
Lyft surges to the top 10 on App Store following the “DeleteUber” campaign - sethbannon
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/30/lyft-surges-to-the-top-10-on-apples-app-store-following-the-deleteuber-campaign
======
JumpCrisscross
Dan Primack summarised this well; Uber failed on messaging:

"Uber has done a lot of questionable things over the years, but its actions
this past weekend vis-a-vis Trump's immigration ban weren't among them. An
actual timeline from Saturday, which may differ from what you saw on social
media:

• 4:20pm ET: CEO Travis Kalanick sent email to employees. It stopped short of
explicitly opposing the ban, but did say: (1) The company would identify and
compensate affected drivers. (2) Kalanick will raise the issue of how the "ban
will impact many innocent people" this Friday during the first meeting of
Trump's so-called CEO Council. This email was posted a short time later to
Kalanick's public Facebook page.

• 4:55pm ET: NY Taxi Workers union called for a work stoppage at JFK airport
from 6pm-7pm. Uber does not suspend its own service, but also does not send
out any promotions.

• 7:36pm ET: Uber NYC sends out a tweet, saying that surge pricing to and from
JFK has been turned off.

The claim that Uber was trying to 'break the strike' by sending out its surge
pricing tweet is belied by the timing ( _i.e._ , sent after the strike was set
to end). And while it is true that Kalanick has agreed to be on Trump's CEO
council, it's also true that execs from both Uber and Lyft have agreed to sit
on a new automation council set up by Trump's Department of Transportation.
Either a pox on both their houses, or a pox on none.”

~~~
alphonsegaston
Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. This absurd focus on whether
surge pricing was a multiplier or disincentive is a complete distraction.

The taxi drivers reached out and asked Uber for solidarity. They dispatched
drivers to break the strike. They made their bed in the court of public
opinion, now they can lie in it.

~~~
captainmuon
Uber is a company, it is not organized in a union. I would never expect them
to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop
working. Just like a taxicab company doesn't participate in the strike, but
the drivers do.

This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co
of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??

~~~
leereeves
This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest.

By not participating, Uber naturally made enemies among a group of people with
a tendency to boycott everyone they disagree with.

(I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out that this was a predictable
outcome.)

~~~
masklinn
> This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest.

The _taxis_ started a strike action (in support of the protest, but a strike
nonetheless).

> By not participating

strike-breaking.

> I'm not taking sides here

Of course you are.

~~~
titanix2
If the taxis are doing a strike, you can speak of strike breaking only for
taxis not participating in it. Uber are not taxis per se, so there is no way
they can break a strike they aren't doing in the first place.

Also there seems to be a confusion made on strike and strike consequences or
demonstration. Being on strike only means stop working, not directly blocking
access or service (although it is often done in conjunction). So again Uber
providing service for people not serviced by taxis can not be labeled of
strike breaking: Uber didn't prevent any taxis to be on strike if they want to
do it.

Aside my opinion on the matter as a French who suffered more than one time
from strikes is that Uber did a good job by allowing people to live their
lives normally. Not being able to move, send a mail, study, lend a book, ...
is really frustrating.

~~~
sethev
That seems like an absurd splitting of hairs. Under that logic the concept of
a strike breaker couldn't exist. "It was coal workers who were striking, but
the replacements are not coal workers per se they were non-participating
laborers who happen to perform the same function"

~~~
prodigal_erik
If my mom arrives at the airport and needs a ride, am I supposed to refuse
because of the strike? Will the union let me vote on the strike on that basis?

~~~
Mtinie
> If my mom arrives at the airport and needs a ride, am I supposed to refuse
> because of the strike?

Do you intend on charging your mother for the ride she needs? If your answer
is "of course not," you aren't providing the same function as a taxi.

------
MaxLeiter
Completely stolen from
[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5r2apd/lyft_sur...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5r2apd/lyft_surges_to_the_top_10_on_apples_app_store/dd3yi66/)

This is all a consequence of bad messaging on Uber's part here; they're not in
the wrong.

Uber's Surge system is all automatic--if demand goes way up, and supply
doesn't follow suit, prices will increase in the app. Unfortunately, demand
goes way up during catastrophes like terror attacks, so Uber has had a few bad
instances where, in the wake of a crisis, surge goes up, simply because of the
way the system is set up.

People who don't know about how Surge works might assume that Uber is
deliberately raising prices in these crisis zones to gouge people in peril,
which obviously isn't the case. To address cases like this, Uber put into
place a surge shutoff system so that people in these positions aren't charged
extra.

