Why is Gawker so anti Uber?

"javiIn1080p" (javi1080p) 01/07/2016 at 10:42 • Filed to: None

2

38

I hate that I’m writing this post, but over time I’ve noticed how Gawker media loves to write negative articles about Uber, often singling them out, sometimes fairly so, and sometime less, as Lyft and taxi services can be just as guilty of the crime.

The skeptic in me finds this strangely coincidental, and I now find it hard to believe Gawker isn’t being paid to write negative articles about Uber. If this is the case, I believe it’s just and ethical for Gawker to disclose their financial interest in making Uber look bad. What does everyone else think? Am I being paranoid?

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 10:47

5

Because it’s a product of the free market, duh.

Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 10:48

6

They are just a bunch of self-righteous people that are put off by Uber’s bully business tactics. The same people probably swear by Apple, which was built by probably the biggest prick in the whole industry.

I, for one, love Uber. The app is convenient, and it’s FAR faster and cheaper than taking suburban cab services here outside Philly. They also bust up the city taxi cab medallion racket wherever they go, which I find admirable.

pjhusa > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 10:48

2

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 10:48

1

Maybe they own stock in Lyft? lol

wiffleballtony > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 10:49

0

Gawker media writing unrelenting hit pieces, impossible.

javiIn1080p > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 01/07/2016 at 10:50

1

That could be!

gin-san - shitpost specialist > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 10:59

0

If Gawker wants to pay for my cab fares as well as pay me for the extra time lost waiting for them, I’d be happy to take a cab again. Otherwise, Uber it is.

javiIn1080p > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 01/07/2016 at 11:02

0

So Gawker hates free market?

jariten1781 > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:05

1

Because once upon a time they wrote pieces that were positive, neutral and negative about Uber. The negative posts got more uniques and vitriolic discussion. Therefore they dropped the neutral and positive and went full out hit squad.

javiIn1080p > jariten1781 01/07/2016 at 11:07

0

So why not do the same for Lyft and Taxis? My question isn’t “why are they writing bad pieces about Uber?”. They’re free to do so if they’d like. My question is “Why are they writing bad pieces about Uber only?”. That’s what I’m skeptical about.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:07

2

They’re so red that they make blood look white.

Sam > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:10

0

Because it gets clicks. People see a story that says “Taxi driver gropes woman in back of cab” and they just think that it’s like saying the sky is blue, but “Evil corporation Uber doesn’t care that woman was groped by Uber driver” is a lot more of a shock title.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:10

0

Because Uber’s the biggest one, it’s new, and people are always afraid of new ideas or technology.

BrtStlnd > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:11

0

They generally have a stance against employers that avoid labeling people that work for them as “employees” as a way to avoid the responsibilities that come with having employees. This is what Uber does.

Birddog > wiffleballtony 01/07/2016 at 11:12

1

Inconceivable!

jariten1781 > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:12

0

Because Taxis are old hat and everyone knows they’re crappy so they don’t get as many uniques. Lyft is small potatoes so they don’t get as much traffic either.

Rico > pjhusa 01/07/2016 at 11:16

1

Lol wut. Okay your family member is in a wheel chair, show me a livery cab out there with a motorized ramp. People use their OWN cars for uber, unless they already had a car with a ramp they aren’t going to install it just for Uber. Not every taxi in NYC has wheelchair accessibility people don’t get angry about it they just try to get one that has it. Some people are plain crazy!!

javiIn1080p > jariten1781 01/07/2016 at 11:22

0

that makes a lot of sense

DoYouEvenShift > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:23

0

Theyre anti everything over there.

For Sweden > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:28

0

Sam Biddle’s just a contrarian.

TheHondaBro > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 01/07/2016 at 11:32

0

Gawker is painfully blue. They constantly talk shit about the Republican presidential candidates.

Mercedes Streeter > Rico 01/07/2016 at 11:33

1

To be fair, these VPG van cabs are being bought up in hilariously high numbers by liveries everywhere. They’re all over Chicago. And not only are they awesomely roomy, but they are fully equipped to handle disabled passengers.

