Death Comes for Us All?: How Uber Used Secret Greyball Tool to Deceive Authorities Worldwide - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;51912554]I get gas money for taking friends places out of my way. Am I breaking the law?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kentz;51912411]if my neighbors asks me to drive him somewhere, should it also be illegal for me to drive himÜ[/QUOTE] No because you are not a commercial service that offers it to the public.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;51912262]Except drivers licenses don't cost $357,000 a pop; or exist for the purpose of allowing the main existing establishment to financially bar any new competitors from entering their market; or were achieved through lobbying for legislation which makes it wholly impossible for said new competitors to profit from.[/QUOTE] Vancouver taxi licenses cost upwards of a million dollars..

[QUOTE=bastian-07;51911870]i welcome uber overthrowing taxi companies worldwide. if i want to get driven somewhere by just another random joe like myself and they want to give me a network to do this with, i should have that option. it's hard to consider it a taxi service when really it's just a network for untrained strangers to drive you places fuck taxi prices, especially here.[/QUOTE] Uber is a taxi service. The only thing that separates it from local taxi services is that they don't go through the same licensing processes. It would be like if a new company came to the prescription drug market, but none of their drugs had to be tested and the company didn't have to have a license, and because of that, completely undercut the market with a potentially dangerous product. Uber is a very unethical company.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51909317]Considering Taxi certification comes with training, back ground checks and insurance for passengers no it's not. Uber should have been nipped in the bud legally.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what fuckin' planet you live on where you think taxi companies are actually following and abiding by the regulations, but the WHOLE reason companies like Uber and Lyft started up was because there were dozens of news stories a few years ago about how NYC taxi companies were not even [i]close[/i] to being up to the standard of taxi regulations. Just because something is written on a piece of paper and filed in an office somewhere does not mean all taxis in the country are of the same quality and following the same rules. [editline]4th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51912665] It would be like if a new company came to the prescription drug market, but none of their drugs had to be tested and the company didn't have to have a license, and because of that, completely undercut the market with a potentially dangerous product. .[/QUOTE] This is an incredibly terrible analogy. There is literally no overlap between what the FDA does and what whatever local authority you have governing taxi drivers does. Like what the fuck?

Reminder that Portugal already went through this because taxi drivers kept throwing shitfits about Uber and blocking up the airport with shitty protests. In the end our government just told the taxi drivers to fuck off and was like "Okay we'll give you a little treat; Uber can't use bus lanes anymore. Happy?" Taxi companies can get fucked. And even Uber can get fucked in favor of Lyft to be honest.

Comparing taxis to drugs/medicine is SO STUPID. Even after you have taxi regulations, you still have to abide by the laws of driving a vehicle. So it's not like all of a sudden without this taxi regulation, Uber drivers are SO FUCKING DANGEROUS on the same level that releasing an untested drug would be. The FDA is the only regulatory bottleneck for drugs. That's not the case with driving people in a carpool. Stop applying shitty analogies and logical fallacies to arguments in SH, people.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51910986]Drug laws are dumb too but I don't go around breaking them willy nilly.[/QUOTE] Good for you? Even in this forum many users are pretty open about smoking weed in places where weed is illegal. It's just civil disobedience.

The whole conflict is firstly unethical and a huge waste of resources and frankly exists solely because Uber purposefully abused the lack of regulations to gain their huge market presence

[QUOTE=FFStudios;51912747]I'm not sure what fuckin' planet you live on where you think taxi companies are actually following and abiding by the regulations, but the WHOLE reason companies like Uber and Lyft started up was because there were dozens of news stories a few years ago about how NYC taxi companies were not even [i]close[/i] to being up to the standard of taxi regulations. Just because something is written on a piece of paper and filed in an office somewhere does not mean all taxis in the country are of the same quality and following the same rules. [editline]4th March 2017[/editline] This is an incredibly terrible analogy. There is literally no overlap between what the FDA does and what whatever local authority you have governing taxi drivers does. Like what the fuck?[/QUOTE] What do you think the point of taxi drivers licenses and insurance is? Do you think its the same as getting a drivers license? Do you think Uber would still be cheap if they had to have their drivers go through the same channels as taxi drivers do? How is it any different than any other industry that requires scrutiny and licensing?

[QUOTE=Fetret;51911819]Eh I really don't think this argument holds water when Uber is so much cheaper than regular taxis (though I am talking about black cabs in the UK, your mileage might vary). Unless you are counting the price as a reason for considering taxis shit, in which case I agree. I'd still take the much cheaper option even if it was was a shitter service. But taxis are cheap because of mandatory licensing, insurance etc... so it is not really a fair playing field.[/QUOTE] We have several cases of taxi's just never showing up or taking an hour+ to show up. All of which with no communication from their dispatch. Good taxi services are far and inbetween. I'm for Uber.