What happened here was that Uber, in the interest of avoiding another PR
disaster, turned off surge to allow protesters (identifying with a cause which
their CEO has openly supported) to get to the venue without extra charge. This
backfired because that wasn't made clear in their announcement, and they
instead came off as strike busters because the NYC taxi firms stupidly chose
to express solidarity by shutting down the ability of protesters (not to
mention uninvolved travelers) to get to and from the airport via their
services.

I don't envy Uber--they're in a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't
position. It's maddening to see the #deleteUber hashtag get this much
traction, especially given that Lyft also continued to operate during the
strike, but c'est la vie.

~~~
rosser
I don't think the pricing is the extent of people's concerns, or even the
majority.

I'm not a fan of Kalanick, personally, but I was prepared to have been wrong
about him when I saw his Facebook post about taking care of the drivers who
were stranded by this idiocy.

Then, I saw they were taking fares to JFK during the taxi strike — effectively
breaking it. To my eyes, and those of many others, that is an ugly repudiation
of the gesture.

It was _one hour_. Having someone on the president's Business Council thing
take a public stand like that in solidarity with the very industry he's trying
to destroy would have sent a powerful message, and pretty cheaply.

More to the point, turning off surge pricing _hours_ after the strike — that
was announced to last one hour — was over is moot.

~~~
jyrkesh
As someone who is only just finding out about all this, I don't fully
understand why the cab drivers stopped picking people up. I think the fact
that people were using Uber (and Lyft) to leave the airport means they needed
to (which is ESPECIALLY if true if surge was in place for some period of time
and people still willingly took it). As poetic as they might think it is, taxi
drivers not welcoming people into the country is, practically speaking, very
similar to the airports not welcoming people into the country.

All I'm saying is that it would really suck to be someone caught at the
airport in the mess, maybe with a few kids you've had to endure
protecting/managing for a 5-10 hour flight, and the cabs aren't going. I'd be
pretty upset at the cabs, even if I stood with the protesters (which I do).
(Keep in mind, this would also include people coming from the many other
countries not called out in the EO.)

Side note: I think it's crazy how quickly so many different SIGNIFICANT
articles are hitting #1 on HN and Reddit. The ban, the judicial pushback, the
firing...I think I'm all caught up, I sit down at home, throw open HN, and
there's an entire sub-story that went down about cabs, Uber, and Lyft sitting
at a new #1. It's all too much for me...

~~~
rosser
> _All I 'm saying is that it would really suck to be someone caught at the
> airport in the mess..._

Then imagine how it must feel to be one of the people affected by the ban.

That's the point of the strike: "Oh you think _this_ is inconvenient?"

~~~
manigandham
When has this strategy ever worked? This is not how you appease or bring about
change.

~~~
brenschluss
How do you think the two-day weekend and the forty-hour week was created?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-
hour_day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day)

~~~
phil21
By an hour long unplanned "strike" called for with hours worth of notice?

Yeah, didn't think so. This conversation is getting absurd at this point.

------
nichochar
It's funny to me how Lyft positions itself like the poor little underdog that
deeply cares about humans. People are so susceptible to marketing it's crazy.

They provide the exact same service, and Lyft cloned most of uber's features
once uber had achieved the unbelievable mindshift of changing people's
behavior.

Whatever people think, in a few years if Lyft is popular enough, guess what:
they too will become the "big evil capitalistic entreprise" and some new
venture backed company will send a christmas email to their users telling them
they love them and should all dance together on the beach.

~~~
malkuth23
Neither company has any stickiness with me. By that I mean, I can switch
between them willy nilly with no real affect on my life. I like to tip when my
work picks up the bill, so I most often use Lyft... If either of them offered
a rewards program (like frequent flyer miles) I would probably use that one
exclusively. I have no idea why neither has implemented that yet.

~~~
gravity13
I find this kind of strange, given that both of them seem to be sinking
massive amounts of money into subsidizing rides. Like, they're going to be all
about user retention when people are only going to care about which option is
cheapest. Google, or somebody, is gonna come in and mop up on the ecosystem
they've created. They won't even have this huge ethical problem of laying off
thousands of drivers.

~~~
whyileft
Because its still about building an overall market for Uber to capitalize on
later. Lyft is burning through their own VC money helping Uber build that mass
with little possibility of actually beating out Uber in the long run.

Not aquiring Lyft was such a masterful move that I completely missed at the
time.

------
rdtsc
Lyft sent me a political message in an email so I deleted Lyft and now don't
have either one. I used them, because I thought they were nicer to the drivers
and allowed me tip. And I support the refugees and think this is a stupid and
dangerous ban. Oh and I was a bit in the same boat as some of them and on a
few occasions was not allowed board the plane with a ticket in hand, and was
not able to get home to US.

But Lyft is just a driving app nothing else. There are also a few games, a
spectrogram utility and other crap. Should I expect my chess game to start
sending me "OMG we so hate Trump, stand with us".

This is getting ridiculous. We and our allies have bombed the crap out of
those countries. Destabilized, them turned them into failed states. (Iran is
probably the only sane one who arguably has a functioning government). We
bombed hospitals, civilians, funded ISIS. Obama alone, the Nobel Peace Prize
recipient just last year managed to drop over 26k bombs but but there is a
stupid travel ban and the apps on my phone start emailing me political support
statements...

