You forgot the best ones: using dirty tactics against journalists [1] and Lyft [2],

I don't understand how anyone can with a straight face claim that "Uber as a company is very ethical company". I would rank the company management (not drivers) as ethical as the New York mafia.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/an-uber-exec-brought-up-the-i...

[2] http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-re...

If only we were able to rate management and they were let go with a 3 or less stars review.

Very rare to have a company this size to be ethical.

Yes. These companies have teams of people spewing out a list of values for PR, and thinking that they have Jedi mind trick powers over the employees (on some people it actually works!). It's the company image, not how the company operates.

I might be with you on the others, but [3] is just media hysteria based on faulty logic.

I've seen this type of story repeatedly after there's been an incident in some city. If it's not Uber it's a hotel chain or similar. It's easy clicks for tabloid newspapers. They probably have a template for this sort of story ready to go. And there will be plenty more ammo for this sort of thing as more companies move to automated pricing models.

Almost everyone who had to pay surge prices that day would not have been directly involved in the explosion (or even seen it). Are companies now supposed to compensate for any bad thing that might be happening in somebody's life? Presumably those who chose to pay surge prices did so because it was still the cheapest/best way of getting home. So even at those prices Uber was better than any alternative.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, it's also possible some people might have only got home that night because of surge pricing, because it increases the number of drivers.

If I had to buy a very expensive airline ticket at the last minute to see a sick relative, would the airline be exploiting me?

Previous HN discussion and article on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics, which is relevant here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855

I think the parent's point is that there's nothing hidden going on in addition to the known business model and standard company practices. You obviously disagree with that business model, and that's fine. For the millions of people who don't disagree with it, parent says: "we are not cheating or abusing you behind your back".

Those links are also pretty weak: all speculation or opinion pieces about things that are out in the open:

1) this is not even close to money laundering? 1) this is just a list of companies with "uber" in their name? besides, it's very common for companies to structure and re-structure themselves without anything unethical going on. it's also common to do it for tax purposes, see below. 2) quite a bold opinion piece about the driver situation. clearly, with so many drivers and customers taking part, it's a matter of opinion. it's reasonable to call it unethical if that's your view but it's not really what the parent meant. 3) pure media hysteria. good to see The Sun as a source on HN. 4) the tax thing again. as it stands, everyone wants to lower their taxes and almost all large companies do this a lot and do it legally. if your view is that they should just volunteer as much tax as possible, you're welcome to that view - there are signs that the law will start to change to be less forgiving of this. however, the specific case in the article is probably the worst example you could pick: the ability to offset losses from previous years isn't even close to being a grey area.

Do cab drivers come in for the same criticism? I've been scammed and lied to so many times by (official) cab drivers and they are absolute sharks for exploiting desperation and ignorance. There are investigative stories linking taxi cab rings with genuine organised crime. I guess they must do perfect tax returns?

'God Mode'?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view-...

Thank you for your comment, always good to read and learn from other points of view.

I can agree with the weak links. Unfortunately didn't have much time to find better ones. Also, having The Sun as source in HN doesn't give it much of a credibility, but I'm sure there are more reliable sources out there [1]. I can also agree that this point can be made from a bit of a media hysteria. But a company whose business model makes prevail supply/demand rules on a disaster, seems like a bit sick to me. From my point of view, this is not an ethical company behavior. And when I mean company, I mean company as a whole despite believing there are departments within the company where things are done ethically (parent's point maybe?).

Also, again in my opinion, a company shouldn't attempt tax evasion, by any means p.e. tax evasion schemes (most of them arguably legal) as it impacts all country's and overall economy. This said, I classify most big companies as unethical. This can possibly be one of the main reasons the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger every year as big sharks cash out clean out of the exploited marked. If a company disagrees with a country's taxation model, ethically, maybe it shouldn't attempt to get to that market?

Company name changes can be seen as tactical maneuvers used for tax evasion also and debt evasion in case the company goes bust. On previous + [2],[3], altogether, this may present no substantial evidence on money laundry but do you really believe investors would be naively burning billions worth of investment on a company which on 7+ years of existence didn't present, neither is close to presenting, any profit?

I'm not saying cab drivers shouldn't be put through similar criticism, maybe they should. But I think we cannot generalize on that. There are good and bad professionals everywhere. What I can say, based on what I know from my country, is that cab drivers cannot scam you as their fees are regulated. They cannot charge you more that X per Km as their taximeters are regulated by the government to ensure that. They need to have a professional driving license and be identifiable to the customer. And they're also entitled to pay their taxes accordingly. Of course one can always hear a bad experience from time to time, but again, that is subject to happen in every industry.

