
Reasons not to use Uber - deepakkarki
https://stallman.org/uber.html
======
eropple
Even where he has good points, Stallman so often undercuts himself through
overreach. Like, his decades-long attempt to rename things in a "pejorative"
way or call them pejorative names when he doesn't like them is...weird. I
mean, weird-for-him, not just weird. "Oh, we shouldn't call it Uber, we should
call it Goober!" Are we back in fourth grade now? I mean, it's in the same
vein as their redefinition of phrases into particular jargon (like, say,
"free"), obviously, but then trying to use it in advocacy? Hasn't twenty years
of wet-fart responses to the rhetoric taught him--or the FSF in general, who's
usually pretty tin-eared too--anything?

~~~
ekidd
I've come to accept the fact that Stallman is just going to be Stallman. Both
his virtues and his faults are magnified in person.

His brain seems to be wired up differently: He's frustrating, he's terrible at
people skills, and he'd walk 10 miles out his way to avoid bending a minor
ethical principle. Even when I disagree with one of his ethical principles, I
do admire him for being committed to what he believes. I suspect he could have
made a very profitable business off of GCC in the 80s—it was a remarkably good
compiler for several chips back in the day—but he preferred to focus on
writing more free software.

I've spoken with FSF staff in the past, and their attitude towards Stallman
often seems to combine admiration and frustration. They work with him
regularly, and most of them are fairly typical free software developers. They
generally seem to believe that world has room for somebody like Stallman,
who's horrible at PR but who takes principled stands.

~~~
noir_lord
> They generally seem to believe that world has room for somebody like
> Stallman, who's horrible at PR but who takes principled stands.

We need more people like that not less unfortunately they often get creamed by
the people who are unwilling to take a stand but pretty good at PR.

In the realm of politics you can see that happening now in the UK with Jeremy
Corbyn (principled even if you disagree with his politics) and the way the
press treats him.

~~~
pmyjavec
Totally agree, he is a man or principles with genuine concern for others, when
he speaks, others listen.

More of his caliber.

~~~
sanderjd
Something that has always rankled me with respect to this view of Stallman as
a high-caliber role model is the name calling the original commenter
mentioned. Of all the people I look up to and aspire to be more like, not a
single one employs that particular childish style of "discourse".

~~~
RubyPinch
I think it'd be a mix of a couple things, it keeps things lighthearted for
him, and it allows him to not have to keep typing out the name of something he
dislikes very much.

He ain't writing strict legal discourse, he's writing out his own feelings in
the way he feels most enjoyable. Personally I respect that.

For myself: I don't like using words like f __*, and I prefer to censor them
if I do use them, and I 'd rather call someone a goob, instead of an idiot or
a moron. My intent isn't to be mean!

------
abandonliberty
Like much of hckrnews, I've stopped supporting AirBnB. Though we are usually
extremely supportive of disruptive startups, the tide is starting to turn [1]

AirBnB and Uber are both profiting from "disruptive innovation," or rather
facilitating illegal actions. Both benefit the consumer but damage the
community. It's like buying a stolen bicycle.

AirBnB: Transforms residential housing into (in most jurisdictions) illegal
hotels. Ask a local renter in NY or YVR how that's working out for them.

Uber: Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to [often illegally] compete against
traditional companies that must be cashflow positive. It's not a level playing
field. Laws exist so that drivers could make a livable wage; Uber is devaluing
the medallions they've invested in.

Is this really how we want the world to see us?

Real disruptive innovations already have huge social implications: autonomous
vehicle fleets, mobile phones, data collection/mining, machine learning,
CRISPR, cryptocurrency - the list is very long.

Why do we elevate companies like AirBnB and Uber that circumvent laws for
profit to be our champions and unicorns?

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11930080](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11930080)

~~~
smsm42
> or rather facilitating illegal actions.

This is a very disingenuous statement, because it is illegal only because it's
made illegal to kill the service model they are using. It's like GM sponsoring
a law banning Toyotas and then saying - well, look at those criminals - they
are making illegal stuff! How shameful of them! No, it's shameful to use the
law as a club to bash competition and prevent innovation instead of what it
was meant to - to protect people from harm.

> Losing crazy amounts of VC cash to compete against traditional companies
> that must be cashflow positive.

So borrowing money from investors to compete with somebody is now a despicable
thing, maybe even a crime?

> It's not a level playing field.

Sure it is. Level playing field does not mean everybody has the same sum of
money.

> Uber is devaluing the medallions they've invested in.

The value of medallions was created by artificially choking the market until
what was supposed to be simple permit issue to open a business now is a
million-dollar investment way out of the reach of a common person. On the way
creating a severe shortage in services and severe price distortions, since
drivers now have to cover the costs of there million-dollar medallions.

> Is this really how we want the world to see us?

As people trying new things instead of just doing what always been done and
letting incumbent interests tell us they are there for our own good and don't
dare to question them? Sure thing!

~~~
kinkdr
> So borrowing money from investors to compete with somebody is now a
> despicable thing, maybe even a crime?

Running at financial loss just to drive prices down so you can kill
competition is at least unethical in my book. Also I believe it is illegal,
for good reasons, in some countries.

~~~
drieddust
Agreed and I think this should be handled under anti dumping Law anyways?

It's idiotic to allow these unicorns to destroy existing businesses only to
screw customers later on. They are not moving the world forward in any manner.
It is just a power grab.

At best we will end up replacing many small businesses with behemoths with a
virtually limitless lobbying powers.

~~~
shimon_e
From the sounds of it a Trump Presidency would be for removing red tape that
effects Airbnb but against the dumping practices that Uber does.

There are a lot of talk that Trump is going to break up some of the Silicon
Valley companies up. Especially the ones who don't care about American jobs.