~~~
KirinDave
> This is getting ridiculous. We and our allies have bombed the crap out of
> those countries. Destabilized, them turned them into failed states. (Iran is
> probably the only sane one who arguably has a functioning government). We
> bombed hospitals, civilians, funded ISIS. Obama alone, the Nobel Peace Prize
> recipient just last year managed to drop over 26k bombs but but there is a
> stupid travel ban and the apps on my phone start emailing me political
> support statements...

I'm really confused by this. Are you mad because the political climate is
encouraging people to wake up and go, "Oh wait maybe I will not be complacent
with this?"

If you're interested in a more proactive electorate but then mad that that
touches your life, I'm not sure what you're actually asking for. If you'd like
a pro-Trump ridesharing app I bet you can get a lot of reddit gold thrown your
way to start one...

~~~
rdtsc
> I'm really confused by this. Are you mad because the political climate is
> encouraging people to wake up and go,

I am mad that an app on my phone is now sending me emails about what I think
is a fake outrage and jumping on a bandwagon.

> Are you mad because the political climate is encouraging people to wake up
> and go,

People should wake up. And one can argue, a good thing about Trump is perhaps
we'll see a start of a new party and a new generation who is more involved and
will be successful next time during election. But I don't want apps on my
phone to wake up. They should keep quiet.

> but then mad that that touches your life,

But my life is already touched. Don't need Lyft to touch me more.

> I'm not sure what you're actually asking for.

A taxi app that doesn't send emails every time Trump does something stupid. I
imagine that is probably too much.

I heard there is a "support Starbucks" thing now as well because they vowed to
hire 10k refugees. So I should make an extra effort to get some of that
tomorrow. I remember when they were the corporate burnt coffee and
independent-suppliers crushing overlords. Then I should enable G+ because Brin
was in the news protesting at SFO. I am sure there is a longer list I can find
on how I can "support the refugees and squash Trump by buying these 10 great
services and products.

~~~
enobrev
I don't disagree with your point, whatsoever, but I did see another
perspective that I might not have otherwise considered while working with a
larger company recently.

During the public debates regarding marriage equality, the company showed a
very public display of support for marriage equality. They updated their
branding and I assume their marketing as well to show that support.

From the inside, it was clear that this was to ensure the people who worked
for the company could be proud of where they worked. From my perspective, it
seemed the affect on the customer was second priority to the affect upon the
employees, and that seemed to do well for all parties involved.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.

Another perspective is that Christian and Muslim employees of those companies
were told that the management's official policy is that certain aspects of
their religious beliefs are wrong. Can you imagine those employees weighing
speaking up for themselves vs. their need to keep their jobs?

I've seen employees in that situation, and their morale was definitely not
boosted.

~~~
sangnoir
> Another perspective is that Christian and Muslim employees of those
> companies were told that the management's official policy is that certain
> aspects of their religious beliefs are wrong.

How so? To my knowledge, the modern "Christian" marriage (and marriage rites)
are dogmatic and have no basis in the either the old nor the new testament.
Those whose sensibilities were offended were creating, to use your words "fake
outrage". Would they be offended if the Government passed a law that allowed
non-believers to pay a tithe?

~~~
KirinDave
Attempting to disentangle modern faiths from their culture and social controls
is a fundamentally flawed idea and gives no one pause. Everyone is primed by
even decades of training to dismiss one aspect of holy text for another. And
even if you could win that argument, a "personal" relationship with their
deity (actually: their status within their religious community) will still
reinforce their position until their rationalizations can be drafted.

Trust me on this. I spent years learning how to call Catholics hypocrites
while dismissing every book in the new testament. We were very good at it, and
they were very good at pressing us.

~~~
sangnoir
> Attempting to disentangle modern faiths from their culture and social
> controls is a fundamentally flawed idea and gives no one pause

Thanks for spelling it out plainly! I had not considered that "religious
beliefs" can be anything one wants it to be, it doesn't need to be rooted on
any theology. I guess it serves me right for my arm-chair sociology.

------
rm999
This is an example of the economic principle of goodwill. Uber has a poor
reputation that leads to actual losses, but the negative value of the
reputation is difficult to quantify. Conversely, Lyft has fostered positive
goodwill that strengthens it in indirect ways.

This controversy will likely blow over with a small amount of damage, but it's
a reminder of the vulnerability that Uber's management style brings to it. I
think they should pay careful attention to how much people really want to hate
them.

