Hacker News Reader

Comment by stemlord | Hacker News Reader

>Companies far too commonly assume guilty until proven innocent

Company assumed the rider was innocent until proven otherwise. Two way road here, being a middleman-as-a-service.

...or both could be presumed innocent until at least both sides of the story are heard. Uber is not obligated to take action immediately upon receiving a customer complaint.

One of the few advantages of middleman is to provide both sides of transactions with some level or protection. The store down the street may resell the same products from AliExpress but provides more protection than the fly by night resellers on Amazon.

I would trust Amazon slightly more than Aliexpress and both significantly more than the store down the street to make right any issues with goods bought there.

Amazon is very quick to refund, Aliexpress is slightly slower and more effort, a local shop is up to how they feel with only the vague threat of a chargeback.

It does not work that way. Innocence is applicable when punishment is applied. The driver was the one that was punished, therefore the rider was an accuser, whose innocence is irrelevant.

Accuser could be guilty of malicious intent (lying), Uber assumed their innocence in that respect.

Yes, and assumed the driver was guilty. The two way road is that the middle-man has to assume innocence from BOTH parties until otherwise proven. Period.

I agree with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com