Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the riots-and-retorts dept
One story in particular captured the readers' imagination when it comes to insight this week. As European taxi drivers went crazy over Uber, our readers chimed in, with JustShutUpAndObey taking first place with a simple recounting of personal experience:
I've been using Uber and Lyft for the last two weeks due to car trouble and love it for these reasons:
1. Drivers (and passengers) have both been pre-vetted by Uber. If either of us tries to rob the other, we WILL be caught.
2. No money changes hands (cash or credit)- Uber already has my credit card (the driver doesn't) and will charge me. The driver doesn't have to worry about me dashing without paying, and I don't have to worry about being charged a "funny" last minute amount.
3. Drivers are rated by passengers and I can decline a ride if the driver has a lower rating.
4. Passengers are also rated, and drivers can decline them too. There is an incentive for both parties to be polite.
5. The App: This is a much bigger advantage than is usually noted: I can see how far away the driver is, I can see his car moving on the map, along with the estimate of how many minutes. Once picked up, I can continuously monitor our progress.
6. Because Uber and Lyft use similar apps, I can check both to see who is closest BEFORE I request a pickup.
In addition to those points, all drivers (about a dozen so far) have been prompt, had very clean cars, and have known and taken the most efficient route. In contrast, last time I called for a cab, they took an hour and a half to arrive, despite telling me numerous times they were 5 minutes away.
Feeling sorry for taxi drivers is like feeling sorry for telemarketers: I do, but only a very little bit.
Second places comes from an anonymous commenter on the same post, breaking down the real meaning of what we're seeing:
They aren't flipping cars because they're worried about losing. They're flipping cars because they've already lost. They aren't trying to affect change. Not really. They're venting frustration. The whole scene makes a lot more sense in that context.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment from that post. Roger Strong both added some cultural perspective, and made a sad but solid prediction about the future:
France is a country where bossnappings - strikers kidnapping their bosses and holding them hostage - is a time-honored negotiating tactic. Protests by truckers, farmers, students make the Uber one look like a strongly worded memo.
Come back in five or ten years. The Uber drivers will be flipping and burning the self-driving cars that replace them.
Next, we pivot to a piece of EU copyright reform that involves stricter regulations on outdoor photography that might catch copyrighted material. Every time something like this has come up, it's seemed like a somewhat entitled concern, and MadAsASnake spells out the simple reason why:
Quite frankly, if they don't want it photographed, don't put it in view of the public.
Over on the funny side, first place goes to guest writer Bas Grasmayer. In response to his excellent piece about the need for artists to "sell features, not songs", one commenter insisted that he not "tell artists what to do". Bas racked up lots of funny votes with a short, sharp retort:
Don't tell me what to do.
For second place, we head to the bizarre story of Tumblr complying with the DMCA takedown requests of a self-proclaimed alien channeller (or some insane thing to that effect). Though the complainant was clearly questionable, Roger Strong made a good observation:
Still more credible than Rightscorp.
For editor's choice on the funny side, our first selection comes in response to the Supreme Court's use of a Spider-Man quote in a ruling against royalties on expired patents. One anonymous commenter made another prediction:
Next up: Supreme court sued for copyright infringement by Marvel.
Finally, we return to the story of the European taxi drivers, who our headline accused of losing "Their Collective Mind". This prompted another anonymous commenter to stick up for the land of liberty:
Damn collectivists
In America, they'd lose their minds individually, not as part of some collective.
That's all for this week, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
CLICK REPORT ON THIS COMMENT! It's logical and therefore disruptive to the Piratey Techdirt Community!
Though as you gleefully point out, they're only hidden, can be found with a little effort.
Since that's same as you do with your precious "report" clicks here, why do you say sites are censored when only hidden?
On other hand, here's The Masnick itself directly equating "censor" and "hide":
"efforts to censor the internet to hide content it doesn't like."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/11213631474/russia-blocks-internet-archives-wayback -machine-over-single-page.shtml
So, excuses by fanboys that hiding comments isn't censoring contradict The Masnick! -- And from now on I have an exact reference to prove it!
Just quit lying that hiding comments isn't censoring.