~~~
tunesmith
I think this is the only interpretation that makes sense, really. If you dig
down into what actually _happened_ regarding the taxi strike, then none of the
reactions make a lick of sense. This is more that people are looking for
reasons to hate Uber and like Lyft. That's a battle Uber has been losing for
quite a while.

------
alphonsegaston
Quite the PR coup by Lyft, since they were doing the exact same scabbing at
JFK. In this waning neoliberal order, I hope the best protest people can
muster is better than being deceived by most cunning brand.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-
gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-
gridlock/wp/2017/01/29/uber-triggers-protest-for-not-supporting-taxi-strike-
against-refugee-ban/)

------
ploggingdev
Another reminder that emotion trumps (unintentional pun) reasoning on social
media. I find it depressing that people don't spend any time verifying stories
and separating facts from fiction. I would classify the #deleteuber event as a
form of fake news.

You know what would be a good personal assistant or bot to build (using ML)?
One that detects and informs users about fake news. Apparently the vast
majority of people are pathetic at detecting fake news and this fact has real
implications.

~~~
kkhire
>I find it depressing that people don't spend any time verifying stories and
separating facts from fiction. I would classify the #deleteuber event as a
form of fake news.

The worst part is, this problem will only continue. It's so easy to fake news
these days, and lets say a bot was built to vet authenticity...which bot do
you trust, the one made by CNN or breitbart? it just feeds back to the
original problem, except a bot doing it would just increase the volume of bias
news stories that are "vetted" by their version of the truth.

~~~
ianai
Maybe the thing to do is make a fake news app. Just pump that channel so full
with fake news that the only rational option is to seek less news, higher
quality.

~~~
abpavel
You mean The Onion?

------
niftich
It's unfortunate that such a literal instance of hashtag activism was based on
pure speculation by random people on Twitter. Uber definitely botched the
messaging, but they were in a no-win situation.

Their surge pricing algorithm will raise prices in times of low supply and
high demand, which a protest coinciding with a taxi strike will definitely
hit. I can understand why they would want to announce that they're going to
turn off surge pricing, to make it clear they're not trying to profit off of
this situation.

In retrospect, they would've been better off not saying anything, and perhaps
refunding some portion of the ride price later. By making a public post devoid
of context or justification, they invited fired-up commenters to arrive at
their own interpretation. Some felt that Uber was trying to break the taxi
strike, some felt that Uber was incentivizing protesters to clear the airport
quickly (as some have pointed out, rides _to_ JFK were not discounted).

This coupled with impassioned public largely powerless to react against
government action, made a private company which has stoked people's
frustrations for a while an easy target for hashtag activism. Lyft's marketing
was ingenious -- they quickly capitalized on this unexpected development by
donating a million dollars to the ACLU -- actions that are commendable on
their own, but definitely appealed to large segments of the population.

~~~
concinds
Yes. And then, Uber's CEO reminded everyone that he wasn't the only one
working with the Trump administration, and Musk and others had too, and the
dumb Twitter mob started running around accusing him of "snitching", as if
that list wasn't already publicly available. It's so preposterous how gullible
and hateful mobs are.

------
throwaw181ay
I'm no fan of Uber but come on, this is so stupid, and dangerous for Lyft,
because now they are stuck into this kind of pandering. Do they really think
these customers will be loyal? at the first political blunder, with enough
outrage, they are done. They are pandering to a crowd that is never happy with
political posturing. They'll learn it the hard way. Uber absolutely did the
right thing here. They chose not to play with fire and play the long term
game.

~~~
wan23
In the end, what really differentiates these companies? There aren't many
reasons to pick one over the other. Any opportunity that Lyft has to say "Hey!
We're different" is good for business.

------
ejlangev
Seems like Uber didn't really do anything wrong here other than fail on their
messaging. Perhaps worth asking why so many people assumed they would be doing
the wrong thing though and had little faith in Kalanick's explanations.
Flocking to Lyft instead implies people make a distinction between the two in
terms of ethics (which Lyft capitalized on) though probably not for any good
reasons.

This doesn't seem like a good reason to delete Uber but there have been plenty
of those in the past so I don't find myself very sad to see them lose
business.

~~~
ncallaway
> This doesn't seem like a good reason to delete Uber but there have been
> plenty of those in the past so I don't find myself very sad to see them lose
> business.

