France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber

from the because-that'll-help dept

Yesterday, we wrote about taxi drivers in France going absolutely insane in protesting the fact that they don't like competition from Uber. They took drivers hostage, set fires and flipped cars over -- basically reminding everyone that "hey, Uber drivers aren't nearly as fucking crazy as taxi drivers." But here's the amazing thing: the French government apparently has decided to appease these modern day luddites:

France ordered a nationwide clampdown on UberPOP on Thursday, siding with taxi drivers who blockaded major transport hubs in angry protests against the popular online ride-sharing service.

Not only that, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, rather than call out the taxi drivers, pretended that it was the fault of "both sides"

Prime Minister Manuel Valls condemned the violence and incidents "on both sides" as the government sought to take a tough stand on the protests while backing the drivers' case.

"They give a deplorable image to visitors to our country," he said during a visit to Colombia, adding that all available legal measures would be taken to halt the UberPOP activity.

The French bureaucrats are now telling law enforcement to seize cars from Uber drivers. Really.

In a toughening of the French stance, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve ordered Paris police to issue a decree banning UberPOP and said cars defying the order would be seized.

"The government will never accept the law of the jungle," he said in a television declaration on Thursday evening.

Again, as most users of Uber and other such services will tell you, the experience tends to be a lot better than crappy cab experiences.

And European bureaucrats sit and wonder why they can't have more innovative internet companies starting up there. Perhaps they should look at situations like this and how they respond to innovative companies that disrupt legacy, monopoly services by providing something that the public actually wants.

Filed Under: bernard cazeneuve, cabs, france, innovation, luddism, manuel valls, riots, taxi
Companies: uber

Blind Fear Of Cyberwar Drives Columnist To Call For Elimination Of The Internet

from the wait,-what? dept

Every time I think I've read the least well-thought out luddite argument, someone comes along to top it, and today we have columnist Robert Samuelson in the Washington post with what might be the silliest, most lacking-in-thought argument for why we should get rid of the internet. The short version: yes, the internet has provided us with some good stuff, but because there's a yet unproven risk that it might also lead to some cyberattacks that might lead to as yet undetermined problems, we should scrap the whole thing. Oddly, the WaPo had put different titles on the piece online and in the print newspaper. Online, it's entitled: "Beware the Internet and the danger of cyberattacks." In the physical paper, they apparently went with the much more ridiculous: "Is the Internet Worth It?" with the clear implication being a fulfillment of Betteride's Law that the answer is "no, the internet is not worth it." It's almost as if the WaPo realized how stupid that headline was, and thinks that its online readers might actually mock them for such a ridiculous headline.

If I could, I would repeal the Internet. It is the technological marvel of the age, but it is not — as most people imagine — a symbol of progress. Just the opposite. We would be better off without it. I grant its astonishing capabilities: the instant access to vast amounts of information, the pleasures of YouTube and iTunes, the convenience of GPS and much more. But the Internet's benefits are relatively modest compared with previous transformative technologies, and it brings with it a terrifying danger: cyberwar. Amid the controversy over leaks from the National Security Agency, this looms as an even bigger downside.

Leaving aside the anachronism of GPS (er, that's not the internet, Robert), this makes no sense. Samuelson brushes aside the vast benefits of the internet, and the fact that "instant access to vast amounts of information" leads to all sorts of opportunities for positive change in the world, including social and cultural enrichment, as well as economic growth. But none of that matters, because of the threat of an undefined "cyberwar." Samuelson, later in the piece, even seems to admit two things: that there's no evidence that "cyberwar" has done any real damage to date, and that many people think that it never will.

No matter, just because it might possibly happen and might possibly cause some problems, we should ditch the entire internet and everything that came with it.

I don't know the odds of this technological Armageddon. I doubt anyone does. The fears may be wildly exaggerated, as Thomas Rid of Kings College London argues in his book "Cyber War Will Not Take Place" (already published in Britain, due out this fall in the United States). In living memory, there are many threats that, with hindsight, seemed hyped: the "missile gap" in 1960; the Y2K phenomenon in 2000 (the date change was allegedly going to disable many computer chips); and, so far, the prophecies of widespread terrorism after 9/11.

But... I'm still going to assume that the risk is so great, that we should just kill off the entire internet.