~~~
smt88
No one knows what Trump will do until he does it. Even his long-held beliefs
are unreliable, because he is beholden to the mainstream Republicans and
religious right that got him elected.

~~~
tmnvix
> he is beholden to the mainstream Republicans and religious right that got
> him elected

Just my opinion, but these are two groups that appear to have contributed less
to Trump's success than to previous Republican candidates' (in the case of
mainstream Republican politicians - actively attempting to thwart him). I
think he is actually less beholden to these groups than past Republican
presidents were.

------
delegate
Stallman is right on many points.

Uber, Airbnb, delivery services and the like are nothing more than glorified
communication and payment tools.

These services can only be called "sharing" economy if they operate at zero
profit and their app code is open source.

I think they should and pretty soon will be public services, developed by the
community and run by local non profit organisations, like Firefighters.

Furthermore, these should be local services, catering to the specific
circumstances of the city or town they operate in, obeying the local customs
and so on.

~~~
IanCal
I think the "sharing economy" is one of the most impressive rebrands of an
idea. It sounds all nice and friendly, who doesn't like sharing? And so new!
I've not heard of the sharing economy before!

And it's just people selling things to other people. The same thing we've been
doing as a species since we understood the concept of trading, something it
seems chimpanzees have a grasp of.

~~~
jordigh
Uber basically figured out how to be a cab company without having employees
and without following laws. No overheads on salaries, employee benefits,
taxes, or regulations. This is the "sharing economy", really: a libertarian
dream. It appears that this has garnered Uber and Airbnb a lot of goodwill
because whenever they're discussed online, they always seem to be portrayed as
some champion against the evils of the cab or hotel industries. I personally
have never felt as slighted by cabs or hotels as everyone seems to be whenever
they are discussed online.

~~~
snoman
> Uber basically figured out how to be a cab company without having employees

Take a look around and you'll find that basically every company has been
trying to do that in America for a long time.

The administration staff at many businesses is all outsourced to staffing
agencies.

Hiring almost everywhere is outsourced to recruiting agencies.

I know a number of multi-billion dollar corporations pumping hundreds of
millions into their tech divisions, where > 95% of the employees are staffed
from IT staffing agencies/consultancies.

Nobody employs a landscaper, unless they're a landscaping company.

It appears to be a big secret, but everyone contracts out everything these
days. Uber is doing it on the most individual scale, in the most streamlined
way I've ever seen. I don't happen to think that's as bad as everyone else
does.

------
linuxkerneldev
I respect his views. He's been consistently right in the long term. Many of
the problems he predicted are currently with us. I recently discovered the
StallmanWasRight subreddit as well.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/)

~~~
jaredklewis
I haven't seen much in the way of specific predictions from Stallman.
Basically his "predictions" amount to that closed source software allows
corporations and governments to do bad things to users. We fairly regularly
see evidence that this is the case, so hurray, the predictions were right. But
it's not really a point I've ever heard someone argue against. Pretty much
everyone agrees that yes, closed source software makes these bad things
possible/easier and sometimes they do happen. Kind of reminds me of all the
armchair economists predicting that the tech bubble will burst without ever
providing a timeframe.

Anyways, people trot out the "Stallman has consistently been right" thing for
every new Stallman article, as if the fact that a guy has made a series of
uncontroversial, vague predictions is some sort of defense against the rest of
the comments discussing the article's acerbic tone and/or starkly impractical
conclusions.

~~~
wtbob
> I haven't seen much in the way of specific predictions from Stallman.

Try The Right to Read[1], which predicted ebooks, DRM, restrictions on
reverse-engineering, electronic marketing profiles and hardware which refuses
to run free operating systems — in 1997. When I first read it, I thought it
was well-intentioned hysteria, but it was completely, 100% correct.

[1] [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-
read.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html)

~~~
tedunangst
Yeah, and he also predicted that libraries would disappear, and... last I
checked, still here.

~~~
patrickg_zill
The building is there, but the number of books is much less.

~~~
ionforce
Moving goalposts.

~~~
Radiant
Oh hey, it's the Fallacy Man!

------
sebringj
My cousin is an Uber driver and comes from a more troubled past you could say.
He drives a more basic type of car and tells me how it isn't so great to drive
for Uber anymore and how he wants to quit but is having a hard time finding
something better. I had similar drivers tell me the same in the more basic
type of car rides I had. When I took the more luxury experiences, the drivers
seemed much happier and satisfied with Uber, even saying things like "I love
my job." which I never got from the base-model car drivers.

So this would lead me to guess the lower model drivers are being marginalized
in order to get passengers an easier ramp (cheaper) into the Uber lifestyle.
It is addicting once you start doing it, not having to park or worry about
your car is pretty awesome, freeing actually as you can abstract
transportation like a commodity. The company I consult for bought into Uber
pretty deeply and gives some employees accounts to use whenever they need to
for perks so Uber has deeply rooted into Business as well as something you
should just do. But I do think the reason for this popularity has a lot to do
with taking advantage of drivers' economic situation at the base-level on a
thin razor line of it being just enough to be worth it to them. That's
business I guess and I'm sure the line will bump up and down in response to
the quality of the base-line drivers' service to keep profits strong.

~~~
pm90
This is a good point. Once Uber/Lyft are deployed in most cities/stop
expanding, it will be interesting to see what they do to maintain their
revenue. Right now, they can borrow like crazy since they are "expanding" (and
keep prices fairly low); but once that stabilizes, it will be interesting to
see if it can remain profitable without increasing prices.

If Im being honest though: your cousin needs to plan to actively get out right
now. Driving uber may be OK now, but they've made it pretty clear that they
will rely on autonomous vehicles and are doing everything they can to get
there first.

~~~
sebringj
Yes, I've told him the same and he already realized before I told him. He
happens to be an aspiring programmer in his early 20s but never seems to have
the time to actually learn programming, chasing his tail to keep rent going
and helping his partially employed mother. I imagine other Uber driver's
having similar or other reasons of being locked into a cycle of just getting
by. I was luckier as I had plenty of time to read and do homework working at a
very unbusy gas station in my youth. Driving Uber takes up too much of your
attention and time, definitely making you sleepier and unhealthier, sitting
all day and eating fast food on the road in an often stressful environment.

