are mostly advisory, because the law assumes that the President's advisors influence his decisions. If people want to say "Steve Bannon needs to be confirmed by the Senate", that's something I could probably be convinced of.
To be clear, there are probably some good arguments against the executive order. In particular:
* It affects green card holders, who are legally allowed to travel to the US.
* There are rumors of people being asked to voluntarily renounce their green cards, which if not illegal is at least immoral.
* The order probably shouldn't include Iran. I think the list of countries was based on one that's already in law?
* Maybe they should've given people a week or a couple days to get back into the US, rather than immediately banning them.
It's only saving grace is that it only lasts for 90 days, so it was intended to be temporary while they write up some actual reform. And I know of at least one other case where the court has allowed something unconstitutional because it was temporary to solve a specific problem(Affirmative Action).
It'd be nice if there was a "Stefan Molyneux of the left". As it is, it's hard to read through all the fear to find the arguments.
I'm having a hard time understanding the argument you try to make as you confirm all the arguments your selected opponents are making. "It only lasts for 90 days" is a rebuttal, but it's an awfully weak one to hang your entire rhetorical outfit on.
It looks like the language in that part of the executive order was specifically intended to trigger this section in the law. So it seems legal, and means I can't even say it was incorrect for him to include Green Card holders:
> Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President"
> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
I don't think anyone here explicitly said it was illegal, but I've seen a lot written that seemed to indicate that it was, which was the basis for me singling out the green cards in my other comments.
The only part I actually agree with is that people holding green cards shouldn't be stopped from traveling. They've gone through extensive vetting already. The administration should intervene immediately to stop applying it in those cases, but I agree with the rest of the order. I think Sec. 3 (c) is the part of the order that covers this?
The rest of the order is partially fulfilling his campaign promises, and the broad idea is what's expected of him.
> It affects green card holders, who are legally allowed to travel to the US.
This is understating the case. Green card holders aren't just "allowed to travel to the US" - that's true of any visa holder. Green card holders live in the US and aren't allowed to come home.
I agree that Uber should have participated in the strike. You said "welcome to post-truth politics" and "clearly and unambiguously untrue." Please demonstrate that I am a liar.
Religious flamewars are not welcome here (nor prepared lists of religious flamewar talking points). We warned you about this at least once before. If you do it again, we will ban you.
You should really define what you mean by "religious flamewar", because from what I see, you allow the other side of the "war" to comment, but censor me.
And labeling what I write "troll talk" is ridiculous. I'm not trolling anybody. My comment was well written, I had citations to prove my points. Again, you don't have a counterargument, so you reduce yourself to name calling and censorship.
By "troll talk" I mean this is the language trolls use to keep arguments going. I'm not interested in arguing about Islam, I'm interested in you either following HN's rules or ceasing to comment here.
I agree that 99% of the time we should keep it non-political on HN. This isn't a political forum. But certain times where fundamental values get challenged then it's okay to cross the line and stand up to say something. Columbia had a great statement about this:
But I agree that it should only be done in the right time and place. Far too often people get hysterical these days and call anyone they disagree with Hitler every time they utter a sentence. Where when it gets to the point it really matters to stand up they become far less persuasive.
How is it overtly political to note that Lyft has donated $1m to the ACLU? If anything it is newsworthy. Glad you created an account just to share this with us.
What is the cutoff point? When does something become political? This post might be easy to classify, but what if it were something else, like "Trump imposes 20% tariff on all online services." Would we be allowed to discuss that?
I hate it when people try to classify things as "political" and then don't want to discuss them. It is such a slippery slope.
Not all, but plenty of political pieces have been flagged over the past 24 hours. I wouldn't be so confident that this wouldn't either. The likelihood goes down if you don't flag it.
Regardless, the guidelines ask us not to comment on whether a submission is appropriate: just act on it.
Why will Uber not pull their heads out of their ass and have any moral-basis for operation? It's not like they don't hire a ton of Green Card holders...
Will that have a material impact on anyone's bottom line? Who knows, but I'd love to see the graphs for new account signups/account deletions.
[1] Taxis were not servicing JFK in support of those who were being detained there.