> There's no discrimination here because Uber and Doordash aren't treating minorities different from what they treat anyone else.

You’ve misunderstood the use of “discrimination” in the paper. It’s as in “price discrimination” (a parallel the introduction draws explicitly, if the play on words didn’t come through in the title).

All of this is covered in the article, if you actually bothered to read it past the introduction. Your comment doesn't even apply to the article, it's just fighting made up windmills. Algorithmic wage discrimination is not about minorities, race, or anything like that, which you would know, again, if you actually read the article.

> Algorithmic wage discrimination” refers to a practice in which individual workers are paid different hourly wages [...] for broadly similar work. As a wage-pricing technique, algorithmic wage discrimination encompasses not only digitalized payment for completed work but, critically, digitalized decisions to allocate work, which are significant determinants of hourly wages and levers of firm control.

The way you're using "logic" and "evidence" here is nonstandard, and you seem to be in favor of concealing evidence that minorities are overwhelmingly affected by something. Does "a commitment to logic" requires all unfairness to be universal, or else be deemed divisive and tangential?

When I was a kid, I detasseled corn in Iowa (you walk up the rows sexually mutilating hybrid corn by hand where the machine missed.) I was able to get on a white crew as a black kid who showed up with white friends. The guy who put our crew together had to negotiate with every farmer that we worked for because seeing a black person on the crew made them think that they should be paying a Mexican rate for me; Mexicans were paid about half of what white people were paid, regardless of output. Instead, he would sell me as an honorary white man (because it was clear I was with my white friends.) I also have no doubt that he accepted a Mexican rate for me at least once or twice, and just covered out of his own pocket; he was a nice old hippie, and didn't want me to feel bad.

> It really is tiring. It feels like I'm alone in a world that's been co-opted by virtue signaling rather than a commitment to logic.

Good luck trying to get disparities like that prioritized when they don't harm (and may benefit) anyone who sets priorities. You've literally exhausted yourself complaining about people bringing them up. The challenge minorities have to having their issues paid attention to is you.

You're also using "virtue signalling" and "ideological posturing" as euphemisms for "speaking about ethnicity and minorities." Virtue signalling is when you advertise the pureness of your belief to no particular end other than to be recognized as a better person than others.

> It’s like fighting an uphill battle, trying to stay grounded in principles of clear and honest engagement. The art of being rational isn’t lost, but finding it in today's discourse seems more challenging than ever.