------
rdslw
I would add:

It allows foreign corporation (uber) not paying taxes in your country to
effectively taxate working people with 20% ubertax.

Big one: uber tax is proportional to ride while their cost is fixed.

Also these days in sankt petersburg or other cities in europe, uber "driver"
is a guy leasing 5 cars and hiring 10.. 15 drivers to drive them 24h. Similar
to waht airbnb "shared" economy became: buying bigger flat, remodellibg it to
three small " studios" and try to rent 365 days a year. It would be fine if
openly told and _admitted_ , but its not what airbnb/ uber tells what it does.
Also normal driver/hosts can not compete ( economy of scale) with uber/airbnb
middlemen.

Also airbnb taxate country's real estate while avoiding taxes itself. Also on
proportional scale while having fixed cost.

They (uber/airbnb) should be banned.

*this would ruin their business model, so they choose to lie instead.

~~~
wodenokoto
I completely agree. The word sharing economy basically means "regulation
loophole".

For Uber "sharing" is a way to get around employment laws and taxi
regulations.

For AirBnB it is a way to get around zoning laws and hotel regulations.

------
markbnj
Reasons to use Uber:

\- I take out my phone, enter an address, and five minutes later a car picks
me up.

\- I take out my phone, enter a time and an address and right at that time a
car arrives and picks me up.

It isn't that complicated. Could taxi companies adopt these innovations? Sure,
and now they are. Why didn't they before? Because they are government
protected and didn't need to.

If we all just accepted the economic structures the government licenses and
supports France's minitel would still be the coolest network on the planet.

~~~
snoman
So far, the vast majority of people I have heard complain about Uber are
people that don't rely on public transportation.

Fortunately, I think we've gotten past the point in the argument where
everyone realizes that it's great for the consumer (Uber running a loss to
make it so) right now, but few people are talking about what it's like for the
drivers as well. There's valid arguments made about how much/little they're
making, at times, but that's not an inherently Uber thing. Talk to anyone in a
warehouse, corner store, gas station (and a seemingly uncountable many more
occupations) across the country and you have the same conversation. Market
forces are driving wages down, everywhere, for everyone, doing unskilled work.

One of the key differences I'm seeing is that Uber appears to be the pinnacle
of voluntary, elastic, labor - at the discretion of the laborer. If the driver
doesn't want to work today, or tomorrow, or all next week; they just don't
turn on the app. I'm not aware of any backlash from Uber when drivers don't
log in. Try finding any other job that allows that level of autonomy. That's
the most free kind of work environment I can think of, and that's value that
shouldn't be ignored.

~~~
markbnj
Exactly. I make a habit of chatting up the Uber drivers I ride with, and I
haven't heard many complaints. Far more typical is the guy who picked me up in
Seattle yesterday after a great week at Kubecon. He's retired after 22 years
of driving for UPS and loves to work the overnight shift when things are quiet
(he was fetching me for a scheduled ride at 6 AM and arrived at 6 AM). The
attractions for him are the flexibility and independence. He works when he
wants and for as long as he wants, and is able to add a nice bit to his
pension in the process.

------
smsm42
Also, this:

> Uber plans to do away with human cab drivers. It would be easy for a non-
> plutocratic government to prohibit this, and that's what every country ought
> to do, unless/until every person gets an adequate basic income so people
> don't need to be employed.

This looks like complete Luddite statement - i.e. Uber must employ humans as
drivers and government must prohibit driverless cars until there's no need to
work for anybody at all. For me this sounds insane. Why don't ban bulldozers
then or ATMs or factory automation or, for that matter, power looms? Until
everybody gets basic income and nobody needs to be employed?

I mean I know it's Stallman, but I didn't expect him to also be a
technophobe...

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
Stallman does use his own brain, rather better than average. But some other,
richer, people have come to the same conclusion about the 'basic income' bit.

Actually, the fight about it seems to be that it would be a boon to "tech
billionaires" more than to other sectors.

~~~
smsm42
I don't know about tech billionaires but I know my life, as a consumer, has
become much better since Uber/Lyft and Airbnb has been available. I remember
how I visited some US city on a business trip in early 90-s and got stuck
because no taxi wanted to go where I wanted to go and had to call my coworkers
and drag one of them from his family and beg him drive me (I still feel guilty
about it). I remember how much it costed me to visit the same place without
and with AirBnb, and how I rented a very nice cottage in a rich neighborhood
for half a price I previously paid for a so-so hotel. So for me, a non-
billionaire, it's a very obvious benefit.

I don't mind discussing the basic income idea. What I mind is the idea that
all technological improvement should cease before we have basic income because
it could put some people out of their jobs. That sounds like pure technophobia
and Ludd worship.

------
mikorym
As far as privacy goes, I agree.

However, I think the context in a country like South Africa is different.
Apart from Uber in big cities, we don't have any reliable taxis (minibus,
shuttle or car). Our taxis are notoriously unroadworthy and cause many
accidents and they take part in violent taxi wars.

Our car taxis at places like the airport are known to exploit unaware
customers. Minibus taxis are a standard way of getting to work for many poor
people, but I don't see any plans Uber has to compete with them yet.

In South Africa, Uber drivers (seemingly) earn quite a bit more money than
they would be able to otherwise and they are generally very entrepreneurial
people, in stark contrast to the taxi gangs.

Finally, I should point out that in many places in SA there simply were not
any traditional taxi services (in the US sense), we generally only have
minibus taxis. So Uber is performing a very convenient and otherwise
unavailable service. Cape Town is perhaps a partial exception, and some other
central city areas. But they are nowhere near Uber's efficiency.