Do you kids ever notice that when you focus my attention on yet another of your obstacles* to my commenting here that it's counter-productive? Wouldn't you rather have me write just on article topics WITHOUT ALSO having fun pointing out your hypocritical attempts to censor? Hmm?
I've many times said that no one reasonable comments here! You don't seem to get the joke there, either. You DO run off reasonable people, kids. But you don't know when to stop using your childish tactics.
* For the few new who might mistake this piratey cesspit for a discussion forum, those tactics are: vicious ad hom up to wishes for death and physical threats, open calls for concerted "click report" on not just me but anyone replying, imitation of screen name with loony comments to discredit -- extending to another site where I'd never even commented!, ad hom targeted even in advance of my comments on a topic, Masnick blocking my home IP because I countered the hiding of comments with copy-paste -- I now have to use TOR -- yet zero response ever from Masnick / admin to my complaints, and never even admonishment to any fanboy.
So this isn't "trolling", it's necessary defense trying to attain the bare minimum of getting a little text displayed on publicly available web-page, just like anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CLICK REPORT ON THIS COMMENT! It's logical and therefore disruptive to the Piratey Techdirt Community!
I can say with confidence that not one of your comments has ever been better or worse, more or less likeable, smarter or stupider, than any other one of your comments. That's just how rock bottom works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CLICK REPORT ON THIS COMMENT! It's logical and therefore disruptive to the Piratey Techdirt Community!
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who returns day after day to waste his precious time trolling the forums? No one is focusing your attention on anything. You choose to come here. You bring anything that happens to you here upon yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh well, no matter. If it's reported out_of_the_blue accepts it as gospel truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"a simple recounting of [ALLEGED] personal experience" that just happens to sound like advertising copy
By the way, since the French gov't ordered to police to seize cars of Uber drivers, in what way have the licensed drivers lost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BOOM! SpaceX rocket exlodes seconds after launch! -- Destroys Microsoft "Hololens", hooray!
"Technology" has limits, no matter how many episodes of "Star Trek" you've seen. The huge quantity of resources wasted just to keep a few people in orbit can no longer be justified: we now KNOW present methods are stupid. -- But it'll go on because entrenched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BOOM! SpaceX rocket exlodes seconds after launch! -- Destroys Microsoft "Hololens", hooray! What's funny about that? -- 46 years after the Moon landing, every rocket launch becomes MORE likely to explode!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BOOM! SpaceX rocket exlodes seconds after launch! -- Destroys Microsoft "Hololens", hooray!
"Technology" has limits, no matter how many episodes of "Star Trek" you've seen. The huge quantity of resources wasted just to keep a few people in orbit can no longer be justified: we now KNOW present methods are stupid. -- But it'll go on because entrenched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding this and what I said above...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The moral of the story, only those that buy politicians can break laws and act disorderly to get what they want. In any reasonable society this behavior by taxi cab employees and medallion holders should not be tolerated.
And the pro IP shills here, who care not for the artists, the public, or even for the arts, actually support the taxi cab monopolies and aren't all over them for breaking the law like they are over 'piracy' further demonstrating they don't care about the law either unless it benefits them. And it's not just infringement they want to stop, it's all competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Peaceful protest is one thing, violent insurrection is quite another.
Those who refuse to surrender when they see the wrong end of the rifles are the sort of people a reasonable society is better off without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whatever, is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, riots are bad and illegal, the taxi drivers who burned cars, etc. should be punished, bla bla. No problem there.
But in many countries, Uber is simply illegal. In many countries, there are laws and regulations in place. Of course it is completely legit to start a discussion of these laws, regulations, etc. are useful or should be changed. And it would be totally ok if a company tried to lobby for changes there. But why do you celebrate a million-dollar company who simply earns money by breaking the law, simply ignoring regulations, as "innovative", etc? It's not "innovative" to stop paying taxes, either.
Perhaps Uber would be a good thing, perhaps not. But as long as it is simply illegal, the right thing to do is try to change the law, but not ignore it. And no, it's not "civil disobedience" if a huge company ignores the law because they want to earn money. That's simply called "criminal".
I understand every taxi driver who has a problem with Uber. They have to adhere to the law, take tests, have many other limitations placed upon them - and then there is a company for which the law doesn't seem to apply. Honestly, I would be angry, too. That, of course, does not excuse becoming a criminal yourself.
