Comments on: Uber, Data Darwinism and the future of work

By: KSReddy

KSReddy — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:58:54 +0000

I like how you mentioned that you think about your ratings, even when it’s for 3 stars. However, most responses/ratings are polarized. People tend to rate and comment when they have had either really awful or really great experiences. And the quality of the comments of 3-star ratings and their equivalent tend to be wildly different from the quality of the comments of polarized ratings. Relying on a biased sample of ratings to build a workforce or an economy would be…problematic. At the very least, we need to talk about sample sizes

By: SL

SL — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:22:33 +0000

Most companies pay to receive feedback from customers and then attempt to absorb that information in order to do something better. The idea that services, products and people are continuously evaluated and ranked may simply increase the velocity of evolution. (It reminds me of running one of those evolution simulations that Dawkins had in an early book). With enough data, a bad day may not be significant. So it might not be at all bad, particularly for individuals who are willing and capable of working hard. Providing ‘appropriate safeguards’ are put in pace. And this is the tricky bit. Someone once said to me that ” .. if people want it, and technology permits it, then the regulator will ultimately allow it … ” I think that the connectedness of us all will create inevitable changes everyone; consumers, students, lawmakers, ceos, businesses, workers, politicians & governments – it is an unstoppable force. The big question to me is how to define these appropriate safeguards and enact them swiftly enough in a rapidaly changing environment. Most of the smart people are outside of government – just try imposing bonus restrictions on bankers!

By: Matthew Hawn

Matthew Hawn — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:14:10 +0000

I think it’s interesting that there have been very few comments thus far on the way that reputation works for employers and companies.

When a company mis-uses data to fire workers on the pretext of poor ratings when the actual reason might be a labour dispute or something completely unrelated to performance, the company may start to get a bad reputation as well. And may have trouble hiring people. Or getting other companies/governments to work with them.

I think there is also a laziness at work here and an over-reliance on raw data. When the only tool you work with is the hammer of raw reputation data, everything starts looking like a nail.

By: rajan

rajan — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 02:36:27 +0000

I think in the very large scheme of things, ratings are to be expected. And there is no reason to panic. Because the system will find a way for self-correction. For example, raters will also build up a creditability based on their ability to rate judiciously.
The key thing to remember is, collectively, this means we will become a better species.
That is all that matters.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:41:09 +0000

Seems like the etiquette is simple and timeless: Do all you say you will do. Don’t encroach on other’s or their property. Make amends quickly.

With reputations, have people put their money where their mouth is and include a simple, local, expert and fast conflict resolution process.

Seems like all these things are just resources. So manage them like you would any other resource.
http://wp.me/p1ePZy-1ri

By: Jeremy J. Phillips

Jeremy J. Phillips — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:57:12 +0000

How is user feedback via highly connected technology any different than our notions of capitalism? I find your argument (in essence that connectedness/user feedback weeds out bad products/services) to be simplistic and binary. In an efficient capitalist society, the success of a product or service is determined by the crowd. Valued products and services survive, others go by the wayside. However, you need to fold in some oversight via government regulation. Certain products and services need to be more tightly scrutinized by a governmental body to ensure safety, consistency, availability. Transportation, for example, is important to more highly scrutinize. Without oversight, markets can more easily tend to imbalance (imbalances that cannot be well-managed by a company with only $49.5M in venture capital funding). Imbalances can lead to safety concerns (age of the taxi, age of the airplane, age of the bus). In general, Uber does a fantastic job setting customer expectations about the availability of a ride and Uber does a fantastic job of making payment simple. Blame is mitigated by Uber when it comes to discriminatory driver behavior, or unsafe driving, or unsafe vehicle, or assault on a passenger by putting that responsibility on the driver (that’s why oversight and standards are important). Uber is a technology that matches you up with drivers (and does so well for certain people, with certain devices, in certain parts of town, at a certain price point), but can Uber possibly do the job of the Public Utilities Commission, the SFMTA, NIST, FTC. Bottom line is that nobody says as their plane crashes to the ground: “At least I could track my plane on a map and the payment process was seamless……” That’s what the FAA is for.

By: Parker

Parker — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:04:01 +0000

I found your article both timely and insightful. The questions you’ve raised are ones that I have been asking since I began working in crowdsourcing and speaking, writing, defending and lobbying on the labor issues it raises. I think there are ways to begun to construct social norms and rules that will support this way of working in a connected world. I’ve worked on proposed legislation to try to clarify some of the labor laws to better enable this type of work. the issues raised by Uber’s drivers are very typical of a disgruntled freelance workforce, and with the rise of data darwininsm, as you so eloquently have termed it, those of us who are in the industry and passionate about its success must do more to force these conversations. I would be happy to share my experience and thoughts on how to help society move through this intricate web of law, policy and social constructs.

By: Randy Thompson

Randy Thompson — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:02:42 +0000

very thoughtful article, and I like the comments regarding narcissism in the 21st Century..as a writer of content I begin to judge my content by the number of comments or “shares” I get, and fall into the trap of trying to outshare the last article.. sometimes good content is just good content and you wonder if this data darwinism you speak of could just be a fad that the connected generation overcomes when it gets bored with its new toys…

By: Jim Hetzel

Jim Hetzel — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:50:07 +0000

Reblogged this on Business Travel Technology – Today, Tomorrow and Beyond… and commented:
This a great piece on the challenges of the connected on-demand workforce that exists today. As business travelers we constantly review and comment on the goods and services we consume. Never before have we been at a time when instantaneous commentary and review can be provided on things, services and even people. Something to think about when we click on the review/rate button in our browsers or mobile phones…

~Jim

By: eideard

eideard — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:02:54 +0000

Not addressed – but critical to the topic – I can tell you from years of personal experience in community organizing, trade union organizing that nothing is more important than individual dignity.

If you are treated as unimportant, only a cog in the machine producing profits, a robot only required to obey and not contribute in self-conscious fashion, there cannot be loyalty or real satsfaction. Alienation hasn’t changed since the 19th Century. Ownership defines attitudes towards producers on the payroll – and still tends to come down on the side of arrogance and caprice.