An Uber Ethical Dilemma: Examining the Social Issues at Stake

.7.+!-)4%01)27()#!'..7.+!-)4%01)27()#!'.

.7.+!%.,,.-1.7.+!%.,,.-1

#(..+.&.,,3-)#!2).-!#3+273"+)#!2).-1

!-$2(%0.0*1

!#3+273"+)#!2).-1!-$2(%0.0*1"7

%/!02,%-2



-"%02()#!+)+%,,!6!,)-)-'2(%.#)!+113%1!22!*%-"%02()#!+)+%,,!6!,)-)-'2(%.#)!+113%1!22!*%

+.0%-#%(%%

.7.+!-)4%01)27()#!'.

&#(%%+3#%$3

.++.52()1!-$!$$)2).-!+5.0*1!2(22/1%#.,,.-1+3#%$3#.,,3-)#!2).- &!#/3"1

!02.&2(%//+)%$2()#1.,,.-1!-$2(%.,,3-)#!2).-.,,.-1

32(.0!-31#0)/2

()1)1!/0%/3"+)#!2).-!32(.0,!-31#0)/2.&2(%:-!+/3"+)1(%$!02)#+%

%#.,,%-$%$)2!2).-%#.,,%-$%$)2!2).-

(%%+.0%-#%-"%02()#!+)+%,,!6!,)-)-'2(%.#)!+113%1!22!*%.30-!+.&-&.0,!2).-

.,,3-)#!2).-!-$2()#1)-.#)%27%20)%4%$&0.,.7.+!%.,,.-1#(..+.&

.,,3-)#!2).-!#3+273"+)#!2).-1!-$2(%0.0*1(22/$6$.).0'

()102)#+%)1"0.3'(22.7.3&.0&0%%!-$./%-!##%11"72(%!#3+273"+)#!2).-1!-$2(%0.0*1"7%/!02,%-2

!2.7.+!%.,,.-12(!1"%%-!##%/2%$&.0)-#+31).-)-#(..+.&.,,3-)#!2).-!#3+273"+)#!2).-1!-$

2(%0.0*1"7!-!32(.0)8%$!$,)-)120!2.0.&.7.+!%.,,.-1.0,.0%)-&.0,!2).-/+%!1%#.-2!#2

%#.,,.-1+3#%$3

()15.0*)1+)#%-1%$3-$%0!0%!2)4%.,,.-1220)"32).-.-#.,,%0#)!+.%0)4!2)4%.0*1)#%-1%

9,%0!+$3"+)1()-'),)2%$

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

An Uber

Ethical Dilemma: examining the social issues at

stake

Journal:

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Manuscript ID

Draft

Manuscript Type:

Journal Paper

Keywords:

Uber, Ethics, Digital, Policy

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

An Uber Ethical Dilemma:

examining the social issues at stake

Introduction

This paper engages with the social issues emerging from the increasing reliance upon app-

driven services as they pertain to precarious labor and ethical standpoints in a digital era.

Popular ride services such as Uber have been lauded for bringing much needed transportation

services that are superior to expensive taxis or unpleasant or inaccessible public transit:

In five years, the app economy will be worth $6.3 trillion, up from $1.3 trillion last year, according

to a report released today by app measurement company App Annie.

...

Mobile commerce’s huge footprint includes purchases through retail behemoths like Amazon and

Alibaba, as well as paying for services such as Uber rides or travel booked through a travel app

— basically any monetary transaction through an app that holds your credit information. The

assumption also relies on the continued transition from in-person purchases to ones done

through apps. (Molla 2017)

While these companies are indeed immensely popular, questions remain as to just how much of

a problem-solving panacea the apps they produce actually herald and to what extent their

‘disruption’ breaks more than it fixes. Especially because Uber ride prices are artificially low for

the moment while subsidized by investors in these initial stages (Smith 2016), unlike taxicabs.

A lack of labor regulation and initial subsidization from investors may present a significant

savings to the user, but one may ask if these practices are sustainable as a ‘gig economy’

(Sundarajaran 2015). Adding to the temporary nature of this work are plans to switch to

driverless vehicles. So, structuring one’s life around stringing together multiple gigs (that have

little protection and no benefits) all to assist in the obsolescence of one’s trade, may prove

devastating to labor forces. At present, a handful of organizations largely unfettered by

regulations now broker the labor of an increasingly contingent workforce. Simultaneously, these

same companies fight for control in a new frontier of information and communication

technologies (McAlister 2016). In this context, how are we to consider and act upon the issue of

a digitally mediated wealth divide, or, as Greenfield (2015) puts it, a ‘socially corrosive mobility’?

