Thread by @DmitryOpines

1/ Quick, non snarky thread on this from someone who uses Uber all the time and has a lot of sympathy for the argument "Taxis are often shit, and the industry is just trying to protect a monopoly."

I live in Geneva. Trust me, I know. Our cabs are AWFUL.

theguardian.com/technology/201…

2/ That said, I don't think people are reading this story closely enough.

Uber's entire business model is predicated on a crowd-sourced evaluation model. Every driver gets rated every trip and I can see my driver's rating well before they pick me up.

3/ Uber saves money by using this model to filter out bad drivers.

This allows it to cut down on the training and screening it does for potential drivers, but doesn't allow it to eliminate such training entirely. The government insists on SOME scrutiny.

4/ Here, Uber knew of and apparently did nothing to fix an exploit whereby uninsured, unautherized, unscreened and unreviewed drivers could borrow the accounts of other drivers, appearing to customers as if they were legitimate.

5/ If it was discovered that Black Cab Companies were aware that their drivers were routinely letting random mates about whom the company knew nothing borrow their cabs and pose as Black Cab drivers, there would be a public outcry...

... and legitimately so.

6/ Because Uber couldn't be bothered spending the money on photo verification screening, you might have been picked up by someone you thought was a properly screened 4.8 star Uber driver with 10,000 rides, but who was in fact an unlicensed sex offender without insurance.

7/ Public policy isn't a team sport. You don't have to pick "Uber" or "Black Cabs" or "Government" and just blindly stan them.

Being 'disruptive' doesn't mean you can cut corners by just ignoring all laws and safety producers.

/endrant