I'm struggling with the whole "Orwellian" angle, if Uber is going to start keeping jerks from using their service.
Uber isn't and shouldn't be the only option available to people. The laws that force every company to offer everything to everyone without question are almost always the markets with only one option.
All you're left with is a pseudo-market that offers few of the benefits of real private or public markets. A pretend public service with even less accountability and fewer people profiting from the industry.
We’re quickly heading to an Uber/Lyft duopoly. And they use similar ratings systems. Soooooo, I’m not sure what your point is. This isn’t a market, it’s a VC funded takeover of transportation.
https://driving-tests.org/confessions-of-an-uber-driver/
> Uber drivers have long been known to give passengers low ratings if they suspect a passenger is going to give them a low rating.
https://www.ridester.com/uber-passengers-ratings-sting/
So, yes, they don't base it off the actual review (that may be a service other than Uber that I'm recalling), but they'll often base your review off the review they expect you to give them.
Seems legit. /s
As with any rating system, there will be outlying bad raters. That's why it is normal for absolutely no one to have a perfect 5 star. It's really not a bid deal.
Yet people are being rated on their tips. People are being rated based on their expected ratings of the driver, regardless of their “success” as a driver.
It’s a big deal because it locks someone out of a system that has forced out its competition (illegally in some cases; such as in London).
Low-star riders make the drivers' experiences worse. That's why they're low rated.
The Orwellian aspect is when companies start sharing their scores, and when those scores start having clearly highly subjective influences.
Don't worry - I was told they are optional, and you only need them for major things like if you getting a new car or house financed. Anyone worried about these things were mocked with the slippery slope "fallacy" typically being the counterargument.
Of course scope creep inevitably happened - and now you are effectively locked out of many parts of society if you have a poor credit score. We were told it was outright illegal to use credit scores when hiring people (again, 25 years ago) so our fears were unjustified.
Now we're running credit reports on entry level warehouse positions, some volunteer jobs, etc. With every reason to believe it's going to get more pervasive.
As these "social rating" systems get more normalized with consumers, I fully expect to see "novel" new uses and data sharing starting to happen.
As a society, we put up with a lot of terrible behavior and people get away with it because they don't care about making a scene or situation that is uncomfortable for everyone else. We pay higher prices to deal with these people's behavior: constantly complaining until they get free stuff, abusing return policies, review blackmail, vandalizing state/national parks, cutting lines, etc.
You're right though that we need very strong guarantees around the sources and accuracy of such a metric.
This question of "who decides?" is essential. I see snarky response after snarky response that ignores how power and authority corrupt decision-making.
I hope we can all agree that the decision to bar someone from participating in important ways in society should not rest on the unsupervised whims of people in Bay Area meeting rooms.
It's becoming downright common for Uber drivers to outright admit they give 1 star ratings for non-cash-tippers.
But yes, I've anecdotally heard of ratings drop for women who typically are type-A chatty, but changed to quiet and withdrawn for a few weeks during major life events. Perhaps that came across as more surely, but just something as silly as someone perceiving a bad attitude from a rider can results in a lower rating score.
I've also talked to drivers who give poor ratings if they have to go well out of their way, and it ends up being a short ride. Sure, this really sucks for the driver - but is it the rider's fault at all? Other unpopular destinations get similar treatment (or so I've heard).
Maybe Uber shouldn't be making any decisions about users. Just present the rating to the driver pool and let drivers decide who they pick up and who they do not. It doesn't entirely solve the issue of "what is a justifiable reason for rating a rider (or driver) poorly?" but it makes it less catastrophic for users.