The popularity of rideshare services like Uber has created an inaccurate sense that public

transit has become superfluous (Millsap 2016). However, as many studies (LeBlanc 2018) have

suggested, ride hailing services are not a substitute for public transit. Public services are

mandated to be accessible in many ways Uber is still not, such as to: a) underserved

communities b) the vulnerable (physically or otherwise) c) those without credit cards or

smartphones. Publicly accessible transportation, especially in the US context in which Uber

originated, is already embattled, and ride hailing services have served as a rationale to choke

Page 1 of 16 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

off resources to publicly accessible services (Jerch, Kahn & Li 2016). As instances of the false

equivalency between ride hailing and public transportation systems grow, support for public

transportation systems dwindles and history has shown that once support for public

infrastructures crumble, they are that much more difficult to revive, revitalize, and reinstate.

From a social justice perspective, divesting in public transit because needs are being met for a

certain section of relatively affluent individuals promises further inequality with respect to

mobility and the benefits therein. Moreover, widespread reliance on private vehicles has done

nothing to aid traffic congestion and efficiency.

As a result of over three years of ongoing research and analysis, this article is a comprehensive

assessment of a number of social issues facing the integration of practices both signified and

enacted in an economy driven by apps such as Uber. We are at a watershed moment of

policymaking at a time when digital divides are being simultaneously negotiated and relitigated.

This environmental scan covers many issues that are currently in flux and evolving. This

discussion focuses primarily on the U.S. context, given that the company and its practices

originate from Silicon Valley and are thoroughly embedded in the nation’s labor ideologies and

debates regarding corporate libertarianism, privatization, and regulation.

In a relatively short time, consumer knowledge and sentiment about Uber and what it has come

to mean has evolved and grown. In this case, the consumer is just one of the stakeholder

groups woven into the mainstream discussion. It bears some reflexive examination that the end-

user groups serve as data points at the end of iterative cycles of development. That is, public

stakeholder groups are largely the guinea pigs of this form of development, with the product

unleashed in the world in many versions that may be shaped all too late in the process by

ethical concerns. More pertinent for the purposes of discussing the ethical issues, one must

start by mapping out the current situation, who is involved, and the social issues that have

emerged in the stakeholder groups discussed here.

The discussion of policy implications, priorities, and a roadmap forward is essential for focusing

the efforts to bring much needed attention to the social justice, media justice, and ethical

nuances of the digital divide. Due to the much lauded ‘disruption’ this genre of platform services

has now lent to the everyday communication of goods, services, and people, entire systems

have gone unchecked and unfettered. The policy regimes are simply not in place, nor are tax

structures, labor regulations, and assessments of impact on public infrastructures. When,

however, a mode of transportation transitions from a novelty to an everyday mainstay,

becoming woven into the general economy, decision-makers have a responsibility to ensure

that the resulting disruption is as ethical and just as possible.

Ideologically, there is a point of tension between governmental/regulatory bodies, ‘innovators’

(Lehdonvirta 2015), and users. Stakeholders of all stripes are scrambling to keep up with the

pace and problematics of digital innovations and an inclusive critical dialog on app-driven

services has yet to become a priority. An analytical framework from a social justice perspective

stands to catalyze action on a number of pervasive issues surrounding digital ethics and policy.

Page 2 of 16Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

This paper will discuss a number of ways in which current ride hailing practices are problematic

and amount to a race to the bottom. How do these specific practices, encompassing issues of

labor, the digital divide, and public infrastructures, contribute to the increasing corrosion of the

social contract if left unfettered? For the standing reserve of labor that enable ride hailing

services, do current practices promote upward mobility or are they merely enriching the brokers

of these services?:

According to analysis by experts at MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research

(CEEPR), Uber and Lyft drivers make a median profit of $8.55 an hour before taxes, once

insurance, maintenance, repairs, and other costs are factored in. That means 54 percent of

drivers earn less than their state’s minimum wage and nearly one in 10 actually lose money on

the job.

...

A first draft of MIT’s research earlier this month mistakenly set Uber and Lyft drivers’ median

profit at $3.37, but that number was heavily criticized by both Uber executives and economists as

“deeply flawed.” As a result, the figure was revised up by Zoepf, and he promised a “thorough

revision” of the paper. The new analysis was released on Monday and included the median $8.55

per hour figure.

...

