Wouldn't it be helpful to have someone who's friendly to tech and immigration advising the president?
Seems to me Uber's CEO had a much better chance of changing things by advising the president than by walking away. Buy hey, whatever makes people feel good based on their knee-jerk reactions. That's the most important thing.
I said this in another thread, but I wonder if Kalanick saw the writing on the wall that Trump and his administration could not be reasoned with, and these protests against the immigration EO (and Uber's snafu) gave him an "out" based on external pressure.
I'm reminded of Eliot Cohen's response after trying to work with the administration in good faith:
I really don't see Uber as leading any sort of moral charge for anyone on a variety of levels. And I say this fully recognizing that Uber was unfairly treated in this last round of hashtags (they did exactly what Lyft did).
There is a non-zero chance Elon Musk might have a positive effect here, but I think the problem is not Trump. I actually think DJT can be reasoned with and he's just not used to the gravity of his office. I think the problem is some people in his inner circle that have flagrantly admitted to using him for their own personal gain to advance an agenda of white nationalism and racial purity politics.
"After the immigration order against refugees and seven Muslim-majority countries, many staff members wondered why Mr. Kalanick was still willing to advise the president."
That's exactly why someone should want to advise the President: to have the opportunity to advise the President against such things, or at the very least temper them.
This kind of "if you have any association with Trump, you must be evil" mentality is going to end up resulting in Trump being surrounded by people who already agree with him, rather than Trump being surrounded by people who disagree with him and can potentially sway him in more reasonable directions.
> "After the immigration order against refugees and seven Muslim-majority countries, many staff members wondered why Mr. Kalanick was still willing to advise the president."
That's exactly why someone should want to advise the President: to have the opportunity to advise the President against such things, or at the very least temper them.
Nothing about the last 18 months should make you think that he thoughtfully weighed input from advisors on both sides of the refugee issue and came to a reasoned decision. He used fear and demagoguery to appeal to xenophobes from the start.
To help him tread water for 4 years and eke out a reelection would be some really bad short-term thinking. We have a unique moment to teach voters that electing a reality TV host has negative consequences.
I'm typically a naysayer when it comes to protests, and particularly hashtag activism- I (strongly) doubt their efficacy. However, #deleteuber seems to have been remarkably effective.
I wonder if this will be enough to staunch the bleeding. How many installs have they list? I wonder what the equivalent cost would be for marketing to create that many new installs.
It's all about leverage. Clearly, the #deleteuber customers had it. This is also why the various boycott-Starbucks protests from the left and right always fail.
On a smaller scale, a similar social media backlash forced Rep. Chaffetz (R, UT) to withdraw his western public lands sale resolution (HR 621). This bill had bad implications for hunters and other outdoorsmen and the hunting media reacted strongly on social media, setting off a large outcry amongst public land-loving Republicans. In truth, both the right and the left opposed this bill but it was the outcry from his constituency that had the leverage and forced him to kill it.
This got me thinking last night: if this was 1982, politicians would do what they please and it would be months before the public found out about it. Now days, a congressman or president can make a bad decision and face immediate backlash from their constituency. For all of the problems that social media has created, this increased accountability of public servants is world-changing.
However, #deleteuber seems to have been remarkably effective.
That's great... but it's not even clear Uber did anything wrong.
They disabled surge pricing, and people interpreted it as trying to break the strike.
If they hadn't disabled surge pricing it would seem like they were profiting off the protests/strike, as has happened in the past.
Should Uber, the company, have forced it's drivers to strike by disallowing pickups at JFK? If so, why aren't people equally upset with Lyft for also not doing that?
Sure, but doesn't that prove the point? It doesn't matter how legitimate your protest is, just that you have leverage, which the #deleteuber crowd did.
I don't know which is more sad... that regressive leftists would shame someone out of positively contributing to society or that the CEO of Uber would fold to it so easily.
The #deleteuber hashtag was not just about the CEO being an advisor but also the way Uber handled the taxi cab strike at the airport. I think different points mixed together to create this viral hashtag.
Uber continued to pick up people at JFK when taxi cab drivers were striking. As a response, Lyft donated $1 million to the ACLU, so everyone jumped on the delete Uber/use Lyft bandwagon. Disclaimer: I'm more of a subway kind of guy, I don't use either and don't necessarily think we should be focusing on Uber and Lyft to make our political views seen. There are probably better boycotts out there.
Uber continued to pick up people at JFK when taxi cab drivers were striking.
Did Lyft do otherwise? That's not my understanding.
Lyft donated $1 million to the ACLU
Lyft has so far (presumably) donated $250k to the ACLU. They pledged $1 million over four years. And you know what? Good on 'em!
Uber had already pledged to fight the immigration ban directly on behalf of affected drivers, to the tune of $3 million. I love the ACLU, but I'm not sure I'd bet on their lawyers over Uber's, and getting both mobilized sounds like a win.