------
Daviey
When I saw the title and author, my first thought was... "Oh golly, another
RMS rant about fundamentalism free software"... However, that wasn't the case.
He presented a reasonable argument, with sources backing up his claims. I
agree with many of his arguments..... but i'm still going to use Uber :(

~~~
quadrangle
That's okay, boycotts don't really work. Network effects and economies of
scale are real. You are NOT a hypocrite for saying "I'm going to keep using
this convenient but problematic and unethical service". It's admirable to make
the sacrifice, but don't kid yourself. These issues are system-level and not
about individual choices, even though that's what it is just aggregated.

------
SCdF
This is all well and good. However, it doesn't matter if every person who is
every heard of stallman never sets foot in an uber, because statistically no
one has heard of stallman. Regardless, I think it's been pretty well shown at
this point that as long as people are getting something for their lack of
privacy (such a slimy but convenient taxi service) they're OK with it. Short
term convenience trumps basically anything else.

Recently I was stuck outside of Rome with no way to get into the centre city
because I made the (understandable) mistake of trying to use public transport
on a public holiday, and getting stuck in the middle of nowhere with no trains
running. Or taxis. Uber, to the rescue.

I really feel these days the only way to win is to compete. To build a better
product that happens to also not invade your privacy. And I'm not sure there
are market forces that make that possible.

~~~
PaulRobinson
Linux and Android has arguably made inroads with non-techs, not because of
Stallman advocating Free Software, but because people who echo Stallman's
words.

RMS is not expecting everybody to read this and go "Oh, OK, I won't use Uber".
He's expecting a few thousand people to read it, choose not to use Uber and
then explain to their friends the reasons why echoing his own words. If
convinced, those friends will pass it on, and so on, in a network effect.

You forget just how close Linux was to being ousted from the enterprise back
in the 1990s and early 2000s - if it wasn't for a similar network effect
(specifically arguments around security), Microsoft would now basically be
"the computer company", and we'd all be screwed.

~~~
SCdF
Sure, so what I'm saying is: there has to be a "correct" alternative to uber
(as linux was to ms) and then you're providing an actual reasonable
proposition for switching.

I do not think telling people "don't use uber" when it's clearly cheaper and
more convenient is going to be hugely productive.

~~~
praptak
There is, it's taxis. Where I live they're getting close to Uber in terms of
convenience of ordering one.

------
saalweachter
So, why is there no GNUber?

Most of what Stallman complains about would go away if there were no profit-
seeking corporation sitting in the middle. If no one were trying to collect a
20% tax on taxis, you wouldn't need to pay with a credit card and you could
have anonymous cash rides. Heck, without the need for a company to have
something to take a 20% cut of, you could have actual ride-sharing.

A free, open-source app could be written and verified to not track its users,
beyond the need to provide location services at the moment a call for a cab is
placed.

So why haven't I ever heard of the free, open-sourced alternative to Uber &
Lyft?

~~~
ryanwaggoner
How about safety? I wouldn't get into a vehicle (esp. at night and / or in a
dodgy neighborhood) driven by a stranger without any record, vetting, or
background checks and where the premise of our interaction was that no one
would know they had picked me up, and no one would be able to track me from
there.

And I'm a man; I can imagine many women would be even more skeptical.

------
witty_username
> Uber has changed the regulations that cover charging passengers for making
> cars wait. This decision itself may not be objectionable. Taxis typically
> charge for making them wait. But that regulation is set by a city agency
> which is at least somewhat responsible to the people. Uber is a business
> headquartered somewhere else, which accepts no responsibility to the people
> of any city.

We should not allow a company to privatize the making of the regulations that
create our social order.

??

What is wrong with a company deciding their late arrival penalty?

Stallman's argument could apply to anything that a company decides.

------
dan_m2k
If you're having an affair or doing pretty much anything that you might not
want people to know you're doing, there are a hundred and one ways for people
to find you. Users aren't dumb. They know by the email receipt coming into
their inbox complete with map that their movements are tracked. And they make
a choice either way that suits their requirements or convenience. Having an
affair? Get a cab and pay cash. Or take the risk. Personal choice, after all.

Uber might be a questionable company with questionable people in charge
(referring to 'boob-er' by Travis Kalanick for one), but they're just flawed
people, as apparently is the author with his quite childish style and apparent
lack of reality or commercials.

Near me, Uber has made the previously shitty private hire cab industry up it's
game, with more drivers and an app experience a bit like Uber. But, let's be
clear. Uber probably weren't the first in this space, they're the ones that
went out there, got funding, hired some smart people and delivered a good
product and platform. And they existed because the industry, globally was
pretty shitty, and bits of it still are. The good thing is that the consumer
has choice.

And the calls in the comments that the platform should be free and open is
lovely and idealistic. But do the talented engineers, designers and whoever
else that works to make a well put together and scalable platform not deserve
good pay for a job well done?

As a fair disclosure, I write, admire, build on-top-of free software and
platforms when it meets my needs. I write this on a Mac, which also meets my
needs. Choice exists and we're all leveraging it.

------
viraptor
> If you take an ordinary taxi and pay cash, it will generate no records
> associated with you

I think that's a foolish assumption. Standard taxis not only remember the
phone number / name / address association, they are likely tracking the cabs
as well these days. They also often have CCTV.

> With real taxis, you can flag one on the street

Or not. Or they'll tell you they won't go where you want.

~~~
whyagaindavid
>> With real taxis, you can flag one on the street

>Or not. Or they'll tell you they won't go where you want.

Which city/country? Honestly, I am surprised. Admittedly, i lived only in
Europe (France/Germany/UK) - entire life - never ever has a Taxi driver
refused to take me somewhere.

~~~
dan1234
Wasn't "Sorry mate, I don't go south of the river." once a common response
from London cabbies?

Presumably they'll not want to take someone out to the middle of nowhere,
where they'll probably struggle to get a fare on the way back. Much more
profitable if you're carrying passengers in both directions.

~~~
JdeBP
> _Wasn 't "Sorry mate, I don't go south of the river." once a common response
> from London cabbies?_

No. It was a quip by Peter Sellers.