“Regardless of the exact percentage, the fact that a significant portion of Uber and Lyft drivers are

making less than minimum wage is a serious problem that needs to be addressed,” Moira Muntz,

of the Independent Drivers Guild, which advocates for app-drivers in New York City, told

ThinkProgress. “Even in New York City, where most drivers are full time, Uber and Lyft drivers

are making less than minimum wage after expenses. As a result drivers are working longer and

longer shifts and the economic desperation is palpable.” (Barnes 2018)

Such disparities are not unusual--think of the Industrial Revolution. However, as Vincent Mosco

and Catherine McKercher (2009) have written, the information/knowledge economy has not yet

experienced a labor revolt akin to that of the Industrial Revolution. Ride hailing services are a

prime example. On the service side, drivers typically earn less than the minimum wage. On the

user side, issues of gender and race result in the marginalization of vulnerable groups. On the

platform side, too, software engineers are subject to sexism and racism.

Building the boat while sailing

This paper contributes an analysis of the digital economic landscape, with an articulation of

issues and stakeholders specific to the digital divide in the form of media justice, social justice,

and ethics. Because the phenomena is emergent and amorphous, it is even more important to

highlight key issues, talking points, and recommendations so that we may prioritize our efforts

and direct our energies appropriately according to the interdependent stakeholder relationships.

A study of ride hailing apps is very much in the spirit of Schutz’s (2012) painting ‘Building the

boat while sailing.’ Policy must change and adapt to new revelations about the ride hailing

companies, their services, and daily changes to their impact on the broader public. The focus of

this paper is to boil down the baseline elements of how Uber has worked as a concept, its

attendant social issues, and where that leaves policy and the public good at the end of the day.

Page 3 of 16 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Stakeholder groups under discussion

This article examines the social issues and policy implications arising from the consideration of

five primary stakeholder groups:

 Drivers

 Developers

 Riders

 Corporation (Uber)

 Government (regulators, infrastructure)

The intended audience of this paper, which derived from a presentation at the Conference on

the Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide, includes researchers and policymakers at the

forefront of social issues facing our world. This paper covers not only emergent phenomena in a

digital age, but also the specific policy implications of what this digital era presents in terms of

affordances, constraints, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Digital divide (media justice)

For a slim shard of the world’s favored, a bleak prosperity prevails Their days are largely given

over to the pleasures of friendship, conviviality and hard work; they arrange their brunches,

vacations, hookups, gigs and pregnancies via app, and get around all but effortlessly, still

delighted that the new autonomous Ubers relieve them even of the hassle of interacting with a

driver. (Greenfield 2017, pp. 293-294)

There are a number of ways an uncritical and unconditional acceptance of the Uber service may

exacerbate a digital divide. This section primarily focuses on the rider stakeholder group to

discuss the needs that have not been addressed in already marginalized populations of the

imagined end-users. The populations that are most vulnerable in terms of the digital divide

include the geographically under-resourced and underserved, the young, elderly, and physically

challenged, and undocumented persons.

Possible approaches to better remedying and serving these populations are discussed also in

the policy implications section, covering ways that we might design our future to be inclusive,

equitable, and just.

The young, elderly, and physically challenged

There is little incentive for a private company such as Uber and those who drive for it to serve

those with limited income or mobility (Mirani 2014). For a large proportion of the population,

driving is simply not an option due to age and/or physical ability. Around the world, a public

transit mandate is essential, as the elderly and physically challenged often rely on transportation

services that accommodate wheelchairs and have other vehicular enhancements. For those

who are in need of safe, consistent transportation, but may find themselves mobility-impaired,

public infrastructure is an essential and ethical service for a democratic society.

Page 4 of 16Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Children and their caretakers are also underserved by ride hailing apps. Youths under 18, for

example, are not permitted to ride unaccompanied on Lyft and Uber at all. For parents with

infants, whereas a bus may be mandated to accommodate strollers, a random car hailed on any

given day may not even have a safety belt of adequate length to accommodate a car seat. In a

problematic attempt to address this particular issue, Uber has provided the Uber Car Seat

option, which, ‘...provides uberX vehicles equipped with a car seat... A $10 surcharge is added

to uberX pricing for Uber Car Seat trips. A child is too big at 48 lbs. or 52 inches’ (Uber Help

n.d.). This option is further restricted to children over 12 months of age. Even for those families

who do meet all requirements, the per trip surcharge would render this service cost prohibitive

to many.

Under-resourced and underserved

In an era of digital redlining, lack of access to devices and technical specifications also implicate

geographies of exclusion. In addition to the cost of the ride, smartphones and their plans are

themselves costly. A transportation service that requires riders to use both a mobile computing

device and credit card presents a convenience, but is also exclusionary.