That's how I felt about the situation. There were plenty of reasons already
that I should've deleted Uber. It doesn't really matter if this was _the_
reason to delete Uber, so much as it was a reminder to finally get around to
it.

------
FT_intern
This is ridiculous.

There is no reason to punish or berate some person/entity/company for NOT
participating in a strike. It would only make sense if the company openly
tried to take advantage of the strike or attempted to stop or disturb the
strike.

Inaction should not be considered as malice

------
tofu_icecream
It was the Taxi Worker's Union that participated in the Strike, not Cab
companies. Is it really fare for Uber to force their contractors to stop
working and making money in "solidarity" with this union? If Uber drivers
wanted to support the strike, they could have stopped doing pick ups.

------
badwulf
What do the people flying into the airport have to do with the Muslim ban?

The taxi industry is sickening, they feel no empathy towards the people
travelling, then why should I feel any empathy towards them?

If angry taxi drivers want to do protests, there are ways to do it without
harming innocent people travelling in. If they resort to such a thing, how can
they claim moral high ground?

~~~
azernik
Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.

This has always been the logic of the strike as a means of protest - sure,
it's unfair, but its also the way labor politics works. And honestly, with a
strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more symbolic than a real hardball
days-long strike.

~~~
badwulf
> This has always been the logic of the strike as a means of protest - sure,
> it's unfair, but its also the way labor politics works.

Except this has nothing to do with labour politics, the controversial "Muslim
ban" had nothing to do with taxi laws. Using a labour union to push a
political agenda is basically abuse of power. Imagine if pro-Trump police
would start striking...

> And honestly, with a strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more
> symbolic than a real hardball days-long strike.

If you are visiting the US for the first time, you probably won't know that,
and you might not even be able to get off the airport.

They could have had their protest in an area where people would have noticed
them and in a way that does not harm innocent bystanders.

> Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.

Any amount of power they have, the state has more of it. The only way they can
achieve something is if they get the public on their side.

~~~
azernik
Labor unions and labor movements push political non-labor agendas _all the
time_. For example, general strikes led by labor movements are standard tools
of nationalist and anti-colonial independence movements, and Western labor
unions have gone on strike to demand better environmental policies.

>> Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.

> Any amount of power they have, the state has more of it. The only way they
> can achieve something is if they get the public on their side.

This is an argument over tactics, where I believe the left-wing outpouring of
support has vindicated the decision to strike. They've drawn attention to
their cause, and brought to mind a productive sector of the economy dominated
by immigrants (particularly from the Middle East and South Asia). People are
often persuaded by the depth of feeling shown by others, and strikes (since
they damage your own income) are a good way of proving your dedication in a
material way.

------
kevinpet
"The Taxi Workers Alliance had asked all drivers, Uber included, to not pick
up at JFK"

Uber isn't a driver. What does the taxi workers alliance have to say about
taxi dispatchers? Did cab companies participate in the strike? For a company
to do this might very well be illegal collusion. Individuals can strike,
companies aren't as well protected.

------
doguozkan
I'm curious about how taxi drivers are viewed in the US or this specific
region. In Turkey, they're mostly hated, because they will go to any length to
extort money out of the customers. This ranges from picking longer roads if
they detect that the customer doesn't know the area well to asking for 500
euros to even pick them up after terrorist attacks. So, Uber was seen as the
savior as their drivers wouldn't try to do any of this and were generally
nicer in people's experience (it really doesn't take much to be nicer than a
taxi driver here).

~~~
ianai
In the southwest they're generally someone you'd only hire once or twice
around an airport on a vacation. They're around public restrooms for
favorability.

------
guelo
That perfectly timed million dollar donation to ACLU was marketing genius. I
can't imagine how you go about making a decision like that and quickly pull
the trigger in such a fast paced volatile environment.

~~~
exodust
which is enough reason for me never to use Lyft.

#hasta-la-lyfta-baby (work in progress delete Lyft hashtag).

~~~
usernameplease
Can I ask why donating to the ACLU made you delete your account? It may be a
waste of VC money, but they do stand up for civil liberties.

~~~
exodust
You signed up to ask me that? Maybe you're from Lyft or ACLU?

Today I'm interested in the gritty details of social media manipulation,
political marketing and celebrities using their Twitter power to influence
customer loyalty.

I was replying to guelo, who suggested the 1 million donation from Lyft was
well-timed marketing genius.

I'm surprised so many people think that money is the answer to everything.
Money and hashtags. The more money ACLU gets the more they can apparently fix
all these nasty issues.

I'm fatigued by the moral high-ground of social media megaphone hissy fits.
Viral wisdom for all to follow or else suffer more hashtags.

What happened to the business model of simply providing a good reliable
service? Investing time and energy into consistency, reliability and the
primary business mission? Instead we have companies setting up whiteboards,
mapping out the risks vs rewards of viral stunts relating to issues completely
removed from their purpose.

I don't like hearing that Susan Serandon tweets "delete Uber" and the media
picks it up and it goes viral. Not cool. Uber didn't deserve that attack, nor
its drivers.

