Playing the Uber Parlor Game

Playing the Uber Parlor Game

During the previous years monitoring Uber’s shameless chicanery has turn into a little bit of a parlor recreation.

Palace intrigue? Oh sure. Digging at fact hidden behind fixed obfuscation? Check. Secret Uber departments devoted to subterfuge? Sure. Siccing CIA-linked operatives on opponents? Yes, ugh.

And writers proffering considerate evaluation. One referred to as the Uber recreation “part thriller, part soap opera.”

Mix in story strains of individuals getting harm—passengers assaulted, a six-year-old girl killed, drivers duped into predatory loans—and the recreation acquires a darker tone with broader implications. To wit: How are we, as a civilization, going to guard individuals in an age of shiny, enthralling toys?

Will we use tech, or will it use us?

Bunches of gifted reporters have made reams of insightful observations on this “game.”

For our cash, that is considered one of the most trenchant but.


The context of this passage is the London regulator canceling Uber’s working license. Understand that London is Uber’s largest market outdoors of the U.S.

This perception comes from reporter Ethan Wolff-Mann in an article entitled: “Uber is testing the limits of a long public leash”:

“London’s move shows that even if attrition of a company’s reputation doesn’t affect consumer choices, it can still embolden regulators who otherwise would not take the political risk of slapping the wrist of a beloved company for a sin that is difficult for consumers to understand.”

When you behold the bevy of countries, lawmakers, states, cities and groups penalizing and chastising Uber for hiding a consumer-data hack for almost a yr—this level rings fairly true.

Score one.

Source link