The fight over Uber can be reduced by the media in a place like New York City as a fight between hide-bound yellow cabs and high-tech Uber “innovators”–but that’s a frame that ignores the more than 95% of the population that don’t use any kind of cab at all. And when you take a step back, the fight over Uber and its future likely use of driverless cars has enormous implications for whether our nation and the world can stop climate change from killing the planet.
This eventually gets to a pathetically predictable place, but let’s pause for a moment to have fun with whatever a “data justice” director is. Are there data victim groups that need protection? Is Big Data keeping people down? Is your data self-identifying in ways that aren’t legally protected?
Will these people make up anything to make themselves sound important to the other paste-eaters?
Back to the post. I’m sure you’ll all be shocked to find out that this writer used a thousand or so words to just puff up a yawner of a leftist talking point:
That a taxi-hailing app is an important “disruptive innovation” is a distraction from the serious failure of the U.S. to invest significant dollars in transportation infrastructure
Modern progressivism keeps its adherents riveted to the narrative by hypnotizing them with two simple, all-encompassing mantras: spend more on education and spend more on infrastructure. These are the perfect arguments for non-thinking puppets to make, largely because both are evergreen (there’s never enough spending, according to them) and involve polysyllabic catch words that make the puppets feel as if they have functioning intellects.
That’s how you get to the a place where you find the city bus more innovative than Silicon Valley.
I’m off to see if my data is oppressing anyone. If it’s not, I’ll need answers.