Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday February 27 2017, @02:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the making-it-up-as-we-go dept.

Anil Dash's article discusses how the internet has enabled and encouraged the formation of what he calls "Fake Markets." These Fake Markets have the appearance of a more ordinary free market, but the choices allowed therein are either illusory or can be arbitrarily shuffled or removed without knowledge of any of the parties to the transaction. He traces the changes in business plans of companies such as Uber, Google, and eBay to show how they have evolved from creating new markets to strangling them.

But unlike competitive sellers on eBay, Uber drivers can't set their prices. In fact, prices can be (and regularly have been) changed unilaterally by Uber. And passengers can't make informed choices about selecting a driver: The algorithm by which a passenger and driver are matched is opaque—to both the passenger and driver. In fact, as Data & Society's research has shown, Uber has at times deliberately misrepresented the market of available cars by showing "ghost" cars to users in the Uber app.

It seems this "market" has some awfully weird traits.

  1. Consumers can't trust the information they're being provided to make a purchasing decision.
  2. A single opaque algorithm defines which buyers are matched with which sellers.
  3. Sellers have no control over their own pricing or profit margins.
  4. Regulators see the genuine short-term consumer benefit but don't realize the long-term harms that can arise.

This is, by any reasonable definition, no market at all. One might even call Uber a "Fake Market". Yet, by carefully describing drivers in their system as "entrepreneurs" and appropriating the language of true markets, Uber has been welcomed by communities and policymakers as if they were creating a new marketplace. That has serious implications for policy, regulation and even civil rights. For example, we can sincerely laud Uber for making it easier for African American passengers to reliably hail a car when they need a ride, but if persistent patterns of bias from drivers arise again in the Uber era, we'll have a harder time regulating those abuses because Uber doesn't usually follow the same policies as licensed taxis.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 27 2017, @05:18PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 27 2017, @05:18PM (#472379) Journal

    That's fundamental to the definition of a market.

    You won't find such a definition. Instead, there is a standard terms for markets where some participants have better informational access to the market than others: information asymmetry [wikipedia.org]. And really, why is this opacity even that opaque? Uber is doing this to make profit. That strongly constrains what their algorithms will do in matching drivers and riders.

    Incorrect. Sellers know ahead of time what their effort would bring.

    The fact that sellers do have the choice not to participate at all just means that they aren't slaves. It doesn't mean that they control their own pricing or profit margins within the "so-called" uber market.

    I notice you don't say anything that actually disagrees with my point. Let us also recall here that if there aren't enough drivers collectively to cover demand (and generate profit for Uber, of course), Uber raises the prices to encourage more drivers to join. So this choice to participate or not has consequences beyond just whether or not a driver bothers with Uber. For example, you can chose to drive for Uber only when the prices offered are high. There's a far greater control over profit margins than the article claims.

    In the case of Uber, the legacy markets tend to have really bad problems like government-enforced oligopolies. And the "short term improvement in user experience" will still be an improvement in user experience in the long term.

    That can hardly be taken as a foregone conclusion.

    What other conclusion is rational here? Uber isn't going to revert to the old systems for book taxis. The "short term improvement" is here to stay.

  • (Score: 2) by https on Monday February 27 2017, @08:20PM (1 child)

    by https (5248) on Monday February 27 2017, @08:20PM (#472503) Journal

    The traditional thing to do when you've been schooled is to gracefully say, "your kung fu is better than mine" and sit down.

    --
    Offended and laughing about it.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 27 2017, @10:10PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 27 2017, @10:10PM (#472554) Journal

      The traditional thing to do when you've been schooled is to gracefully say, "your kung fu is better than mine" and sit down.

      You could have always just not said a thing. That's traditional too for someone in your circumstances.