------
smsm42
I am really disappointed at Stallman using this old canard of "Uber is cheap
but then they become a monopoly and will charge you huge sums forever".
There's no way for Uber to do with without government's help and there's no
way to anybody to do it without government's help really - maybe in very short
term, but it would be so ruinous in the long term nobody would do it. It's
just fear mongering. Uber is not a monopoly, is not close to monopoly and will
never be a monopoly, not unless some crazy government regulation suddenly
makes it so.

~~~
pjscott
Exactly. Making services to compete with Uber may not be _trivial,_ but it's
not capital-H Hard either. After Uber and Lyft left Austin (thanks to a law
requiring fingerprinting and background checks for drivers), a bunch of
competitors suddenly appeared. Currently, Uber and Lyft have two ways of
keeping the other competition down: brand name reputation and operating at a
loss to price competition out of the market. If they jacked up prices, all
they'd have is the brand name thing -- and that's not a very durable advantage
if the price differences are big enough.

------
tdkl
Uber, Airbnb (and more of those modern "community feel good" services) are a
slap in the face to all the workers who fought for workers rights and unions.

~~~
aykutcan
And that is a bad thing ?

~~~
regularjack
Are you implying that workers losing rights is a good thing?

~~~
pjscott
This conversation badly needs concrete examples. "Workers rights" sounds like
a nice thing -- but what, exactly, does it mean? What specific policies are we
talking about?

For example, you can have an interesting argument about minimum wages. You can
have a _different_ interesting argument about workplace safety standards. But
you can't have an interesting argument about both of them at once.

------
jbmorgado
Well, this might be a locally constrained point of view and doesn't have to
hold true in other countries. But in my country, people don't use Uber because
Uber is great, people use Uber because Taxis are awful.

\- The vehicles are mostly quite old (which is strange in this country where
private vehicles on the road are relatively new).

\- Many of the taxis are in bad hygienic conditions (many times dirty,
practically always smelly).

\- Many taxi drivers, are uneducated and impolite and just won't shut up and
let you have the ride you paid for in peace, some of them are plainly rude
some times.

\- The taxi drivers will make it difficult or even sometimes outright deny a
receipt of the trip at the end.

\- One of our best journals (i.e. the less sensationalist ones) made a
research 2 years ago and found out that 80% of the taxi rides from the airport
to the town would overcharge the costumer if he presented himself as a
foreigner.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> ... just won't shut up ...

sometimes i wish the Uber and Lyft drivers would just shut up. and turn down
their loud choice of music.

------
c0rtex
With respect to his point that Uber requires passengers to identify
themselves, I think a completely anonymous transportation system is not what
is needed. Why do conventional taxi services and public transit systems have
cameras? The answer is ostensibly to provide safety not only to the rider but
also to the driver and other passengers [1]. But I'm sure Stallman would say
"ban the cameras everywhere, Big Brother has no business tracking us!" If I
were a cab driver though, I would feel safer knowing that a video of the
transaction was at least being captured. And as a passenger I would feel less
violated if I knew that the video was stored offline and took some amount of
effort to retrieve, could only by accessed by certain individuals, and even
then only with proper oversight.

What is needed is a balance between privacy and safety. Uber violates user's
privacy, but fully anonymous transportation, especially in a one-on-one
ridesharing situation, is unsafe for both parties. Law enforcement should be
_hard_ , not impossible.

[1]: [http://taxi.vic.gov.au/drivers/taxi-drivers/driver-
safety/sa...](http://taxi.vic.gov.au/drivers/taxi-drivers/driver-
safety/safety-cameras-in-taxis)

~~~
couchand
Follow the link to the description of the New York City surveillance system.
There you will see that he actually shares your viewpoint:

"New York City has a long history of oppressive surveillance. Taxicabs in New
York transmit the passengers' photos by radio to the thugs, so I never take
taxicabs there. By contrast, car service cars only store passengers' photos;
that system is tolerable since, if you don't attack the driver (something I
never do), the photos are ignored."

[https://stallman.org/archives/2012-may-
aug.html#10_August_20...](https://stallman.org/archives/2012-may-
aug.html#10_August_2012_%28New_surveillance_system_in_New_York%29)

------
probably_wrong
> The US government can get [your trip history], and any lawsuit (such as a
> divorce lawsuit) can subpoena them

This sounds genuinely terrifying. Divorce lawyers will have their day if they
can get a hold of that data.

------
dmytroi
Uber as an experience is nothing new, IIRC eastern Europe had this model for
ages: the company accepts client requests, the company posts request to
drivers, fastest driver accepts and gets the requests, after the ride client
pays drivers directly (usually cash only), driver pays % to the company. This
was first implemented with pagers + mobile phones, than with sms, than with
j2me apps, and nowadays with android apps usually. So the taxi company is just
a proxy, and there are all kinds of flavor available: illegal taxis, virtual
companies, etc.

The only things Uber did: great UX, wide availability in the world (you use
the same app everywhere), possibility of deferred payments (aka ride now, pay
at some point before next ride) and driver ratings.

As usual with any infrastructural international project: whoever goes first
and behaves boldly - will stay for quite some time, see PayPal, Visa, eBay,
etc. One can argue that Uber is not perfect ideologically on paper, but any
reasoning "why we should make replacement for Uber" are doomed because ROI is
simply not there, while struggles to forbid Uber are also doomed - you may
block the company, but you cannot forbid better UX, so Uber is already here to
stay.

In the end would be better to change discussions from "top 100500 reasons not
to do something" to "top 100500 ways to make something better". There are
concrete things available how to make Uber better, but instead everyone is
just trying to forbid/destroy/etc.

~~~
bmj
_Uber as an experience is nothing new, IIRC eastern Europe had this model for
ages_

Where I live, we've had something similar for a long time: jitneys[0].

[0] [http://www.post-
gazette.com/news/transportation/2013/09/07/P...](http://www.post-
gazette.com/news/transportation/2013/09/07/Pittsburgh-jitney-service-illegal-
but-thriving/stories/201309070167)

------
atsaloli
I find Uber gives me freedom. I recently went from working full-time plus
consulting and training on the side, to consulting and training full-time
(www.verticalsysadmin.com).