Ugly as hell and a parts bin special? You bet. Insanely practical? OH YEAH.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > TheHondaBro 01/07/2016 at 11:36

1

Pixel > Rico 01/07/2016 at 11:39

4

It isn’t just a case of wheelchair ramps. Even if the person can self-transition into a car seat, Uber drivers are notorious for showing up and seeing a disabled person and canceling the pickup and driving off, and the company does nothing to punish or discourage it despite it being a violation of handicap access laws.

I have a friend with a seeing-eye dog. She tries to use both Uber & Lyft and often has as many as 4 drivers *in a row* pull up to where she is standing, see the dog, cancel the pickup and drive off, despite the dog visibly wearing a seeing eye dog harness. If a taxi did that she could report them to the state taxi commission. With Uber/Lyft all she can do is complain to the companies, who give her the same boilerplate reply every time with no change to how they operate.

Rico > Mercedes Streeter 01/07/2016 at 11:45

3

True and for every one of these here there are 10 regular cabs, I’ve never seen anyone in a wheelchair get pissed off at the standard cabs for not having access. For this guy to call every person who works for those companies a shitstain is silly. My stepfather drives a taxi, a 2013 Altima no wheel chair access and he doesn’t drive for Uber but rather a dispatch company, is he a shit stain too? Nope.

Also, Access-A-Ride exists and I’m sure there are other companies similar to it that are specifically for people who need assistance or wheel chair accessibility. I just feel like that dude that PJhusa screenshotted is irrationally angry and so are the 11 people who recommended his comment.

davedave1111 > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:45

2

Gawker Media doesn’t hide the fact that they take money for unacknowledged advertorial. They’re paid to bash Uber by the taxi mobsters, plain and simple. Then they get racist scum like Alissa ‘Snow White’ Walker to write hit-pieces, and those types really lay into Uber because they hate the idea that people who happen to have darker shades of skin can afford to take cabs.

Textured Soy Protein > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 11:45

1

Reasons Gawker dislikes Uber:

Uber classifies its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees which prevents Uber drivers from getting full-time employee benefits, among other things.

Uber surge pricing jacks up the price when Uber cars are more in demand. This is the literal embodiment of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s “free market rules all” philosophy. Uber surge pricing would often make Uber rides during extreme weather and other emergency situations extremely high, until Uber was pressured to stop the practice by governments.

Uber aggressively flouts regulations in most markets where it operates, aggressively lobbies to get those regulations changed, and wages all-out PR battles against politicians that get in its way, including sending messages in its app to encourage its users to oppose politicians who do things that are bad for Uber’s business.

That’s not to say that this “bad” behavior is all that different from any number of other large corporations out there, but Uber is a bit more right out in everyone’s face with it.

So...with Gawker’s anti-corporate, pro-worker, pro-fairness type bent, it’s not exactly surprising that Gawker often bashes Uber.

Rico > Pixel 01/07/2016 at 11:50

0

Okay see having a dog whether its a service dog or not is difficult for a taxi driver. Many taxi drivers will not allow someone to bring a huge dog into their car even here in NYC where a million dispatch companies exist. You can however call and explain you need someone who can handle a dog. I’m not trying to put any emphasis on it being a seeing eye dog but just a dog in general.

I don’t use Uber so I don’t know if you can request a car that is dog friendly or not in advance since there is no way to “call” like you can with a dispatch.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > TheHondaBro 01/07/2016 at 11:57

0

I think he means red as in communist/socialist.

Mercedes Streeter > Rico 01/07/2016 at 11:59

2

For the record, I dislike Uber for different reasons than everyone else. By listing themselves as a tech firm (hahahaha, no), they get away with not having to follow hardly any of the regulations that cabbies and other liveries do...even though they offer the same kind of service.

I’m all for companies like Uber and Lyft AND I’m for the cabbies too. I just don’t like how Uber gets off on skirting regulations, even sticking around when they have been officially banned by multiple governments (admittedly, some of them corrupt). But it should be more fairly matched.

Pixel > Rico 01/07/2016 at 12:04

2

Ah, but it being a seeing eye dog is the relevant part. This isn’t their precious poochy they want to bring along, this is a medical device necessary for them to function. That device just happens to have four legs and a tail.