[QUOTE=eirexe;51909214]It is when there is already a taxi industry that requires a license, as a uber driver you are doing exactly the same as a taxi driver, and you should need the same licenses.[/QUOTE] The taxi industry and every other industry that requires legislation to exist as it would otherwise be mulched by market forces needs to fuck off.

[QUOTE=phygon;51916501]The taxi industry and every other industry that requires legislation to exist as it would otherwise be mulched by market forces needs to fuck off.[/QUOTE] yes because the share economy is such a good doer in the world, it doesn't skirt legal obligations in most of the countries it operates in or anything! i'll just start my own ratchet pharmaceutical company, nothing can go wrong !

[QUOTE=phygon;51916501]The taxi industry and every other industry that requires legislation to exist as it would otherwise be mulched by market forces needs to fuck off.[/QUOTE] I agree. The invisible hand of the free market should control all and be completely deregulated. If a billion dollar juggernaut is consistently bad, then it will just disapear. Because free market.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51917292]yes because the share economy is such a good doer in the world, it doesn't skirt legal obligations in most of the countries it operates in or anything! i'll just start my own ratchet pharmaceutical company, nothing can go wrong ![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51917517]I agree. The invisible hand of the free market should control all and be completely deregulated. If a billion dollar juggernaut is consistently bad, then it will just disapear. Because free market.[/QUOTE] Yes, this is what I said. Obviously. I said that companies that need subsidies to exist should not exist, although I admittedly forgot to mention externalities. What neither of you are taking into account are externalities. Pharmaceuticals that are poisonous or ineffective result in damage to society- thus, the government should intervene. And actually, yes. If a billion dollar juggernaut is consistently bad, then it WILL disappear. Ex: Yahoo, Circuit City, Blockbuster.... etc. If you fail to keep with the times then you are flat fucked unless the government steps in to help you with legislation. If your business doesn't offer a net benefit to society for existing (research firms, alternative energy companies, charities, so on and so forth) then you should not be subsidized or helped with legislation.

[QUOTE=phygon;51919185]Yes, this is what I said. Obviously. I said that companies that need subsidies to exist should not exist, although I admittedly forgot to mention externalities. What neither of you are taking into account are externalities. Pharmaceuticals that are poisonous or ineffective result in damage to society- thus, the government should intervene. And actually, yes. If a billion dollar juggernaut is consistently bad, then it WILL disappear. Ex: Yahoo, Circuit City, Blockbuster.... etc. If you fail to keep with the times then you are flat fucked unless the government steps in to help you with legislation. If your business doesn't offer a net benefit to society for existing (research firms, alternative energy companies, charities, so on and so forth) then you should not be subsidized or helped with legislation.[/QUOTE] When I said "bad" I meant malicious or dangerous. The ones you mentioned went away because their business model died, not because they were bad. For example, Monsanto is still around despite knowingly poisoning thousands of people and causing cancer outbreaks elsewhere. Theres also dozens of resource giants that are responsible for massive amounts of enviromental damage but still make billions every year. Uber could begin funding sex slavers in the middle east and still exist because theyre the cheapest and most convenient. And theyll always be that way until theyre forced to come under the same regulations everybody else in the industry does. The taxi model isnt outdated. The issue here is that new companies popped up and are skirting the regulation. If this happened in any other industry it would be a huge deal.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51919333]When I said "bad" I meant malicious or dangerous. The ones you mentioned went away because their business model died, not because they were bad. For example, [B](1) Monsanto is still around despite knowingly poisoning thousands of people and causing cancer outbreaks elsewhere.[/B] [B](2) Theres also dozens of resource giants that are responsible for massive amounts of enviromental damage but still make billions every year. [/B] [B](3) Uber could begin funding sex slavers in the middle east and still exist because theyre the cheapest and most convenient. [/B]And [B](4) theyll always be that way until theyre forced to come under the same regulations everybody else in the industry does.[/B] The taxi model isnt outdated. The issue here is that new companies popped up and are skirting the regulation. If this happened in any other industry it would be a huge deal.[/QUOTE] (1) [url]http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/[/url] (2) [QUOTE=phygon;51919185] What neither of you are taking into account are externalities. Pharmaceuticals that are poisonous or ineffective result in damage to society- thus, the government should intervene.[/QUOTE] (3) what (4) Oh no, they're cheap and pushing out the outdated, archaic, taxi system! Personally, I absolutely love paying 4x the rate, scheduling in advance, and rude drivers that good old taxi services offer me. The ONLY reason that medallions exist is to have the government be able to dip heavily into the taxi business. This presents a high barrier to entry and makes taxi companies effectively have a monopoly. Government regulation for 0 reason is why taxis are expensive and shit as they are, and those same outdated regulations will put the nail in the taxi industry's coffin. I have literally no idea why you, as a consumer, would want to pay a higher rate for worse service that is less available.