Really, when you think about it, the argument is so self-defeating to be insane: Samuelson is arguing that because bad people might take down parts of the internet, we should take down the whole entire thing to beat them to it. How does that make any sense at all.

Adam Thierer has written a detailed response which is worth reading, but I think the best response so far has come from David Weinberger, who reformulates Samuelson's opening paragraph to cover a couple of other things we might as well repeal:

If I could, I would repeal the First Amendment. It is the governmental marvel of the age, but it is not — as most people imagine — a symbol of progress. Just the opposite. We would be better off without it. I grant its astonishing capabilities: the TV talking heads, the bumperstickers, the op-eds that have to overstate their case to get published, and much more. But First Amendment's benefits are relatively modest compared with previous speech rights, and it brings with it a terrifying danger: free thinking. Amid the controversy over leaks from the National Security Agency, this looms as an even bigger downside.

[.....]

If I could, I would repeal oxygen. It is the chemical marvel of the age, but it is not — as most people imagine — a symbol of progress. Just the opposite. We would be better off without it. I grant its astonishing capabilities: the way it’s used by cigarette lighters, the buoyancy of kiddie swim fins, the infomercials that entertain us with how it helps remove cranberry juice from table cloths. But oxygen’s benefits are relatively modest compared with previous chemicals, and it brings with it a terrifying danger: life on Earth. Amid the controversy over leaks from the National Security Agency, this looms as an even bigger downside.

Thierer also points out that you could easily substitute automobiles, airplanes or basically almost any other modern technology. Yes, each of them creates some new risks and threats, but most of the world believes that the tremendous benefits and positives that come with them outweigh the theoretical risk. We don't seek to ban cars and planes because they tend to crash and kill people. Will recognize the benefits, and the risks, while seeking to minimize the risks while improving the benefits. Apparently, in the world of Robert Samuelson, there is no cost-benefit analysis, there's just "cost" and the cost is too damn high.

Update: The Disruptive Competition Project jokingly suggests that Samuelson's piece was obviously satire:

Samuelson drops clues, however, that his tongue is firmly in cheek. The defective internal logic is the first. The Internet ‘merely’ provides us with email, Facebook, YouTube, and GPS, the column contends. The Internet’s “upside” is small. Yet we are so dependent upon it for communications and critical infrastructure such as energy, and health care that it constitutes a vulnerability. Moreover, Samuelson seems to contend, it is so essential to modern communications that it is a virtual attractive nuisance for warrantless surveillance by NSA. Thus, the Internet’s “downside” is under-appreciated.

Filed Under: cyberwar, fear fear fear, internet, luddism, robert samuelson

The Latest Generation Of 'Get Off My Lawn!' Books From People Who Don't Understand Technology

from the it's-a-tool dept

Adam Singer points us to a recent article in the Guardian about a spate of recent "technology is destroying society"-type books, many of which we've spoken about before. The main book it talks about, however, is Sherry Turkle's new book Alone Together. This is a bit disappointing in the fact that, in the past, Turkle has often been an astute observer of technology and how kids are adapting to it in positive ways. As one person jokes in the article: "Alone Together reads as if it were written by Turkle's evil Luddite twin."

Unfortunately, like so many of these books, the criticism seems to be focused on a sort of "get off my lawn!" outsider's view of technological culture, with assumptions about what constitutes "good" and what constitutes "bad." For example, the fact that people check information on their smartphones is seen as bad, but that doesn't take into account context or whether or not those people are communicating with others in a productive manner. As always, technology is a tool and there's no doubt that some people use it in ways that are not productive or helpful to themselves, just as many others use the tools in ways that make their lives better. Trying to paint this all with such a broad brush is disappointing. Much of it seems based on the silly assumption that communicating with someone via a screen is automatically less human than communicating with someone face-to-face. Yet we saw the same claims when the telephone first came out and I don't think anyone still claims that the telephone degraded societal communications. Technology is a part of the ecosystem and people have an amazing ability to adapt to it. Yes, some people will always overdo it, but blaming the technology and discounting the many positive users (as well as the likelihood that people adapt over time) is a huge mistake. It might sell books, but it does little to shed any real insight into how technology is impacting our lives.

Filed Under: luddism, sherry turkle, technology