I wouldn't go that far. They're not handling this very well, but this article is a bit of demagoguery in the skin of "news".
I wouldn't go that far. They're not handling this very well, but this article is a bit of demagoguery in the skin of "news".
Uber and Lyft were the ones who pulled out. The regulation that Austin passed was in no way overbearing; it just required fingerprints. They claim this "destroys the ridesharing economy" but in my experience, Uber is basically a part-time job for most drivers. Most people will go get fingerprinted for a part-time job. Very few people are ridesharing; but maybe this undercuts the argument that Lyft and Uber use for the drivers not being employees...
That's how it starts. Then the government starts mandating transdermal implants at birth that contain a GPS chipset, and a kill switch. We're headed to a level of dystopian control that would make a brutal banana republic dictator shudder.
If you're not, congratulations, you got me.
In an era when the government has access to our cell phone data via easily obtained FISA court permission, we're already a good chunk of the way there.
After all, it was not so long ago in this country when people of a certain ethnic descent were locked up en masse.
Maybe a kill switch is too far: how about an electrical charge to block the activity of your optic nerve and brain stem?
The whole thing is weird to me. I've used Uber a few times and the car that showed up has always been a licensed limo (just dumb luck, I suppose). Pretty sure I'd turn down a ride in some clapped-out Civic, should that be the car that showed up (but, perhaps that's why I usually use car services and not Uber).
Uber and Lyft threw a hissy fit because it undermines their complete control over the driver ecosystem. Best I can tell, they're afraid that licensing drivers would cause them to expect to be treated like employees, while making it ever-so-slightly harder for Uber/Lyft to recruit drivers. IMO it's more about labor relations than regulation.