[QUOTE=phygon;51919398](1) [url]http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/[/url][/quote] Not what I was talking about but thanks for trying. Monstanto is the company that made Agent Orange, which is one of the most damaging chemicals to people and the environment. And this isn't the only thing they've been found liable for in the past. They're a very sketchy pesticide manufacturer. Theres also companies like WR Grace still around despite the fact that they literally poisoned a town of people and caused a cancer outbreak. [QUOTE=phygon;51919398] (2) [/quote] If only the world [i]actually[/i] worked that way. [QUOTE=phygon;51919398] (3) what[/quote] Making a point as to how useless your logic is. There is nothing detrimental Uber could do that would tarnish their business and profits. Donald Trump was quoted as saying that he could go out into the street and start killing people and not lose a single vote, and we all know how that turned out. [QUOTE=phygon;51919398] (4) Oh no, they're cheap and pushing out the outdated, archaic, taxi system! Personally, I absolutely love paying 4x the rate, scheduling in advance, and rude drivers that good old taxi services offer me. The ONLY reason that medallions exist is to have the government be able to dip heavily into the taxi business. This presents a high barrier to entry and makes taxi companies effectively have a monopoly. Government regulation for 0 reason is why taxis are expensive and shit as they are, and those same outdated regulations will put the nail in the taxi industry's coffin. I have literally no idea why you, as a consumer, would want to pay a higher rate for worse service that is less available.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. Uber is a taxi service that does not go through the same channels as any other taxi service. They're insanely sketchy as a business because they hold no accountability for anything as a company, and are actively looking to get rid of all their drivers with self driving cars. The only things that sets them apart from any other taxi company is their digital dispatch system, the fact that they own no cars (even though they're looking into it), and they don't go through the same regulations taxi companies do. If Uber was treated like a taxi company, which they should be, the only thing that would set them apart is their digital dispatch system. The price would be the same, and the only changing factor would be the convenience. Look at what happened in Austin, Texas; when Uber, Lyft, and other new-age taxi companies pulled out of there, 10,000 people lost their jobs overnight. These companies have no interest in playing by the rules because they know it will kill their business model. Furthermore, in my town Lyft exists and the small taxi company here is still thriving, despite being ~archaic~. One of the things that keeps their business going is giving free taxi vouchers to bars to give to intoxicated patrons, and having a good dispatch service. A massive corporate service probably isn't going to keep up with that. Now I make no opinions on what should happen with regulations and yaddah yaddah yaddah, all I'm saying is that Uber and other companies should play by the same rules as everybody else. If you think that companies skirting regulations to undercut their market is a good thing then we're not going to get very far here. Like I said earlier, if we were talking about any other market here then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Taxi companies are being priced out of the market. Uber is cheaper, more efficient, and i've found to be generally a better and faster service. This is the free market doing what it does. Why governments are so keen to keep a shitty expensive service is beyond me

[QUOTE=Cabbage;51922089]Taxi companies are being priced out of the market. Uber is cheaper, more efficient, and i've found to be generally a better and faster service. This is the free market doing what it does. Why governments are so keen to keep a shitty expensive service is beyond me[/QUOTE] A company ignoring regulations and licensing that the industry requires, and under cutting the market because of it, is not "free market".