I'm more of a subway kind of guy
The subway to the airport was refusing to accept non-ticketed passengers during the planned protest (some time after the taxi strike).
Comments
Wouldn't it be helpful to have someone who's friendly to tech and immigration advising the president?
Seems to me Uber's CEO had a much better chance of changing things by advising the president than by walking away. Buy hey, whatever makes people feel good based on their knee-jerk reactions. That's the most important thing.
I said this in another thread, but I wonder if Kalanick saw the writing on the wall that Trump and his administration could not be reasoned with, and these protests against the immigration EO (and Uber's snafu) gave him an "out" based on external pressure.
I'm reminded of Eliot Cohen's response after trying to work with the administration in good faith:
After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly. https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800
I really don't see Uber as leading any sort of moral charge for anyone on a variety of levels. And I say this fully recognizing that Uber was unfairly treated in this last round of hashtags (they did exactly what Lyft did).
There is a non-zero chance Elon Musk might have a positive effect here, but I think the problem is not Trump. I actually think DJT can be reasoned with and he's just not used to the gravity of his office. I think the problem is some people in his inner circle that have flagrantly admitted to using him for their own personal gain to advance an agenda of white nationalism and racial purity politics.
"After the immigration order against refugees and seven Muslim-majority countries, many staff members wondered why Mr. Kalanick was still willing to advise the president."
That's exactly why someone should want to advise the President: to have the opportunity to advise the President against such things, or at the very least temper them.
This kind of "if you have any association with Trump, you must be evil" mentality is going to end up resulting in Trump being surrounded by people who already agree with him, rather than Trump being surrounded by people who disagree with him and can potentially sway him in more reasonable directions.
Nothing about the last 18 months should make you think that he thoughtfully weighed input from advisors on both sides of the refugee issue and came to a reasoned decision. He used fear and demagoguery to appeal to xenophobes from the start.
To help him tread water for 4 years and eke out a reelection would be some really bad short-term thinking. We have a unique moment to teach voters that electing a reality TV host has negative consequences.
I'm typically a naysayer when it comes to protests, and particularly hashtag activism- I (strongly) doubt their efficacy. However, #deleteuber seems to have been remarkably effective.
I wonder if this will be enough to staunch the bleeding. How many installs have they list? I wonder what the equivalent cost would be for marketing to create that many new installs.
It's all about leverage. Clearly, the #deleteuber customers had it. This is also why the various boycott-Starbucks protests from the left and right always fail.
On a smaller scale, a similar social media backlash forced Rep. Chaffetz (R, UT) to withdraw his western public lands sale resolution (HR 621). This bill had bad implications for hunters and other outdoorsmen and the hunting media reacted strongly on social media, setting off a large outcry amongst public land-loving Republicans. In truth, both the right and the left opposed this bill but it was the outcry from his constituency that had the leverage and forced him to kill it.
This got me thinking last night: if this was 1982, politicians would do what they please and it would be months before the public found out about it. Now days, a congressman or president can make a bad decision and face immediate backlash from their constituency. For all of the problems that social media has created, this increased accountability of public servants is world-changing.
That's great... but it's not even clear Uber did anything wrong.
They disabled surge pricing, and people interpreted it as trying to break the strike.
If they hadn't disabled surge pricing it would seem like they were profiting off the protests/strike, as has happened in the past.
Should Uber, the company, have forced it's drivers to strike by disallowing pickups at JFK? If so, why aren't people equally upset with Lyft for also not doing that?
Sure, but doesn't that prove the point? It doesn't matter how legitimate your protest is, just that you have leverage, which the #deleteuber crowd did.
I don't know which is more sad... that regressive leftists would shame someone out of positively contributing to society or that the CEO of Uber would fold to it so easily.
dupe
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13555580
.
The #deleteuber hashtag was not just about the CEO being an advisor but also the way Uber handled the taxi cab strike at the airport. I think different points mixed together to create this viral hashtag.
Could you explain "the way Uber handled the taxi cab strike at the airport" and how Lyft's handling differed?
Uber continued to pick up people at JFK when taxi cab drivers were striking. As a response, Lyft donated $1 million to the ACLU, so everyone jumped on the delete Uber/use Lyft bandwagon. Disclaimer: I'm more of a subway kind of guy, I don't use either and don't necessarily think we should be focusing on Uber and Lyft to make our political views seen. There are probably better boycotts out there.
Did Lyft do otherwise? That's not my understanding.
Lyft has so far (presumably) donated $250k to the ACLU. They pledged $1 million over four years. And you know what? Good on 'em!
Uber had already pledged to fight the immigration ban directly on behalf of affected drivers, to the tune of $3 million. I love the ACLU, but I'm not sure I'd bet on their lawyers over Uber's, and getting both mobilized sounds like a win.
The subway to the airport was refusing to accept non-ticketed passengers during the planned protest (some time after the taxi strike).