Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by LinuxBender on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:01PM
(#36698943)
Uber already have different options for vehicles bigger, ability to haul equipment, luxury, etc... so how about embrace this issue by having a class of armored vehicle for rough neighborhoods? Call it the "Presidential Service". Or pay former bouncers and ex gang members extra to service these areas. If there is a policy against this make an exception for this category and add disclaimers. Probably not a wonderful idea but someone could probably build upon it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by YellOh on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:04PM
(#36699000)
I think the trouble is the overlap of high-crime and high-diversity areas. Say you're sending an armored vehicle into a high-crime area and it's reasonable protection. Someone writes a news article about having expensive & specially trained drivers required in the poorest minority communities and it's a major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative.
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by LinuxBender on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:06PM
(#36699037)
major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative
Agreed, even as I was typing it I can see all the negative optics. It's probably a bad idea but there is probably some derivation that could work and could even give more job opportunities to people that are otherwise between a rock and a hard place. I'm thinking along the lines of private military contractors but with less formal training.
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by beezlewax on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @03:00PM
(#36699995)
Isn't this overlap more due to poverty rather than "high-diversity" as you put it?
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by YellOh on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:03PM
(#36700861)
The actual cause of the overlap is probably due to [generational] poverty; diversity itself doesn't cause crime. I have no idea where you even read that in my comment.
I'm only pointing out that it is beneficial to some groups to frame it as only-crime (if trying to defend treating the area differently), and beneficial to other groups to treat it as only-diversity (if trying to punish those who treat the area differently).