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51919333] The taxi model isnt outdated. The issue here is that new companies popped up and are skirting the regulation. If this happened in any other industry it would be a huge deal.[/QUOTE] Children learn to drive as early as 14 in this country, Taxi services were created during a time when very few people had cars. In a nation where everyone is expected to learn how to drive before they can even vote, why should their use be so heavily regulated? After all Uber requires the car you drive to have been made in the last ten years, thus benefiting the car industry. It not like just anybody can be an uber driver. On no less than three occasions I had an uber driver who was former taxi, and they all say the same thing. "I have to pay the taxi company $300 a day regardless of whether I get one customer or twenty." The industry starts to fuck its employees and they move to the next best thing.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51919519]Not what I was talking about but thanks for trying. Monstanto is the company that made Agent Orange, which is one of the most damaging chemicals to people and the environment. And this isn't the only thing they've been found liable for in the past. They're a very sketchy pesticide manufacturer. Theres also companies like WR Grace still around despite the fact that they literally poisoned a town of people and caused a cancer outbreak. [/quote] Well I figured you were talking about their actions that were allegedly illegal, since we were referring to domestic businesses and not [I]chemical companies contracted by the united states to make chemical weapons, gee willickers how the fuck is that even relevant[/I]. The pesticide is the very thing that that snopes article refers to. Also, WR grace might still be around but it is bankrupt. [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wrgrace-bankruptcy-idUSBRE95F06U20130616[/url] [quote] If only the world [i]actually[/i] worked that way. [/quote] It [I]does[/I] work that way. That's what industry-specific taxes, tax breaks, regulations, and incentives are for. The US government aims, largely successfully, to control the market mostly with the market itself. [quote] Making a point as to how useless your logic is. There is nothing detrimental Uber could do that would tarnish their business and profits. Donald Trump was quoted as saying that he could go out into the street and start killing people and not lose a single vote, and we all know how that turned out. [/quote] Yeah but donald trump didn't actually go out and do it. People aren't giving uber a pass for child trafficking, they're giving them a pass for innovating around archaic regulations. You're a fool if you think that uber trafficking people wouldn't result in any losses for the company. [quote] You're missing the point. [B](1)Uber is a taxi service that does not go through the same channels as any other taxi service. They're insanely sketchy as a business because they hold no accountability for anything as a company[/B], and [B](1)are actively looking to get rid of all their drivers with self driving cars.[/B] The only things that sets them apart from any other taxi company is their digital dispatch system, the fact that they own no cars (even though they're looking into it), and they don't go through the same regulations taxi companies do. [B](3)If Uber was treated like a taxi company, which they should be, the only thing that would set them apart is their digital dispatch system.[/B] The price would be the same, and the only changing factor would be the convenience. [/quote] (1) these are for the same reason: They aren't a taxi service. They are an app that lets you find independent contractors that will drive you. Why the hell would they be liable for what their contractors do? No other company on the planet does that, that's part of what being a contractor is. (2) How is this sketchy at all? Self-driving cars fix ALL of the issues that you brought up, AND will be safer for passengers. (3) They won't and shouldn't be, because of the very reasons you mentioned. They don't own cars, have any drivers on payroll, etc. Why should they have to pay for regulations on services that they don't provide? By offloading the risk onto the drivers (Drivers must have insurance, although uber will pay out a certain amount in the event of an accident) , they are able to only take razor profits from the drivers. This results in cheaper rides for the customers, higher paychecks for the drivers,and it offers an incentive for the drivers to actually be nice people because they rep themselves (rating system), not uber as a whole. [quote] Look at what happened in Austin, Texas; when Uber, Lyft, and other new-age taxi companies pulled out of there, 10,000 people lost their jobs overnight. These companies have no interest in playing by the rules because they know it will kill their business model. Furthermore, in my town Lyft exists and the small taxi company here is still thriving, despite being ~archaic~. One of the things that keeps their business going is giving free taxi vouchers to bars to give to intoxicated patrons, and having a good dispatch service. A massive corporate service probably isn't going to keep up with that. [/quote] So, 10,000 jobs were lost. According to this article, 10,000 ridesharing drivers lost their jobs when services shut down. That's a zero sum game for the amount of drivers, but the lower ride cost saved [I]the economy[/I] money, because people were spending less on rides which means that they could spend more on other things. This is GOOD for the economy. [quote] Now I make no opinions on what should happen with regulations and yaddah yaddah yaddah, all I'm saying is that Uber and other companies should play by the same rules as everybody else. If you think that companies skirting regulations to undercut their market is a good thing then we're not going to get very far here. Like I said earlier, if we were talking about any other market here then this wouldn't even be a discussion.[/QUOTE] Those "same rules as everyone else" mantain monopolies, force services to be worse, and perpetuate an outdated system. Uber isn't skirting anything. At the end of the day, they just aren't a taxi service. It's not what they are.

