all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 57 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Ridesharing is an improvement on some of the problems of privately owned cars. Its more equitable and accessible. It saves the necessity of giant parking lots.

Public transit is even better!

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ridesharing, yes. Not uber taxi with exploitation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Free ride sharing (eg hitchhiking) is better than cheap ride sharing (eg blabla car) which is better then expensive ride sharing (eg a taxi) which - but all are better than there only beingprivately owned cars that are exclusively privately used.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, in principle. However, uber have a well known history of skirting labour laws, skirting taxi laws and doing so to undermine competition and then jack up prices. Risesharing is better than owning a car, but monopolies in how that works are not good for anyone except uber.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My high school econ teacher pointed out that New York used to have a fixed number of taxi licenses.This made competition illegal and kept the price up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Everywhere. That’s not a nyc problem.

    Ubers success is largely from breaking this customer unfriendliness. I use uber because the app is more convenient and effective than finding a taxi and trying to tell them where to go. Uber is less expensive, I can track the route if I disagree with it, and I have the opportunity to give feedback. At least as importantly, uber is far more common than taxis were. From a customer perspective, it’s a pretty good deal.

    However they bent a lot of laws to get there, and exploit their drivers. Limited taxi medallions were originally in place to establish standards for customer service mandate service to underserved areas, on the one hand and to support reasonable wages on the other, although likely got captured by the industry. Every “gig economy” business is bending employee/contractor law and most are likely dependent on violating minimum wages, benefits and worker protection laws, what little we have of that.

    Downtown I can get an uber in minutes, while there were never enough taxis. Here in the suburbs it takes a long time to get an uber, but medallions always required there be taxis on duty (I actually don’t know if taxis are still in business here). I imagine coverage is even worse in less populated or les desirable parts of the country, and that’s one of the things we lost with taxis

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I don't know about NYC specifically, but that's pretty common. Not only were there a set amount, there are set fees and minimum standards and requirements for people with disabilities and police checks for drivers etc.

    Uber circumvented a lot of those rules. The taxi industry was due for an update and vested interests were preventing that. However, we've exchanged one monopoly for another. And now, instead of lots of small business owners, we have one large business andots of wage slaves and surge pricing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    When tiktok did this, politicians took that as a sign to further ban efforts. When does uber get banned?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Fuck Uber with a broken glass-encrusted dildo. Those Randroid douchebags can die in a fire made of fires.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why tf is Uber notifying people of anything not directly related to a ride they’ve ordered??

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This has to be illegal and if it isn't it should be.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    For some reason tech companies get a pass on a ton of regulations just because they're a different form of whatever they're replacing.

    "No no no Ubers not a taxi service it's an app. toooootally different..." /s

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Looks like an app notification

    They can send notifications through their app (which you installed and very probably accepted to in the terms and conditions) without any legal concern so yeah no.

    Even if you try fighting it they'll just say hey it's your phone man just uninstall the app

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Public transit is a direct threat to their shareholders.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    But isn't trying to influence public policy illegal?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't think so.

    When my city had a soda tax, every fucking store put a sign out calling it a war on poor people tax. But it was a $0.10 increase on sugary drinks to add to the educational budget.

    Or maybe it is illegal but I live in a shit hole country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In what country? It's pretty normal to see companies lobbying for policy here, or urging people to sign petitions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Outrageous!

    It should be a progressive tax topping out way higher than that!

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    "Secret" yet this was likely voted on at the ballot.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Oh no private equity isn't getting it's way.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    If it is so secret how come you know about it

  • source
  • [+] -55 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Everyone in the city". Hyperbole much? They didn't send it to every single person in the city.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You know what is hyperbole? Calling it a secret tax hike.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Or deliberately misquoting somebody to change the scope of their statement. "Everyone" is not in op post, unless he edited it out. I'm on op side here, though 😝

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Not that i care that much about there being an exaggeration, but "Everyone" is literally in the title of the post? Or are you referring to the push notification as 'the op post'??

  • source
  • parent