
How low does Uber have to go before we stop using it? - kgwgk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/08/uber-customers-sexual-harassment-tech-companies
======
gamblor956
I used to exclusively use Lyft, until one of their drivers nearly killed me.
Lyft, of course, sided with the driver despite GPS evidence, multiple
witnesses, and a police report.

Uber's horrific management notwithstanding, I've never feared for my life in
an Uber, so I intend to use Uber until it dies or a replacement comes along
that is superior to both Uber and Lyft.

~~~
throwaway36894
The fact that this is the only downvoted/flagged comment so far supports my
suspicion that it's mainly lyft/google/alphabet/waymo employees and fanboys
and fangirls upvoting these stories to the front page.

------
bsears
Your average person is not going to pay attention or care about what Uber as a
company does.

The only things that matters to the average user is the experience and the
price - in order for people to stop using Uber something has to affect them
personally.

~~~
Fezzik
I really do not think this is true. It may vary geographically, but I can say
unequivocally that everyone I know in my city (Portland, Oregon) is aware of
and annoyed by the apparent sexist culture and shady law-evading that has
become associated with Uber. And it has _definitely_ altered their usage
habits. And they talk about it. A lot. Having entered the market as a heralded
White Knight, doing battle with entrenched and crummy Taxi companies, Uber had
a high standard to live-up to. Yet they keep shooting themselves in the tires.

~~~
malandrew
> And they talk about it. A lot.

That's signaling. It's a mating strategy. Whether that actually changes the
behavior of all those who are signaling when they aren't being observed by
others in their in-group is another matter entirely.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory)

~~~
neuronexmachina
Cute attempt at trying to minimize people's concerns. If you want to play that
game though, using services other than Uber is also signaling.

------
vosper
> Instead, Uber has entered that rarified portion of the market, alongside
> companies like Ryanair and Sports Direct, where unpleasantness is now an
> assumed part of the brand.

I don't think that's fair, because I don't have any expectation of
unpleasantness when I interact with Uber drivers, who're my only contact with
the company. The unpleasantness that exists seems to be at the corporate
level. My experience with drivers and the Uber service has been very positive
(and the same goes for Lyft).

------
paulddraper
> In March, it was revealed that the company had been “greyballing” law
> enforcement, hiding vehicles from them in an effort to fox attempts to catch
> drivers in cities where the app is banned.

Is that wrong? If there's a police car set up on 6th, can I avoid it and go on
7th? Or does that mean I'm a criminal with something to hide?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Yes, it's wrong.

If Uber is banned in a city, that means it's against the law. Dodging cops
while you're doing something against the law... yeah, that's wrong. It's wrong
to be doing the thing that against the law, and you're proving that you know
it by dodging the cops.

But you may argue that the Uber service is fine; the law itself is wrong. And
that's a reasonable argument. (Not necessarily _right_ , but at least
reasonable.) But the correct way to respond is with civil disobedience -
deliberately disobey the law, _and accept the consequences_ , trying to win
either in court of law or in the court of public opinion. You can't do that if
you dodge the consequences.

Don't dodge bad laws. Either obey them (even while you're working to change
them), or _publicly_ disobey them. Dodging the cops is not the answer.

~~~
throwaway35775
I don't think the company makes any secret of operating in any city. As far as
I know they are quite public and let elected officials know they are going to
operate in their city. This means that the city can quite trivially subpoena
the company once it starts operating. The drivers are just trying to earn a
living. So basically the company was practicing civil disobedience, but was
kind enough not to try and keep individual drivers just trying to make a
living out of it.

------
pasbesoin
As I've come to realize -- or, accept more fully -- in the last few years,
morals take a distant second to personal welfare and convenience, for most
people.

Uber is emblematic of today's world.

Which is the same world it's always been. Different day, same shit.