[QUOTE=phygon;51923782]Well I figured you were talking about their actions that were allegedly illegal, since we were referring to domestic businesses and not [I]chemical companies contracted by the united states to make chemical weapons, gee willickers how the fuck is that even relevant[/I]. The pesticide is the very thing that that snopes article refers to. Also, WR grace might still be around but it is bankrupt. [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wrgrace-bankruptcy-idUSBRE95F06U20130616[/url] It [I]does[/I] work that way. That's what industry-specific taxes, tax breaks, regulations, and incentives are for. The US government aims, largely successfully, to control the market mostly with the market itself. Yeah but donald trump didn't actually go out and do it. People aren't giving uber a pass for child trafficking, they're giving them a pass for innovating around archaic regulations. You're a fool if you think that uber trafficking people wouldn't result in any losses for the company. (1) these are for the same reason: They aren't a taxi service. They are an app that lets you find independent contractors that will drive you. Why the hell would they be liable for what their contractors do? No other company on the planet does that, that's part of what being a contractor is. (2) How is this sketchy at all? Self-driving cars fix ALL of the issues that you brought up, AND will be safer for passengers. (3) They won't and shouldn't be, because of the very reasons you mentioned. They don't own cars, have any drivers on payroll, etc. Why should they have to pay for regulations on services that they don't provide? By offloading the risk onto the drivers (Drivers must have insurance, although uber will pay out a certain amount in the event of an accident) , they are able to only take razor profits from the drivers. This results in cheaper rides for the customers, higher paychecks for the drivers,and it offers an incentive for the drivers to actually be nice people because they rep themselves (rating system), not uber as a whole. So, 10,000 jobs were lost. According to this article, 10,000 ridesharing drivers lost their jobs when services shut down. That's a zero sum game for the amount of drivers, but the lower ride cost saved [I]the economy[/I] money, because people were spending less on rides which means that they could spend more on other things. This is GOOD for the economy. Those "same rules as everyone else" mantain monopolies, force services to be worse, and perpetuate an outdated system. Uber isn't skirting anything. At the end of the day, they just aren't a taxi service. It's not what they are.[/QUOTE] If you think Uber isnt a taxi service then this discussion isnt going to go anywhere.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51923926]If you think Uber isnt a taxi service then this discussion isnt going to go anywhere.[/QUOTE] It literally isn't, but thank you for showing your ignorance to basic economic concepts and then hightailing it when someone details why your views are incorrect. Bother reading the post. Uber [I]isn't[/I] a taxi service. They just... aren't. They are a service that connects independent contractors to clients. It'd be like calling etsy a design firm.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51922185]A company ignoring regulations and licensing that the industry requires, and under cutting the market because of it, is not "free market".[/QUOTE] If the company works well without those regulations, that means that they are nothing but useless bureaucratic fat that needs to be eliminated. But eliminating bureaucracy is easier said than done.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51922185]A company ignoring regulations and licensing that the industry requires, and under cutting the market because of it, is not "free market".[/QUOTE] If it benefits the consumer, I don't care. Secondly, Uber/Lyft aren't 'ignoring' regulations and licensing. They apply to normal taxi services, and as people in this thread have pointed out to you, Uber is not the same as a normal taxi service.

[QUOTE=Cabbage;51930500]If it benefits the consumer, I don't care. Secondly, Uber/Lyft aren't 'ignoring' regulations and licensing. They apply to normal taxi services, and as people in this thread have pointed out to you, Uber is not the same as a normal taxi service.[/QUOTE] the thread OP is quite literally about how they're dodging them. And any argument that Uber and Lyft are not taxi service are semantic bullshit. [QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51926876]If the company works well without those regulations, that means that they are nothing but useless bureaucratic fat that needs to be eliminated. But eliminating bureaucracy is easier said than done.[/QUOTE] Not always. Environmental regulations are a pretty nice example of how companies function better without 'em, but that doesn't mean they need eliminated.

[QUOTE=phygon;51923782](1) these are for the same reason: They aren't a taxi service. They are an app that lets you find independent contractors that will drive you. Why the hell would they be liable for what their contractors do? No other company on the planet does that, that's part of what being a contractor is.[/QUOTE] You're saying that as if there's not a single taxi company on the planet that doesn't hire drivers as contractors. Tell me, when you call up an uber, does the final invoice say "Uber LLC" or does it say "Dick Driverguy, sole proprietorship"? I would imagine it's the first one because Uber needs to include their cut in the amount you pay. Therefore, you're not doing business directly with Dick Driverguy - he has been contracted by Uber to provide you with a taxi service. Therefore, you are purchasing a taxi service from Uber LLC, who then hires a different company or sole proprietor to actually carry out the transport. Uber does not charge you separately for the service of finding a driver. You also cannot decide which sole proprietor will actually transport you, you are [B]assigned[/B] one by Uber (what goes on behind the scenes of that does not really matter). Therefore, Uber is a taxi service provider. Is this spelled out enough for you? Probably not, but I tried.