> Breaking the rules that say you don't lie, cheat, or steal? Hmm, not so sure about that.
So we have multiple competitors to Uber, on multiple occasions over a prolonged period of time saying Uber employees called in rides they had no intention of taking.
So right there we have a lie -- they lied to a competitor.
The lie was told to steal time from their competitors employees -- so there's your stealing.
And the lie was told because they couldn't compete on level ground with their competitors, and felt the need to cheat (by making their competitors seem like they received a lot of bogus rides-- where Uber does not).
You have multiple people, multiple competitors, on multiple occasions making the same allegations against Uber.. and you have Uber outright acknowledging it on (at least) one of those occasions.
So there's no question that Uber lies, cheats and steals.
> there's no question that Uber lies, cheats and steals
Just to clarify my own comment: I was responding to the parent's statement that "sometimes it takes someone breaking the rules", and saying that it's OK to break the rules by trying to dislodge artificial scarcity, but it's not OK to break the rules by lying, cheating, and stealing; so if Uber has been doing the latter (and it looks like they have), they're not breaking the rules in the right way.
Hold on a second. Keep in mind that these are allegations (and the allegations of a competitor, no less). I think there's a good chance these allegations are true, but there certainly isn't "no question that Uber lies, cheats and steals."
These current claims are allegations - but Uber has done this exact thing before to another competitor and acknowledged it. "no question that Uber lies, cheats, and steals" is still true, by Uber's own admission - though I'm certain they'd like to claim this type of behavior isn't lying/cheating/stealing.
I cannot resist to point out that your assertion that "Uber lies, cheats and steals" rests entirely on logical fallacies.
Let's stipulate your one assertion of fact, that Uber acknowledged that on one occasion an employee called in rides they had no intention of taking. From that one fact you jump to a Hasty Generalization [1].
We cannot admit your other evidence that "multiple competitors" made the same or similar claim because it's plain Argumentum Ad Populum [2].
Everything else is supposition and innuendo.
Please note, I'm not saying it ain't so, just that you did not support it.
Well, you say hasty generalization, I say pattern of behavior.
And "Argumentum Ad Populum"... I'm not talking about what people believe. I'm talking about a behavior that was admitted by Uber. That isn't a belief. It is a fact that Uber engages in this behavior.
Breaking the rules that artificially restrict the market for rides? Sure.
Breaking the rules that say you don't lie, cheat, or steal? Hmm, not so sure about that.