[1] https://twitter.com/SarahBertolozzi/status/77734731474688409...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/uber-lose...

[3] http://qz.com/618022/ubers-ceo-says-the-company-is-burning-1...

I think we have quite a fundamentally different view on morality but thanks for providing a thoughtful response. I disagree with most of it so not sure it's worth going through each part ;) Only point I feel the need to address is the general imbalance in assumptions.

In my experience, taxi drivers hide the meter, claim that hours are off-meter, claim there are special fees for certain journeys which don't exist, refuse to take rides they are obligated to take etc. Absolutely not rare at all in major European cities (and endemic in the developing world). I've lost count of how many times I've had it happen, attempted or seen other people targeted with it. This is mostly in major European cities. Formal complaints with the license number don't work ("we'll remind the driver of his obligations").

I don't find this especially unlikely behaviour - they are relatively unmonitored and unaccountable. They are distributed - no reputation as individuals. They deal with a lot of cash, they deal with people who don't know where they are or what the rules are. It's often one person's word against another's. I have plenty of first hand experience of misbehaviour, and I know regulatory body does little to address it.

I find it odd that you assume the best of them - you even say they cannot do anything because a regulation exists. Obviously this is untrue. Yet with Uber your view is borderline conspiracy (despite them also having regulations!). Do you think all currently-unprofitable startups are laundering money on a large scale? Where did these billions and billions of dirty money come from? Is YC itself laundering dirty money through startups? They changed their org structure a few times recently - are they hiding something with this? I've seen multiple YC people write about tax efficiency too!

You're welcome! :) Thanks for replying back too. Always nice to see different points of view.

Yes, agreed, I could have used better words other than cannot do anything because of regulation, of course they can and I'm sure some do. And I'm sure some Uber drivers out there do the exact same, maybe through different means. As I said before, good and bad professionals, you can find them everywhere. It's not something you can generalize.

What I meant is that what distinguishes them from Uber is the fact they are government regulated. I know it may not stands as much, but if everything works as supposed to, it would work well. I'm also assuming you face a different reality (country) different than mine, so not sure if there's a point in going forward with this. Just to finalize on this, some fun fact: in my country every public passenger transportation needs to have a specific insurance (often expensive) and a professional driving license. This is mandatory for every public transportation (cabs included) but Uber. The list of exceptions goes on, and on...

Regarding tax efficiency we share different views as well. And I'm not saying as part of a conspiracy theory of mine thar all unprofitable startups are laundering money on a large scale. A startup is usually expected to start profiting after 5 years and Uber is just far from that. I also try to put myself on an investor shoes and figure out If I'd invest my money on a company as such. My answer is no.

Regarding this particular question:

> Where did these billions and billions of dirty money come from?

A little bit of conspiracy speculation now: Hidden in tax heavens and needed to be brought to light ;)

> A startup is usually expected to start profiting after 5 years and Uber is just far from that

There's obviously no hard-and-fast rule about 5 years. Other people value companies differently from you and have greater risk appetite. It's pretty normal for people to have different views on such things (like the morality of various tax arrangements!); that's not evidence of corruption.

> A little bit of conspiracy speculation now: Hidden in tax heavens and needed to be brought to light ;)

That's not where it came from, that's where it currently is (according to you). Even so, a tax heaven is not the same as money that needs laundering.

> There's obviously no hard-and-fast rule about 5 years. Other people value companies differently from you and have greater risk appetite. It's pretty normal for people to have different views on such things (like the morality of various tax arrangements!); that's not evidence of corruption.

Agreed. There's no hard rule on that. I just find it hard to believe someone would be up to investing a big chunk of money, for that much amount of time, without having any return. But yes, people choose on what to believe. I prefer to take it this way as I'm past Wonderland a while ago. Let's hope I'm wrong.

> That's not where it came from, that's where it currently is (according to you). Even so, a tax heaven is not the same as money that needs laundering.

I think it can be both actually. And it may need laundering in case there's no justification on where it's coming from. But again, this is all just conspiracy as Panama papers never happened.

[3] why does uber have to go around their prices algorithm because of an attack? I mean, that's how they operate: more demand = more expensive. They could use the marketing to do it but they don't really need to.

I don't understand why people expect corporations to work as a non-profit