My client is across town (Los Angeles) and it can routinely take more than an
hour (more than 2 on bad days) to get across town. Driving in traffic wears on
my soul. With Uber and my trusty T-mobile hot-spot, I can get an extra 2+
hours of work in per day and arrive fresh! Uber's been a life-saver.

~~~
brianwawok
What is the going rate for 2 hours of uber? I have only ever used it for 15
minutes or less.

~~~
atsaloli
The price varies based on availability of drivers and Rider demand. It costs
me about 30-35 bucks to go across town. My hourly rate is higher than that and
I enjoy working more than I do slogging through LA traffic.

------
wicket
> Uber plans to snoop on users' locations and contacts all the time. Uber has
> the technical possibility to do this because its app is nonfree: it is
> controlled by Uber, not by the user. In addition, snooping depends on a
> nonfree operating system.

> Uber requires customers to run a nonfree program (an app).

> The Uber app requires running other nonfree software (in the case of
> Android, Google Play).

These points are not strictly true. Uber may be used via the web interface [1]
which can of course be used on a free operating system.

[1] [https://m.uber.com](https://m.uber.com)

~~~
zanny
I believe there is consensus in the FSF that a proprietary website is still
unethical because you are downloading and executing their page on your local
machine, and many websites use techniques to obfuscate the implementation of
the page you are on, or hide its functionality behind server side proprietary
services.

~~~
wicket
I don't disagree, nor do I think Uber is entirely ethical. I was merely
pointing out a few inaccuracies with RMS's assertions: \- Uber cannot snoop on
users' locations all of the time if they use the web interface. \- Uber does
not have access to the contacts of web interface users. \- The web interface
does not depend on the use of a nonfree operating system. \- Uber does not
require customers to run a nonfree program (app). I've not actually checked to
see if the web interface uses nonfree Javascript but the API is open so it
should be possible to create a free Uber client. RMS doesn't seem to mind
about the software running on the servers as it doesn't directly affect
customers. \- The Uber app itself may require running other nonfree software
however the Uber app is not required to use Uber's services.

------
chmaynard
My objection to both Uber and AirBnB is purely a practical one. The person who
provides the service is not obligated to honor a reservation. I have been
stiffed twice this year:

• An Uber driver agreed to give me a ride to SFO in June 2016 but later
cancelled the reservation with no explanation. Fortunately, I was able to hire
a taxi and get to the airport on time.

• I used AirBnB to request a room in a home in Brooklyn last Spring for one
night. The host decided that I "was not a good fit for their family" and
decided not to rent the room to me.

What a joke.

~~~
cnst
I think the most amazing part about AirBnB is that it's actually usually more
expensive than the last-minute or anonymous deals with the hotels, or, for the
long term rent, craigslist.

So, I can rent a pad on a monthly basis from Craigslist at 1000$/mo, or the
same one from AirBnB at 1300$/mo (or whatever their fees are), and we call it
progress?

Oh, right, AirBnB has a "beautiful design" with those useless background
videos that waste my bandwidth and my battery, that's why an extra
30%/month/week/whatever is warranted! Thanks, but no thanks.

------
pmyjavec
_" Uber plans to do away with human cab drivers. It would be easy for a non-
plutocratic government to prohibit this, and that's what every country ought
to do, unless/until every person gets an adequate basic income so people don't
need to be employed."_

To me this point is extremely valid, call it progress if you like, but to me
this is just going to screw a lot of people over for the benefit of a few.
Especially since big tech companies don't seem to like paying tax to help with
matters of welfare.

Also, taxi drivers aren't always perfect but I've seen them do more than
robotically take people from A to B. There can be other value provided by
human interaction.

------
Bino
And some of the same arguments can make it safer to ride cabs? If I step into
a strangers car (yes that includes cabs) I appreciate if there are some public
records of me doing so. Makes it easier for CSI to find me...

~~~
icebraining
Uber has plenty of PR people to point out the benefits. rms is making the
argument against Uber, not trying to decide for you if you should use it.

------
codedokode
He is absolutely right. It seems that in America personal data are not
properly protected and corporations can do whatever they want.

And making people work long hours is bad too. Isn't sleepy driver dangerous
for everyone?

------
antirez
> Abuse of Drivers

Aren't there minimum salary levels that must must guaranteed in US?

~~~
techsupporter
Uber drivers are "independent contractors," according to Uber, so the minimum
wage laws don't apply to them.

~~~
antirez
Understood, a bit too easy way to circumvent law IMHO. Thanks for the hint.

~~~
giovannibajo1
Also in Italy, if you're free to work at any time of the day, for how many
hours you want, you're easily classified as a contractor, not an employee. On
top of that, taxi drivers are all independent contractors, not employees of
dispatchers, so we can easily sat that Uber followed established best practice
of labour arrangement in its market

~~~
antirez
True for certain kind of works, but for drivers or other non intellectual work
that could be very hard to do. When in Italy you force the "contractor" POV,
if the employee can show that she or he is not independent in the time of the
work, location, and so forth (basically must show up), then the setup is
illegal.

------
kristianov
I think most of his concerns only matter when Uber is monopolizing the market.

As the example in his privacy point, if I have an One Night Stand, I could
just get in with Uber and get out with Lyft. My location history is then
protected as long as the companies are still rivals and don't share info.

------
SZJX
Might just be a bit too exaggerated, especially about the comparison with
taxi. I don't think Uber is great but let's be honest, the taxi system is not
great in a lot of places either and taxi drivers in a lot of cases are treated
even much worse. In China the simple fact is Uber-like companies have allowed
people to earn so much more than under monopolized taxi companies, such that
huge swarms of taxi drivers just simply quit their jobs already. Most drivers
I talked to are very happy with their income and flexible working hours (with
many part-timing), so I'm not sure where the "15-hour-per-day" work applies
to. Certainly not what I could see.