It is AGAINST THE LAW to refuse to transport someone with a seeing eye dog. Whether the taxi/uber/lyft driver wants the dog in their vehicle is irrelevant.

Don’t want to transport a seeing eye dog? Don’t hire yourself out to transport people for money. Doing anything else is illegal. From the official ADA website :

8. Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don’t want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have “accidents.” Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.

Rico > Mercedes Streeter 01/07/2016 at 12:17

1

See I feel like it’s different everywhere in the world and even differs State to State. Yellow cabs require a medallion here in NYC which can cost some crazy amount of money like $100k that you pay over a period of time, that’s straight up bullshit. Then there was a push to remove all livery cab service in the outerboros and instead have these:

These would be outer boro cabs that would not be allowed to drive into Manhattan. They tried to force all livery cab drivers to repaint their cars (at their expense) and install the necessary equipment to monitor and track rides so the city could get its fair share (including a charge to the driver of .50 each time a passenger door was opened). I have intimate knowledge of this because my stepfather is a livery cab driver for a radio dispatch. They tried to put these drivers through the ringer and still do until they decided to give up on the forcing part. The TLC and the Medallion companies are all in cohoots with the politicians of NYC it’s all a very lucrative business and a way to take advantage/squeeze mostly immigrants of spanish and middle eastern decent so if Uber is telling NYC to fuck off I support them in that sense.

Some of the other stuff that has come out of Uber has concerned me though including passengers getting assaulted, random fares of hundreds-thousands of dollars and a few other things. I know a friend of a friend who works for Uber and makes on avg $1000 a week after expenses which at times seems pretty good and he wouldn’t have that opportunity otherwise with his current living circumstances.

Mercedes Streeter > Rico 01/07/2016 at 13:11

1

Oh yeah, I agree to that one as well. NYC is freaking insane (they’re one of the corrupt ones) with those medallions. And you’re right with cabbies as well...My dad used to work for a cab firm here in Chicago. They forced him to lease a vehicle through them at an insane cost of $600/wk. And his shift was in the dead of night and nowhere near anywhere that had enough population to warrant a huge cab presence.

I think Uber’s biggest problem is that they simply aren’t doing good enough of a service to their riders. Many of the laws they evade were meant to protect the riders (like the lack of screening processes, or proper licensing when talking about Europe), and sometimes, the surge pricing is incredibly unfair.

Like for NYE this year in Chicago...200% Surge pricing at 8pm.
8pm? Come on Uber, that wasn’t nice lol

That's gonna leave a mark! > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 01/07/2016 at 15:08

0

I’m reporting this website right now!

Tapas > javiIn1080p 01/07/2016 at 20:00

0

Mainly because the car drivers have all the responsibilities when it comes to putting up capital (Their car, insurance, etc) and don’t their drivers offer as employees (so no benefits).

There are also no checks into the driver’s background, no training, no vehicle safety checks, etc.

At the same time, they take a big cut for only having an app - which is no small feat. But the drivers really do all the work.

Also, surge pricing is a horrible thing.

Dusty Ventures > javiIn1080p 01/08/2016 at 01:28

0

Uber trying to spy and dig up dirt on journalists probably didn’t help things.

pImpOfThePerverse > javiIn1080p 01/08/2016 at 06:11

0

I think it’s because it treats regulation of the livery industry as a market efficiency to be recouped by some savvy operator. Those regulations have protected drivers, passengers and public safety while making it possible for livery companies to run on a semi-cooperative basis, providing secure employment on equitable terms to drivers. They also allow municipalites to plan the growth and utilization of car service as part of their general transit plan.

Uber found an end run on the regulations, which didn’t anticipate the current technical paradigm. They’ve used it to channel the cost of complying with the regulations directly into travis kalahnik’s pockets. It doesn’t help that he’s personally a risible little toad. Even ed lee has to take a rape shower after a meeting with travis.

I don’t think they’re anti uber driver. They’re very much in favor of uber drivers being treated as employees and receiving the pay and benefits to which they are entitled.

pImpOfThePerverse > javiIn1080p 01/08/2016 at 06:15

0

I think they’ve been critical of the sharing economy in general, on the basis that it tends to expropriate value from the public trust in many forms.