Talk:Uber

	This Business related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes It has enough refs to be bronze, but it should have more content

Topic

I have a question about this being filed under the "crime" category, with this article also having the "crime" template on it; what in this article justifies Uber being crime related or a criminal organization? It seems to me that, while it may well try to skirt local taxi laws, it typically does so through direct lobbying efforts and is otherwise a legitimate business enterprise. Can we either 1) add some sources for it being involved in crime or 2) cease labeling it as being crime involved when it appears not to be, and when we don't have sources to back up that claim? Old guard (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions assault, rape & kidnapping incidents. I'm guessing that's why it was put in the crime category. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've put it in the rape category as it looks like that's what most of these incidents relate to. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, but my original concern (and maybe I'm reading a little too into this) is that we're insinuating that Uber supports rape. Again, I may be wrong as to what that nav template is intended for, but it just might not be a good idea to insinuate that they support rape when they don't outright. But, as I said, I might just be reading a bit too much into it. Old guard (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

While it may be a bit polemical, Uber also has a history of not caring too much about whether it complies with laws on taxi firms and I seem to recall it has been fined by various authorities for illegal taxicab operation aka gypsy cab or pirate cab operation. That means that Uber itself has no problem breaking the law, apparently based on the (stereo)typical Randian vulgar libertarianism that seems to be rife in certain sectors of the "new economy". ScepticWombat (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Can we get some sources to back that up, and perhaps add some of that to the article? I originally thought that that's where this article was going to go in regards to it being in the "crime" category, but then there was nothing at all about that in the article, so I didn't think that was an area they could either back up with sources or an area that they wanted to be a focus of this article. Old guard (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

October 2015 articles from Norway about police cracking down on Uber drivers: The Local and News in English and of course that other wiki has an entire article on the legal status of Uber's service that could be used as a starting point for gathering ref.s. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the crime navbar as Uber has been banned in several countries, and the Uber response was along the lines of "we don't care we'll just continue". I wanted to expand the page, but I forgot, so let me do that in a bit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Uber's sexism revelations

So are we gonna add any of hat stuff from the bombshell last year and the fallout?Keter (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph on it near the end, but if you want to expand on it, go ahead. Bongolian (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Uber Paid Hackers To Hide 57 Million User Data Breach

Source: https://www.darknet.org.uk/2017/11/uber-paid-hackers-hide-57-million-user-data-breach/ —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 01:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The original sources are these if you want to add this to the page:[1][2] Bongolian (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How evil of them

to offer a service at a lower price than the usual taxis, amirite? --80.147.221.65 (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Missional? In any case this aricle is terrible

What is the point of a bunch of anectodes from almost a decade ago and saying that they're evil because they charge less? Come one, we can do better than that. I do not have time to edit the article, but the entire "criticism" section is a huge gish gallop, I think it should go to the draft space at least. GeeJayK (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. It isn't clear what part of the mission Uber falls under (closest is maybe authoritarianism, I guess?). The criticism section is essentially a gish gallop, and a bit self-contradictory (at least in terms of attitude). Is Uber a criminal business model that needs to be taken down, or is it evil for pursuing self-driving cars which could cost millions of jobs (which absolutely would not be lost if it were disbanded as a criminal enterprise)? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Uber is very much missional, they are basically changing the law in order to benefit themselves (see the California Proposition 22 fiasco for an example) and they never make a profit, suggesting that their motive is either to monopolize the market around themselves then raise prices/lower employee wages, or they only exist to scam venture capitalists. The article could use an update but it should exist. Plutocow (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You are saying, I think, that they fall under authoritarianism because they are changing the law to benefit themselves? I don't see them as being the media, as being psuedoscientists, as being cranks, certainly not as fundamentalists. In any case, I am not wholly convinced that this is sufficient to call them authoritarian; trying to change the law to benefits themselves seems like a description that could be applied pretty broadly, and authoritarianism is perhaps not something to be applied on the basis of whether or not one is successful. One might think, for instance, that a libertarian who succeeds in changing the law is changing it to their own benefit, but this would not necessarily make them authoritarian. I am also wary to read too much into their lack of profit; Lyft isn't profitable either. A business model of monopolize the market before turning a profit is a bit suspect, I think, and it's a bit of a jump from "not making money" to "defrauding investors". Perhaps I am wrong, though, and your concept of their missionality is not as I have interpreted it. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)