Of course, this could also be a result of the short-term boom of this
industry, where big players are just investing tons of money. The long-term
impact remains to be seen. I predict a lot of drivers will be out of job by
then since there're way too many of them currently. But to say "we must
preserve this job done by human beings because we don't have universal income
yet" is sheer nonsense. I can't believe somebody so proficient with technology
could say that. I'm all in for universal income, but for each technological
advancement there're bound to be old jobs washed out. Artificially holding
them does absolutely no good to progress and people's well-being. Honestly if
that's what's been happening throughout the history there would be no computer
boom, no RMS at all and he'll certainly be doing something else.

Also, Uber technically doesn't even exist any more in China (sold to its
competitor in the form of its shares). Anyways, it's imaginable that some
local government tries to contact such companies for data and certain crowd
control, but it was unlikely to be something centralized. I really hate the
"repressive China" stereotype being emphasized again and again. Remember even
the US federal government bought tons of data from FB/Twitter/Instagram etc.
to control protesters, so I don't see any difference here.

------
harrumph
ITT: Lots of people talking about how Stallman is this, Stallman is that, when
Stallman is once again 110% right -- this time, about Uber.

------
Mz
The points made in the article are horrifying. I have never used Uber. I walk
or take public transit. I expect this pattern to continue anyway, but count me
as someone convinced that Uber is a terrible idea.

------
HillaryBriss
What is the minimum set of data Uber must collect and store about me in order
to know that:

* I will pay for the ride

* I won't assault the driver or commit some other crime against the driver and Uber

* I won't make a mess in the car

* I will be courteous and civil

How do we shift the competitive environment so that Uber/Lyft et al see
minimal privacy invasion as a feature customers value highly?

Answer: it's bullshit. pretty much nobody cares. that's why Stallman felt he
had to write that article in the first place. the vast majority of customers
don't give a crap about these questions.

------
employee8000
Only in an echo chamber will you find people who suddenly think taxis are
somehow morally superior to Uber.

Sure, uber did some things wrong in the past, but Uber in 2016 is nothing like
Uber in 2013-2014. The management has grown up and accepted the
responsibilities is has towards its drivers and riders and takes it very
seriously.

You don't hear the stories of how Uber pay drivers when they have outages or
how happy most drivers actually are. Instead most people appear happy to
vilify Uber for some weird reason.

~~~
lightedman
"The management has grown up and accepted the responsibilities is has towards
its drivers and riders and takes it very seriously."

Only after having their hides handed to them in court by employees.

~~~
employee8000
You're reading the headlines but not understanding the details of the cases.

Uber is not stupid, they know they need a healthy two-way marketplace in order
to have a thriving company. They can't piss off drivers and expect to stay in
business. The idea that most drivers are unhappy is a myth. More than 90% of
the drivers I've had are very happy.

------
throw2016
HN is about startups, VCs and using free software to profit. There is nothing
remotely wrong with this but the priorities of this forum and users are
completely different to someone like Stallman.

In this case he raises critical and pertinent points for users to consider,
but those vested in building Uber, Google and the entire surveillance economy
are going to reject or dilute these points. Just like those who risk losing
their livelihood from global warming reject it.

------
skybrian
The point about discrimination against minorities seems overblown? I've read
that the Uber/Lyft model works a lot better for blacks trying to get a cab.

~~~
uniclaude
Having a system that is better unfortunately doesn't mean that this point is
overblown.

------
jondubois
I also felt morally opposed to Uber initially, but after thinking it through;
I like having wealthy investors in the US subsidise my rides - So now I use it
all the time.

For every ride, money comes out of the investor's pockets and goes to the
driver's pockets and also my pockets (in the form of big discounts) - So it's
great.

If they remove the subsidies and raise prices, I'm gone ;p

------
carlisle_
> With a free system, the user could tell the system to lie to the Uber app.

Stuff like this makes it hard for me to take RMS seriously when he's preachy.
I have so many issues with this statement that are hard for me to verbalize,
but the most notable issue is how not rooted in reality a statement like this
is.

------
nstj
Stallman is the man, and you have to admire him, but wow - is there _anything_
that he _can_ actually use/buy/compile/browse? It's like his universe of
potential activities runs through a filter() which always returns false.

------
SanPilot
Although I agree with many of Stallman's points, it is, unfortunately, true
that this post will most likely not change anything at all.

What percent of Uber users read Stallman's website or even HN? Probably less
than 1%.

The sad thing is the general populace of the United States (or even, the
world) doesn't care if their data are being tracked or kept; or if their
personal information is being recorded; the work of people like Edward Snowden
has done little to change the behavior of most internet consumers.

It is enormously difficult to change the behaviors of these users, probably
even impossible.

------
dingo_bat
> Uber has changed the regulations that cover charging passengers for making
> cars wait. This decision itself may not be objectionable. Taxis typically
> charge for making them wait. But that regulation is set by a city agency
> which is at least somewhat responsible to the people. Uber is a business
> headquartered somewhere else, which accepts no responsibility to the people
> of any city.

We should not allow a company to privatize the making of the regulations that
create our social order.

This is such bullshit. A company can have their headquarters in a single place
only!

------
SeriousM
With uber I pay what I have to. With a real taxi I have to pay 3€ only for
entering the taxi. Either the taxi company is changing its offer or I stick
with uber.

~~~
pimlottc
That starting fee is called flagfall and you have to pay it with Uber as well.
But that's somewhat irrelevant for short trips, as Uber has also has a set
minimum fare. I don't know where you're located but it's typically more than 3
euros:

    
    
        New York: US$8
        Paris: €5
        London: £5

------
leroy_masochist
"Taxis typically charge for making them wait. But that regulation is set by a
city agency which is at least somewhat responsible to the people."

I thought the whole reason that Uber gained traction initially was that city
agencies often suck, are not responsive, and preside over crappy services such
as regulated taxi business, which if you venture outside America's major
cities tend to be absolutely atrocious.

------
buovjaga
Co-ops are the more ethical approach:
[http://platformcoop.net/](http://platformcoop.net/)

------
frakr
I have seen Uber's commission misstated in a few posts: Uber takes $1.55 off
the top of each ride for a booking fee and then 28% of the remaining amount.
This means for short rides Uber takes 40%+ of the fare, depending on the city.