It is ok to start a discussion about laws and regulations. It is NOT ok to pretend to be a special snowflake for whom the laws and regulations simply do not apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Sorry, I don't get it. Why does someone defend Uber?"
Why don't you ask Uber's millions of satisfied customers all around the world, who've found them to provide a much better and often cheaper service than taxis. Do you really think they'd be happy to sit around waiting for years for the laws and regulations that are the result of regulatory capture to be overturned just because they ask nicely? Of course not.
Like many law changes, it takes societal pressure on lawmakers, who are being bribed, sorry lobbied by influential industry groups to maintain the status quo for their benefit. That pressure comes from large numbers of voters who want companies like Uber to be able to operate now, not years away, maybe, if you're lucky.
And it is civil disobedience if people are quite happy to use the service even if it's technically illegal. Nobody's forcing people to use Uber, they want to. Taxi system supporters seem to go very quiet when asked to explain this popularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But as long as it is simply illegal, the right thing to do is try to change the law, but not ignore it."
Which ensures that most bad or outdated laws will never get changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that the taxicab cartel is willing to break the laws to get the laws that they wrote enforced suggests the lengths they are willing to go to get what they want including subverting the democratic process to get laws that they wrote passed.
The fact that the government is then willing to ignore the taxicab cartel's disobedience of the law and then to subsequently give them what they want suggests that they are willing to comply with what the taxicab cartels want including with undemocratically passing the laws that they want.
It's OK to have a discussion about the laws and regulations so long as the only ones that get to dictate them are a small group of industry interests that buy politicians. We should simply sit here and watch the taxicab cartels do everything they can, including breaking the laws with impunity, to get the laws that they want passed.
and, really, if it were up to them it would not be OK to even discuss it. After all that's one reason the govt grants cableco and broadcasting monopolies and does so much to restrict media in various countries so that government and industry can dictate what can and can't be discussed. If these people had their way even criticizing them would be illegal and then people like you would claim it's not OK for us to discuss anything because it's clearly illegal. Illegal for us to discuss it by broadcasting it over corporate bought broadcasting spectra unless the corporations agree first. In some ways it is illegal to discuss it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But no, the fact that some people like Uber doesn't make it legal. We are still talking about a million dollar company. And yes, of course they can afford to be cheaper - because they ignore the law and the regulations. Great, according to this, selling cheap bread by ignoring little details like "taxes" is great idea, because people sure love cheap bread.
I do not doubt that taxi companies have problems, like many established systems, to innovate, to adopt new technologies, especially when they exist in a quite tightly regulated and thus quite comfortable space. I do not doubt that there's much potential for improvement there.
But the regulations are not there because of nothing. They have a goal. And we can surely discuss if there is a need for change. But no, ignoring the regulations and offering a service based on the fact that you can be cheaper because you ignore the law, is NOT an innovation. Every person who ever commited tax fraud ever tried exactly that.
I do not even claim that the regulations are actually GOOD. I just tell you that ignoring a law just because you think you know better is a sure way to prove that you are an idiot and you deserve the jail time you get.
Sorry, this argument simply does not hold water. You cannot save money by ignoring the law and then claim that because you are cheaper, people like you, thus the law was wrong anyway. That's simply circular reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Price is not even Uber's most attractive feature to its customers. It's simply a better service that customers like. If you don't believe the service they offer is innovative compared to taxis, either you're completely out of touch with both taxis and Uber, or more likely, you're very familiar with them...
"Every person who ever commited tax fraud ever tried exactly that."
And this is how we know you have a vested interest in the old taxi system. Demonising your opponent by comparisons to crimes that cause actual harm as if they're somehow equivalent is the oldest trick in the book. Can you point to the millions of happy customers of tax fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't be that comperable, pay-wise, or those taxi drivers, despite being licenced to drive for the expensive taxi services would just switch to drive for Uber.
Some of those French laws that Uber are skirting are probably there to make sure drivers don't get exploited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup. Quite a few times actually. I've had a few Uber (and Lyft) drivers who used to drive cabs and then realized that using these platforms was a much better deal. Often it's because they no longer have to work for a big cab company, but can control their own setup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]