Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1024core | Hacker News Reader

Judge Alsup questioned why Uber would pay so much to an employee making bogus claims. “To someone like me, an ordinary mortal, and to ordinary mortals out there in the audience — people don’t pay that kind of money for B.S.,” the judge said.

Uber’s rationale for the settlement: It would cost less to settle with him than to fight him in court. Also, Mr. Jacobs’s claims could hurt Uber’s reputation, Ms. Padilla testified.

I guess it's open season at Uber now? All you have to do is send them a letter with bogus claims, and they'll pay you millions? /s

View on HN

The quoted rationale by itself seems reasonable. The entire business model of Patent Trolls rests on the fact that companies will settle even the most ridiculous allegations if it's cheaper than fighting them.

in this day and age, any gossipy tabloid accusation is viewed as true by its audience if it fits a certain narrative.

Sometimes companies think its an easier/faster solution to pay them even if the accusation is false. But sometimes, they choose the wrong way to deal with the problem.

Disclaimer: not saying Uber is innocent in this case specifically, just giving an example

I love the line about "hurting Uber's reputation", as if they are the sterling example of honest and ethical company.

To most users in most places, there's nothing particularly notable about Uber. They have an unsavory reputation if you move in certain rarefied technical or political circles, but not among the general public. My parents, who are by no means ignorant or uneducated, would be completely unable to comment on why Uber might have a bad reputation.

Exactly. 99% percent (or more) of Uber users are completely fine with Uber, possibly see Uber as a positive addition to their lives, and if they have any qualms with the company, they are related to specific incidences of bad service or pricing vis-a-vis local competitors rather than any political matters.

I recently encountered a senior citizen with mobility issues. As far as she's concerned, Uber is the best thing that has happened to her in the past two decades. She no longer has to wait a half hour or more for a taxi that may not show! Total game-changer.

She has no idea about some of the aspects of Uber that some may find objectionable.

I think a lot of the critics here fail to appreciate (or just begrudgingly admit) just how much a game-changer Uber has been in people's lives. That's real value.

In America?

Much of the rest of the world already has perfectly fine minicabs that turn up in 5 minutes.

Good thing about Uber for the rest of the world is US VCs subsidising our rides.

american idiocracy from people that probably never traveled.

1. allow cabs to run mostly unregulated (besides the regulated monopoly part)

2. cab service is crap because drivers rent the taxi license from someone who broker rented taxi licenses. its mind boggling how far the drivers are from the meddalions.

3. startup breaks tons of laws, including the one making cabs a bad monopoly and abuse user data left and rigth.

4. americans thing it is the best thing ever.

wake up and realize that the taxi monopoly was the cause. uber is just trying to replace one monopoly with another. because being at the top of that monopoly is very lucrative.

the only good thing uber did was prove without doubt that taxi monopoly laws were bad and didnt serve the drivers or the community. but absolutely nobody is willing to even consider talking about it. its all PR about "uber saved mankind".

"American idiocracy"

So this is why Uber and its clones are so popular in all kinds of countries from India to China to South East Asia? To be honest it is you who seems like the less traveled one.

there are tons of countries with the same monopoly protection laws as the U.S.

Neither I nor my fiance drive, so Uber and Lyft are vital parts of our lives now. Even as a physically healthy person, it makes the life I want to live possible.

You have a valid point, though many Uber drivers may also be in the less-than-thrilled category. On the other hand, this suggests the fear of reputation damage is being overstated - most people pay little heed to court cases unless bodies are involved one way or another.

It's not just tech circles. Many Lyft drivers tell me that they refuse to drive for Uber because Uber is not friendly. That's a significant number of people, more so if you include people they talk to. Word gets out.

Drivers drive for the product that provides the most income. Outside of the realms of SF (and even within), there are only two types of drivers:

1. Ones who drive for both - this cohort used to prefer Lyft due to tips but the scales have tipped (no pun) due to Uber introducing a whole host of features which Lyft is catching up to. This is easily verifiable by frequenting reddit.com/r/uberdrivers or reddit.com/r/lyft

2. Ones who only drive for Uber because the demand is overwhelming enough to not justify managing two separate accounts.

Anything else you hear is pure anecdote. My source - I am an Uber employee :)

If you work for Uber, it's not surprising that you only hear from drivers that do some work for Uber!

You're saying that no drivers avoid Uber? How do you know that?

This is true. For example, it is my understanding Lyft drivers face no penalty for ending a ride if they feel unsafe, whereas Uber will penalize the driver if they don't complete the ride - incentivizing drivers to tolerate abusive or sexually harassing behavior.

[1] Lyft driver cancel policy: https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213584358#drivercanc...

I can't believe the number of rides a typical driver gets harassed on is significant enough to make a significant dent in their earnings...?

Maybe the number of bad rides is low but the severity of a single one can be career ending. Didn't some politician recently get fired because she berated a driver and said, "Who are they going to believe? You or me?"

Policy is to address the combined impact of frequency and magnitude.

People can be _really_ awful though. Drunk, threats of violence, prolonged berating.

Definitely not worth the ride. The fact that you can get kicked out at any time tends to moderate your behavior.

To be clear, I'm talking about drunk and belligerent. If you're just drunk and vomiting, first there's a cleaning penalty. Second, people are generally most sympathetic as it does not make you a bad person.

Some people are just assholes. Heck, if they like abusing people after a bad day at work, they might even take the long way around so they can feel better after more sustained abuse.

Penalisation comes in the form of timing you out of the account for 15 mins to X hours; and possible deactivation.

Your parents don't follow any news source? The stories about Uber aren't found in obscure niche sites only wonks would read. Uber's problems are routinely featured in front page New York Times stories, for example. The very article this thread discusses is from that paper, not exactly a minor publication.

Your comment prompted me to try a personal unscientific test. I just pinged a woman who reads CNN news on her iPad every morning with coffee and asked her what she knew about Uber. I specifically asked if she "heard any bad things about Uber?"

Her only reply was that she heard an Uber driver raped a passenger. That's it. Even with her daily CNN news habit, she does not know about:

- Uber workplace sexual harrassment

- Uber using grayball against government officials

- Uber legal fights about contractor vs employee classifications

- Uber lawsuit about corporate espionage

Yes, it's just a sample size of 1 but I think it's very easy to overestimate what typical people know about Uber. The HN bubble repeatedly upvotes negative Uber stories that would never cross the radar of most everyone else.

Why didn't you ping a random selection of people rather than just one this is not a useful data point.

To be clearer the last sentence is fine. The entire section that precedes it is extremely intellectually dishonest. You started with the thesis that regular people aren't aware of negative stories about uber, pinged one user, got the desired result and stopped and presented your argument.

You presented her as an avid reader of CNN a functionally irrelevant detail as if to say if even SHE doesn't know about bad press about uber obviously the plebs don't.

Unfortunately there isn't any representative sample size of one and the fact that she reads CNN on her ipad tells you little about what she reads on CNN.

You could even be correct but the way you prove your point is so badly argued that you do a disservice to your own point.

You should avoid making your arguments about appeals to emotional reasoning.

there's also a lot people who just don't care.

They have both lyft and uber, whichever is faster or cheaper, they take.

Sometimes you just need to get from point A to point B

But a company that cared about it’s reputation would probably have refrained from most of the wildly inappropriate behavior it’s regularly alleged to have engaged in, making current claims about their dedication to their reputation ring hollow.

I did a spit-take when I read that line.

Let's try it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com