I would love to see a drivers guild get formed, maybe structured as an
employee owned company.

------
zyngaro
This is true we all deep down know this is true the sharing economy uber style
is a giant scam.

------
B1FF_PSUVM
I'm regularly reminded of the genial title of an old album by the punk band
Dead Kennedys:

"Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death"

("Why not both?" has been added lately to the trope repertory as a witty
rejoinder ;-)

------
magoon
Which is greater: His desire for us to have a "free" (liberty) society, or his
resentment of those are trying to earn a living and simply can't afford to
stand up for his principles?

------
fiatjaf
Total misunderstanding of economics along with voluntary submission to the
State, that's just what I could read from this whole shit.

------
seattle_spring
Why are we giving so much attention to this guy?

------
jay_kyburz
Hey, I've never used Uber. I'm in Australia where we don't tip taxis, are you
supposed to tip Uber drivers?

------
softwarelimits
Does anybody know of an open source uber-like platform that could be used by
local communities?

~~~
white-flame
Many people do want these systems to have vetted drivers, consumer protection
against bad behavior, insurance & maintenance/condition requirements for the
driver and vehicle, and other such things. Of course, the taxi system does
provide these protections, although with much more overhead than owner-
operator systems like Uber.

So while I'm not aware of an open source system, even if one were implemented,
people would still want some sort of vetting, driver registration, and
regulatory power over ensuring decent safety, which does require some
centralization.

------
DonHopkins
TIL: Uber is the new TCL. [1]

[1]
[http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15462-f94/public...](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15462-f94/public/other/rms.text)

------
gonzo
s/Guber/GNUber/g

------
throwaway1974
I tried to use Uber, but it asked me on registration to provide paypal details

Since I do not have Paypal due to being banned (they never told me why) that
was that...

~~~
smsm42
I use Uber for a lot of time and never used Paypal with them. They accept
regular credit cards. If you think (like Stallman) that using a credit card is
an intolerable invasion of your privacy, then you'd have a hard time using
Uber. You would also have a hard time convincing many other people to stop
using credit cards.

~~~
throwaway1974
I have no problems using credit/debit cards its Paypal I have a big issue with
(As per my post)

I just tried it again and see its a credit card form and no mention of paypal
anymore, great i can actually use it now!

------
em3rgent0rdr
We need a free-software distributed p2p replacement for Uber.

~~~
icebraining
The problem is payment. If you use the CC network, you're still getting
tracked. Adding regular Bitcoin would not help much (most people would
purchase them in a trackable way) but it'd vastly increase the difficulty in
pushing for a switch.

~~~
corobo
The problem is the potential for dodgy drivers. No way in hell I'd get in a
car that could be some random Joe Bloggs with no oversight. There has to be a
central someone that says "this is one of our drivers" that can be held
accountable.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
yes, I do think that reputation is important. I imagine a system like
openbazaar which is p2p but keeps track of user reputation:
[https://blog.openbazaar.org/decentralized-reputation-in-
open...](https://blog.openbazaar.org/decentralized-reputation-in-openbazaar/)

------
fixxer
> Uber pays drivers peanuts; we should call it "Goober", or rather "Guber".

Drivers are free to not drive for Uber. Uber operates within a free market.
Obviously, the economic incentives are enough for many.

Amusing that the godfather of free software has so little understanding of the
free market.

~~~
alkonaut
People are free to work for whatever company they want, but where I live they
still have to provide predictable schedules, pay a living wage, sick leave,
provide paid holidays etc.

I'd be completely cool with Ubers business model if they simply followed local
regulations for taxi services (insurance etc) and guaranteed a living wage and
a predictable schedule.

They are a taxi company and as such they are an employer. Dodging that
responsibility by claiming your drivers are self employed contractors is BS.
Luckily they are forced to follow exactly what I described above in more and
more places around the world.

I suspect that if their endgame wasn't driverless cars, they would already
have left any city where they can't dodge labor laws.

~~~
fixxer
I fully support the right for your country to enforce your laws, but realize
that other countries may not share your perspective. I welcome deregulation in
the taxi industry.

In the United States, taxi companies are too often more than a bit on the
shady side, so I don't think this is a case of Uber being the bad entity.

Talking to taxi drivers in Chicago, I hear a lot of exploitation. American
Taxi, for example, forces drivers to use their cc processing at 10-15% (if
they don't, their dispatch magically turns off). I ask every driver about this
and they all confirm.

For a little more color... It may not be the case anymore, but I believe Alvin
Malnik controlled Palm Beach taxis for quite a while (trying to dog this up in
the Florida business db, but on my phone right now). He was Meyer Lansky's
attorney... Take from that what you will. Pretty sure he also was early in
getting into the title loan business, so obviously a shrewd businessman that
is comfortable with walking in the grey. I'd rather work for Uber.

~~~
alkonaut
I don't think my perspective on labor laws is regional - every country has
_some_ form of labor laws. Obviously Uber in the US should just abide by US
labor laws, but they currently aren't - they use a loophole of non-employment,
- loophole that is hopefully (and probably) being closed.

Cc processing? Cc being credit card? Are drivers opposed to using credit
cards?

I'm pretty sure I can't pay cash for taxis here (drivers don't want to handle
cash due to the inherent risks).

~~~
fixxer
Credit card processing through the dispatch company at 10-15% (depending on
when drivers want to be paid).

They already pay for dispatch separately.

In think it is perfectly fine for your country to block Uber. In the US, I
want to see laws evolve to suit my political/economic beliefs. The "loopholes"
are complicated beyond just the letter of the law.

~~~
couchand
It's not clear what exactly you're arguing. The loophole isn't all that
complicated: Uber is effectively an employer by any reasonably consistent
judgement. They've decided to unilaterally declare their employees independent
contractors, a designation that's been challenged in multiple jurisdictions,
in an effort to skirt labor law.

If you're saying the loophole is a good thing because it suits your
"political/economic beliefs", that's fine, but that doesn't make it not a
loophole.