~~~
guelo
I wasn't making a value judgement when I called it marketing genius. I see the
donation as cynical manipulation. But there's no denying that as marketing it
was extremely effective at generating app installs.

------
foolfoolz
these types of events usually blow over in a month or so. but it does confirm
what everyone already knows: ride hailing apps have no stickiness. at the end
of the day no one cares what service provides the car.

~~~
chillingeffect
Can someone please help me understand why traditional taxis haven't adapted
the same tech as Lyft and Uber? You're right, there really is no moat. Tech is
mostly a big ol database. Is it due to disjointure among small companies?

~~~
mistermumble
There's a startup called Flywheel that has been selling shovels to taxi cab
companies -- in the form of electronic dispatch, payments, navigation and GPS-
based metering.

[https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/flywheel-expands-uber-
like...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/flywheel-expands-uber-like-system-
for-taxi-cabs-to-nyc/)

~~~
wpietri
And it works fine. I've been using Flywheel since 2013. Their software started
out rough, but now it's solid. It may be a bit more expensive, but the average
driver I get has been driving in SF more than a decade, so they're
knowledgeable and competent. Plus I know they're insured and properly
regulated.

------
throwaway5752
Thiel is a big investor, Icahn is a big investor. Both are closely tied to the
Trump administration.

~~~
fny
This.

Ichaan, a Trump supporter from the first day of candidacy, has a $100mm stake
in Lyft... Not sure what Theil's numbers are.

If this election has taught me anything it's that people unfortunately think
with their hearts to the point of being almost braindead.

Reminds me of how Whole Foods was founded by an Ayn Rand loving libertarian _,
but somehow people think their money goes to a hippy-dippy left leaning
institution every time they shop.

_ Not that there's anything wrong with being a libertarian... just making a
point about perception.

~~~
joshbert
I agree wholeheartedly, but I think this phenomenon is to be expected.

I don't know any more about the founder of Whole Foods than I do about the
founder of Target, nor is it really relevant to me as a consumer. All the vast
majority of people have to form an opinion on their image is the companies
themselves and their experiences with them. So, we do.

------
manigandham
Why protest an issue that affects innocent people by creating another issue
that affects innocent people? This is not persuasive and only leads to further
disagreement against the actual movement. Creating more friction is not the
way to motivate change.

Immigration/border officials going on strike and refusing to follow the ban
order would be much more effective.

------
omegaworks
It will be most interesting to see whether Kalanick follows through with his
promise to discuss the EO with Trump [0], and whether having a seat at Trump's
shiny business table actually amounts to anything. If it does not, it proves
that the council only serves as a prop to promote Trump. This administration
is not beyond using cheap props for marketing purposes. [1]

If the council holds no actual sway, Kalanick should then visibly and publicly
resign from it if he truly stands behind his commitment to fairness. I'm
withholding judgement until then.

0\. [http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-
will...](http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-will-talk-to-
trump-about-immigration-order-2017-1)

1\.
[http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/201...](http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/11/170111_SLATEST_trumpPresserFolders.png.CROP.promo-
xlarge2.png)

~~~
singleespresso
As an avid fan of Uber, I'm waiting for Kalanick's update this weekend. I'm
hoping for at least a matching $1m donation to ACLU before using Uber again.

