New Yorkers have a new ridehailing alternative to Uber: @TheDriversCoop is a driver-owned, app-based ride-hailing service that pays drivers more, charges riders less, and pays out any profits to driver-owners as periodic dividends.
#PlatformCooperativism is a powerful antidote to app-based gig work: a way to provide customers with the convenience that made app-based services so popular while putting workers in control of their days, schedules and working conditions.
2/
It's particularly buoying to see a platform co-op challenge Uber, a company that started as a way to funnel Saudi royals' billions into a bid to dismantle public transit and worker protections in a single fell swoop.
3/
Uber is especially vulnerable. It's losing billions of dollars, and it had to pay a group of suckers $400m to relieve it of its failed, $25b self-driving car unit whose product couldn't manage a single mile on its own.
Uber's main project has always been regulatory, not technological: that's why it funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into passing California's #Prop22, a law that legalized worker misclassification and banned unionization.
5/
After years of losing billions, Uber's original investors exited through an IPO that brought in suckers who bought in on the premise that a pile of shit as big as Uber MUST have a pony underneath it somewhere.
6/
Now those investors have to figure out how to recoup the billions that Uber squandered on subsidizing rides, suborning regulators, and staging elaborate long cons like its self-driving car unit.
7/
It must pay drivers less and charge riders more than a new market entrant that has none of this baggage. That's why a drivers' co-op is such a big move.
But I fear that Uber has one enduring advantage that the drivers will struggle to overcome: the network effect.
8/
Drivers and riders are already overwhelmingly on Uber. If you're a rider, trying to hail a Drivers Coop car is likely to result in a longer wait because fewer drivers have the app installed. So fewer riders will try, and drivers won't have an incentive to sign up.
9/
Both critics of tech monopoly and apologists for it zero in on this network effect as the key driver of market concentration - but this analysis misses a far more important factor: switching costs.
It's easy for a driver to drive for Uber AND the Drivers Coop (just as many drivers already keep both Lyft and Uber running simultaneously), but it's extremely hard for a rider to send out ride-hail requests to multiple companies at once.
11/
That's not because of any technological barrier - it's trivial to build a service that hails your driver as an Uber, then automatically checks whether they have Drivers Coop running as well, and, if so, cancels the ride and rebooks it as a Coop ride.
That would be fully in keeping with Uber's fiction that drivers are "independent contractors" and not employees, but Uber's got a powerful tool to prevent drivers and customers from evading high switching costs.
13/
Uber and other tech giants use "IP" - a cluster of laws best understood as "any policy that allows me to control the conduct of my customers, competitors and critics" to criminalize the "disruption" they laud - if it's directed at THEM.
Thus a meta-ride-hailing app would face claims under Sec 1201 of the DMCA (for bypassing the DRM on the Uber app); CFAA (for violating terms of service) and maybe even tortious interference (for allowing drivers to get a better deal).
15/
I will definitely use the Drivers Coop the next time I'm in NYC and I hope you will too. But if platform coopertavism is to take hold, we need ways to lower the switching costs of using a co-op over a monopolist. We need interop.
ETA - If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Almost without exception, people who invest in businesses do so without personally inspecting the business, overlooking its processes, seeing its bank statements, meeting its managers and going on the road with its sales-force.
1/
Whether you're managing a giant pension fund, buying into a fund with your 401k, or buying stocks (or STONKS) you likely have little to no direct experience of the firm you're buying into. At best, you have visited a retail premises or tried a product, but that's very thin.
2/
Even if you think a business operates a tidy and efficient store, even if you love its products, you still have no basis to assess whether it is a sound investment. Maybe the business is selling products at a loss and teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.
3/
Doctors use the term "crisis" to refer to the crossroads where the patient improves or goes into terminal decline. In that sense, we are living through a major crisis, a juncture revealed by the pandemic that we have yet to traverse.
1/
(If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:)
For 40 years, the gospels of market efficiency and shareholder value have demanded that we dismantle the state (because markets are efficient, while states are not) and hollow out companies ("trimming fat" to serve the almighty shareholder).
3/
When you think about tax-havens, you probably think about Caribbean "treasure islands," the ex-colonies whose erstwhile conquerors set them up as dependent financial secrecy jurisdictions whose economies were doomed to be stunted forever.
1/
But in truth, the most harmful tax-havens are "onshore-offshore," notorious jurisdictions like Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming, or, in the EU, Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus and the Netherlands.
2/
The Dutch are among the most enthusiastic hosts to financial crimes. That's how Uber cheats on its taxes: it has 50 Dutch shell companies that it launders its money through.