Hacker News Reader

Comment by SCdF | Hacker News Reader

This is all well and good. However, it doesn't matter if every person who is every heard of stallman never sets foot in an uber, because statistically no one has heard of stallman. Regardless, I think it's been pretty well shown at this point that as long as people are getting something for their lack of privacy (such a slimy but convenient taxi service) they're OK with it. Short term convenience trumps basically anything else.

Recently I was stuck outside of Rome with no way to get into the centre city because I made the (understandable) mistake of trying to use public transport on a public holiday, and getting stuck in the middle of nowhere with no trains running. Or taxis. Uber, to the rescue.

I really feel these days the only way to win is to compete. To build a better product that happens to also not invade your privacy. And I'm not sure there are market forces that make that possible.

View on HN

Linux and Android has arguably made inroads with non-techs, not because of Stallman advocating Free Software, but because people who echo Stallman's words.

RMS is not expecting everybody to read this and go "Oh, OK, I won't use Uber". He's expecting a few thousand people to read it, choose not to use Uber and then explain to their friends the reasons why echoing his own words. If convinced, those friends will pass it on, and so on, in a network effect.

You forget just how close Linux was to being ousted from the enterprise back in the 1990s and early 2000s - if it wasn't for a similar network effect (specifically arguments around security), Microsoft would now basically be "the computer company", and we'd all be screwed.

Sure, so what I'm saying is: there has to be a "correct" alternative to uber (as linux was to ms) and then you're providing an actual reasonable proposition for switching.

I do not think telling people "don't use uber" when it's clearly cheaper and more convenient is going to be hugely productive.

There is, it's taxis. Where I live they're getting close to Uber in terms of convenience of ordering one.

Linux made inroads because of economics. Case in point 15 years ago Free Software and Open Source were competing slogans. Today Open Source won not Free Software.

Android has made inroads because it is the operating system on your phone if you can't afford or choose not to buy an iPhone.

I thought it was because a multi-billion dollar firm pushed onto other multi-billion dollar firms with long-term expectations of them making billions more if they made targets of market share. And this occurred for both sides.

Average VC startup isn't going to be a Linux or Android as one is an outlier (like Red Hat) and other happened due to investment by corporate behemoth that was pro-OSS. Probably also an outlier given most aren't pro-OSS.

>as long as people are getting something for their lack of privacy (such a slimy but convenient taxi service) they're OK with it.

There are more options than "use it or leave it".

We, as a society, can value Uber's service, and use it, and agree to pass privacy laws that would force them, upon user request, to delete every record of their transportation history from their servers. And they would be audited. Technically it is not hard.

The tech industry lobby would fight against it, the NSA and the FBI too, but I don't see why we the people would not support that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com