------
nojvek
One hour Uber. One hour. Just had to support the taxi strike for one hour.

~~~
thescribe
Why should their drivers participate in a union strike without being in the
union? If anything Uber looks more palatable to me because they were available
when other options stopped.

------
Eric_WVGG
I finally took the plunge and installed Via, which some friends swear by and
is more literally "ride-sharing" than either Uber or Lyft. Was pleasantly
surprised to get an email a day later announcing free legal aid for drivers
and passengers affected by the ban.

Useless in Queens and most of Brooklyn, unfortunately, but served in my little
slice.

------
davidgerard
"The lesson for other companies is clear: no business is going to be able to
ride out the Trump years without being held accountable for their actions or
inaction."

Note that arguing right or wrong of the action or reaction is not relevant -
this is a description of the present mood of your market.

------
avatar345
It seems clear to me that by not supporting the strike, Uber avoided choosing
sides, which among Tech companies is as if it explicitly came out and
supported Trump's executive order.

However, I don't understand how the strike was intended to help the victims,
or change policy. A strike is meant to inconvenience a group of decision
makers. If a company won't pay fair wages, the the employees stop performing
work. Then the company cannot make profit and must find scabs, or give in. If
university officials implement unfair or corrupt policies, then students
occupy the decision makers' offices.

However, it seems like this strike was meant to inconvenience no one related
to the problem. Perhaps someone can comment on what I'm missing.

------
Steeeve
Uber didn't lose here.

They are getting all kinds of press. There's no real logic in getting rid of
the app and those who have tried that have recent phones know that you can't
uninstall it - at best you can disable it.

But the reality is that there are many people that need rides and they'll use
the app tomorrow just like they did yesterday.

Heinz didn't take a stand. People are still eating ketchup. Why should anyone
waste their time or inconvenience their lives picking on Uber?

The only thing this political stunt has done is drawn attention away from the
very issue that it was hoping to highlight. It was poorly thought out from the
beginning.

------
some1else
Twitter's absurd character limit played a part in this

------
s0me0ne
Companies make mistakes all the time that cost them. Uber just made one that
will be talked about in hundreds of ways now. Just like Friendster, MySpace,
Magnolia, Digg, etc.

It may not be fair, but it happens. Knowing how to make good decisions counts
a lot regardless if you are at the top on on the way up.

In in the end, the customers decide what they feel is best.

------
debacle
Legal trailblazing costs a lot of money. Attacking entrenched establishments
costs a lot of money.

Uber was never going to be able to solve the ridesharing problem for just
Uber, and its competitors are going to be unhindered by the massive amount of
money Uber has spent on changing regulations.

------
brotherAB
I deleted Uber because they changed their app in a way I found distasteful. I
can either A: Alow Uber to access my location data even when I'm not using the
app. B: Type in the physical address whenever I need a ride. Not cool. I chose
to delete the app instead.

------
Fifer82
Is there a word for when a mass movement rejects a service because of hype,
and then comes crawling back looking like a fool later? That is what is
happening here. Kind of cringe.

------
plantsoftware
They did the same thing that uber did, yet some how avoided flack

------
joelmichael
I'm still going to use Uber. Keep up the good work, fellas.

------
foota
Honestly I'm not sure that uber and lyft could have coordinated a strike in
the timeline it sounds like they were given, short of disabling the app or
something.

------
village-idiot
What a petty and pointless distraction. Use Uber or not, I don't care, but
claiming that this is a protest thing is just useless feel-good drivel.

------
juskrey
How does taxi airport strike help travelers?

~~~
UweSchmidt
For any employee the outcome of a labor dispute and its indirect influence on
working conditions in their own industry vastly eclipses the inconvenience of
being delayed at an airport for an hour, or a day.

------
CodeSheikh
Edit 1: Deleting unnecessary comment.

~~~
dang
No, we had a brief experiment without politics on HN, then reverted to the
rule since forever, which is that most politics are off-topic:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

It fluctuates. HN isn't immune to the how politicized the outside world is
right now. At the same time, it's our job to make sure politics doesn't
dominate the site.

------
wmccullough
Don't care if I get crucified for saying this, but #DeleteUber is a
distraction. It's taking away valuable cycles that could be spent against, you
know, that actual fuckers involved in causing this ban.

------
akerro
Can't delete Uber, it's installed as system app.

------
leadingthenet
Seeing Americans be so against strikes is disheartening.

------
dominotw
meh.. this will pass like grubhub ceo email episode. outrage ADD is a thing.

In 2009 Obama govt profiled Indian immigrants at NY airports. indians were
massively abused and hundreds of them were deported from the airport without
proper procedure. I was called a dog by an 'immigration officer'. " we will
kick you out like dogs if this doesn't verify" \- first sentence when i walked
up to him and handed him my passport.

Now all of a sudden everyone cares about immigrants.

------
general_ai
Kalanick and Musk are basically the only two remaining adults in SV. Musk
basically said on twitter, "I'll go and talk to the guy". Everyone else is
more concerned with political correctness and virtue signaling. Hundred
thousand bombs dropped into five countries on that list -- not a goddamn peep
from anybody. 2150 people killed by drones -- same. Iraqi refugees banned for
half a year -- no one has even heard of it. Cuban refugees banned permanently
-- okie dokie. But god forbid anyone gets stopped on the border, no sir, we
can't have that.

