> That a handful of sweaty hustlers have managed to take back some of that power qualifies as a win, Professor Mittelstadt added. “It makes me smile.”
I get that there’s legitimate criticism of rideshare companies, but this is such a frustrating position for a “professor of ethics” to take.
This is basically public infrastructure that has been contracted out to private companies for operation. Lyft has already been rumored to be trying to exit the business of bike shares.
If Lyft exits the business, and the city has no choice but to directly manage Citibike, will the professor change his tune? What’s fundamentally different about scamming the government directly vs scamming the company the government has hired to deliver a necessary city service?
A system put in place to incentivise helping people, abused by a few to inconvenience customers for pocket change.
But I agree that the accumulation of $6k of it in a month is not mere pocket change. I'd wonder if it constitutes some kind of fraud or some other crime.
If it was just screwing the company, I wouldn't even be mad. It's the people who suddenly can't get a bike or can't return a bike at a given station because of these peoples' selfishness that I'm annoyed for.
The people who are paid to make sure things run smoothly are doing the exact opposite with zero regard to who it hurts. Shitty behaviour.
“How are we cheating?” said one Angel in a baggy gray T-shirt, black athletic shorts and sneakers, who declined to give his name. “If Lyft wants something else, they can change the algorithm.”
I don't think anyone would buy that he doesn't know it's cheating, but that won't stop him from attempting to rationalize his behavior because he likes the money.
I also feel like just one empowered customer service person with a banhammer could seriously curb the behavior in the article. The problem is that they're 'solving' the imbalances that they're creating, so its pretty detectable.
