Quantity !== Veracity

Quantity is a metric that is easy to program and to understand for systems design, so we use it as an easy stand in, but we need to get better at finding Quality, not Quantity.

The number of negative reviews serve as a way to help strengthen the signal that a driver is truly "bad" in some way. Of course, the quality of those reviews should also be taken into account.

So yes, I don't have any easy answers. I think this a problem for our industry, and probably one we need to collectively solve sooner than later, giving how antagonists are using our systems against us.

Not something I want to see or use, but I think it's the only way to go about review-backed sites like Yelp or Uber. It's impossible to generally validate statements, but at least a persistent identity lets services decide whether to trust the person.

Anyway, why even bring that up if the solution is just to store the ride audio for a bit longer.

Ah, if only in the year of 2018 there existed a way to verify what kind of interaction happened during each ride.

Perhaps in a form of a phonograph record, or similar, that could be engaged when the ride starts.

If only.

If only.

I like it. If I wanted privacy I would call a friend or drive myself... cabs are for convenience. Security footage protects both drivers and riders from abuse, which translates to lower costs and greater availability.

Cab companies like Uber already track routes and riders, that's the valuable and privacy-sensitive information... security footage? Doesn't add much.

I take it you never go shopping either; if you do, I have bad news for you.

In someone else’s car with a perfect stranger? I truly don’t care about privacy in that situation, and having an expectation of privacy there is delusional. In my car, I want the option for as much privacy as being surrounded by windows in a public space allows, but the whole point is that this would not be my car.

Come on.

What's preventing anyone who doesn't like you from getting you fired?

Yes, establishing due process is hard, but "X% of respondents complain" has never been a due process (it hurts people when it takes too many complaints to fix the thing [and sometimes with things like harassment and murder One is already too many complaints], and it hurts people when it is easy to get X% from a mob). We need to get out of the mindset that just because computers are great at tabulating quantity and numbers are "objective" that doesn't make that the right process, and certainly doesn't make that the due process.

Absolutely, too, we should include workflow steps like "extra monitoring/background checks" in our processes. Often those get ignored because they likely require people/labor and when designing systems we don't always want to include those elements.

There can be a fair argument as at what stage would it be necessary to remove the driver, but I think the main thrust of the issue is that to the clients, it is promoted as a taxi service and to the drivers, it is promoted as a dating service.

EDIT: This is literally what happened:

"As Huang Jieli—the woman who had served as Hitch’s general manager until she was demoted last week—said in an interview in 2015: “Like a coffee shop, or a bar, a private car can become a half-open, half-private social space. It’s a very sexy application scenario.” And in another interview (link in Chinese) in 2017, she said “the biggest motivation for our drivers is to share a trip with a passenger.”"

https://qz.com/1374431/after-female-passengers-murder-didis-...

I agree with your characterisation of the problem:

> to the clients, it is promoted as a taxi service and to the drivers, it is promoted as a dating service.

The company is misrepresenting what the nature of the interactions between drivers and clients in its marketplace. This misrepresentation predictably increases the risk to women who use the service --- it should not be surprising that a service that allows drivers to see photos and share tags of clients before they agree to take rides structurally and predictably offers more opportunities for abuse. This is frankly pretty foul. I hope the company continues to get hammered for it.

For example, suppose didi was an online dating service, and clearly and unambiguously advertised itself as a dating service to all parties involved. How many women would choose to go on a first date with someone they'd never met before by getting a ride in their car? You're obviously going to be far, far more at risk and unable to get away if the person turns out to be abusive than if you meet in a more public location.

Maybe you can argue that the first time that this happens. Well, it happened twice already.

> “Like a coffee shop, or a bar, a private car can become a half-open, half-private social space. It’s a very sexy application scenario.”

You're right. The vision and marketing are also to blame.

Isn't this a characteristic of the asset-sharing industry in general? From Uber's God View [1] to AirBnB's out-of-home campaigns [2] ?

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/19/7245447/uber-allegedly-t...

[2] https://archives.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/10/21/passive-a...

You’re far more likely to die on the highway or being robbed.

If you are a predator, bring a driver affords you all kinds of opportunities to prey you people that you otherwise would not have. How often are you going to find a young woman walking in a dark park by herself late at night? Compare that to how easy it is to pick one up as an Didi/Uber driver.

At the end of the day, a ride sharing company's users literally entrust their lives to the company. It is the responsibility of the company to act on a way worthy of that trust. If they don't, it is definitely a reasonable response to #deleteDidi.

I mean if anything, it's more an argument that ride-share companies should vet their drivers, do basic background checks .. you know, treat them as real employees instead of this "gig economy" bullshit.

Even then, you're still going to get a psycho in the mix, but at least you can say you attempted to do due diligence.

Didi allegedly did not respond to multiple negative comments about this guy's behavior, nor did they expose these comments to future passengers, which might have flagged him as a threat.

If not for Didi, or if they had been more safety-minded as a company, then this guy would not have had the opportunity to rape and murder this woman, allegedly. That's the argument.

Gasp! They'll know where you live!

Which is just nonsensical. They don't know who you are and don't need a delivery job to find a house to rob.