~~~
ubernostrum
A serious question: do people who leave comments like yours, and the even
shorter ones that are literally just the words "virtue signalling", really
believe that doing so presents a devastating critique which will convince
others of the error of their ways and change their minds? Or is it something
you do to demonstrate your affiliation with a particular set of beliefs and
positions? Does this phrase have empirical content to you, in that there are
theoretically people/positions you could disagree with which you would not use
it to describe? Or is it something you will say to/about anyone who you
dislike or disagree with, as a way to show that you and they are members of
different tribes with different values?

~~~
general_ai
Nah, a serious question wouldn't presuppose a particular answer. I think
you've made up your mind long before you asked it.

But I'll oblige anyway. Virtue signaling in this context means that actions of
individuals are directed mostly at people within their political and social
group, not outside it. Their main purpose is similar to that of a Facebook
"like", to communicate adherence to a shared set of beliefs, not to change
anything per se. Indeed, in this political climate, where silent majority is
actually in favor of the ban, to be in favor of it in the social circles of
coastal elites could be harmful to one's well being. These days you have to
constantly and proactively reaffirm your adherence to the latest groupthink.

This is further exacerbated by a rather severe level of hypocrisy demonstrated
by those within the currently active protest group. When "their" people do the
same or worse things, there's no protest or condemnation. Why? Because that
wouldn't signal virtue to the socio-political group in question.

People on the right are prone to this too, but seemingly to a much lesser
extent. In particular they don't seem to care much about protests.

~~~
jpgvm
One thing I don't understand is why America seems to have developed a sense of
us vs them within their own country. Like "coastal elites", wtf? Your biggest
and most populous and useful cities are on the coast, they are also where all
the immigrants are. It's almost as if one group of people, that has no clue
about anything to do with immigration are saying they are massively against
it, whilst those that live with the immigrants don't have an issue with it.

America you need to sort that shit out, people that have no business caring
about immigration shouldn't have a say on it. They definitely shouldn't be
able to out-vote the population of your coastal cities which seems to be your
only chance of relevance this century.

~~~
ubernostrum
It's always been with us, since independence.

One of the most important and difficult debates during the drafting of our
Constitution was whether representation in the national government should be
equal for all states, or proportional based on their populations. The makeup
of our Congress (one house where every state is equal, one where they're
proportionally represented), and the manner of electing the President are
compromises introduced in the 1780s to assuage fears from smaller states that
larger, more populous states would be able to tyrannize them.

There are also historical roots here in slavery: many southern states actually
had large populations, but only when slaves were counted as part of the
population. So those states wanted slaves to count at least partially, even
though slaves were of course not allowed to vote (which is how we get the
infamous compromise where a slave was counted as 3/5 of a person for
proportional-representation purposes).

And the economies of the northern and southern states diverged very early on;
northern states' economies were based more on trade and manufacture, southern
states on agriculture and resource extraction (supported by slave labor until
slavery was abolished, then by things which emulated slavery as closely as was
legal, like exploitative sharecropping and debt slavery).

This naturally leads to a divide and a conflict of lifestyles and values,
wherein there are basically two countries existing within the same set of
borders. One of those countries has always had a larger (free) population and
always been more urban, dense and globally connected. The other has always had
a smaller (free) population and always been more rural, sparse and
isolationist. The southern and now midwestern rural/sparse/isolationist
faction has also consistently used the compromises of the 1780s to their
advantage, since they are represented and wield power in the national
government disproportionate to their percentage of the population, and can at
times effectively reverse the original fear and tyrannize the majority
northern and coastal urban/dense/globalist faction.

But so long as the Constitution of the United States continues to be based on
those two-hundred-year-old compromises, this tension will continue to exist.

------
animex
As we all debate about this on Peter Thiel backed YC Hacker News.

~~~
CalChris
Hacker News (February 19, 2007) predates Thiel's involvement in YC (Mar 10,
2015) by quite a few years, no?

------
tn13
Strikes should not be a feature of free societies. What do we achieve by
striking and making it hard for normal Americans to go abut their lives ?
Trump and his officials probably laugh at you from their taxpayer funded jets.

An Uber or Lyft driver is poor than me and I do not want him to earn less
because I want to engage in virtue signaling. I would suggest putting up
donation boxes and raising more money to donate it to ACLU and other
organizations instead of disrupting normal life.

~~~
grzm
_Strikes should not be a feature of free societies._

Choosing not to work for whatever reason is a feature of a free society, I
should think. If one wants to publicly declare the reason, that's exercising
another important freedom.

Strikers understand that it's going to be an inconvenience of some sort:
that's part of the way it attracts attention. They're also willing to pay the
price for their actions. They understand that some will not look upon what
they're doing favorably, and there may be repercussions.

Your suggestions regarding donation boxes are also very worthwhile. Some
issues are important enough to warrant inconveniencing others.

