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.
Comments
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.