Even so, the issues are not as easily remedied as simply putting a mobile device into every

hand. Much like the One Laptop Per Child movement that oscillated between vision and reality

(Kraemer et al 2009), the issue at hand is not just about access to standalone devices. Rather,

devices are merely gateways or ‘dummy terminals’ that provide access to the truly valuable

network, society, and broader webs of significance. Having access to smartphones, credit, and

credit cards as a baseline requirement to participation in the platform economy not only

exacerbates an already existing digital divide; it creates new fissures in the physical social

fabric. Point to point travel that is private already contributes to urban decay and lack of

everyday engagement and inclusion, as is well documented in Greenfield (2017).

Moreover, the mobility of those who do not live centrally, or in less desirable areas, is at the

behest of driver availability and willingness. This vulnerability may be regarded as a type of

digital redlining. A rider can be left without a ride if they do not live within desired range/location.

This could exacerbate the bleeding out of marginalized population zones, further entrenching

privilege and contributing to the increasing polarization of wealth we are seeing even in Silicon

Valley’s own increasingly dystopian landscape. Ride hailing services cannot be a replacement

for public transit.

Public infrastructures: towards social justice and away from

corrosive mobility

In the context of a discussion about Google self-driven cars, Ethan Zuckerman questions the

US’ problem with public goods and muses:

Page 5 of 16 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

How did we reach a state in America where highly speculative technologies, backed by private

companies, are seen as a plausible future while routine, ordinary technologies backed by

governments are seen as unrealistic and impossible?

...we don’t have influence over what services Google does and doesn’t provide, and our

investment is an investment of attention as recipients of ads, not taxation. (Zuckerman 2013)

Reflecting the hegemony of private transportation, a working paper by the National Bureau of

Economic Research (NBER) (Jerch, Kahn & Li 2016) argues that privatizing public bus services

could save $5.7 billion a year in the United States. Studies espousing the privatization of public

services as a cost cutting measure also point the finger at the wastefulness of public services,

serving to discredit unions in the process as well (Millsap 2016). The rhetoric is eerily familiar

and effectively advocates starving the public system, then criticizing that public transit is broken,

which ultimately results in further funding cuts. This is damaging rhetoric because rather than

individuals acting in a vacuum, corporate libertarian discourse (Mosco 2014) does not

acknowledge how we are a networked society (Castells 2009) and actually a web of

interdependencies, especially for transportation and mobility.

Taxes pay for roads and other public goods that Uber uses. Uber avoids contributing to tax

regimes around the world, yet diminishes popular support for local regular jobs and revenue

systems through its service. As the company has said, ‘Our corporate tax structure is probably

the least innovative thing about Uber. It’s the standard approach adopted by most multinational

companies’(O'Keefe & Jones 2015).

What pro-privatization studies fail to convey are the interdependencies between public services

such as transit, the preservation of a functional national workforce, and the construction of the

very roads upon which Uber cars drive. Additionally, mass public transit does what individual

passenger vehicles cannot do, which is relieve congestion by taking cars off the road (LeBlanc

2018).

Examining the Full cost

The Digital Sublime can be very seductive (Mosco 2004), especially if it comes with the promise

of saving billions of dollars, which ostensibly transmutes into less need for taxpayer money

overall, and subsequently tax cuts followed by full privatization. However, policy makers have an

obligation to examine the full cost of transactions for the public interest. This entails more

rigorous research and less reliance on convenient numbers. The cost cutting rationale

espoused by those who would advocate privatizing public transit, is extremely short term.

A better approach to analyzing the myriad factors impacting public services would be Squires’

(2013, p. 104) concept of ‘full cost’ economics, which takes into account not only the costs to a

given firm (internal), but also the social and environmental costs (external):

As an equation, if the full cost can be quantified, it is expressed quite simply as follows:

 Full cost = internal cost (firm) + external cost (social and environmental)

(Squires 2013, p. 104)

Page 6 of 16Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

When discussing transportation, it is essential to weigh the total costs because the environment

and landscapes are implicated. As a software company, there is everything to gain by avoiding

public accountability, but this lack of social reciprocity is the digital age equivalent of an

extraction industry centered around raw materials and pillaging of the earth. At the end of the

day, the private transportation model for everyday uses, especially commuting, do nothing to

take cars off the road and relieve congestion. In the Marshall McLuhan sense regarding Laws of

Media (1988), adding cars to further clog up roads would be a classic case of reversal for what

might otherwise be lauded as an innovation.

In sickness and Uber Health

A recent development marketed as an attempt to address the dire state of affairs in the US

health system has been branded as Uber Health. This initiative seeks to formalize the pre-

existing practice of taking an Uber to the hospital in the role of an ambulance, sometimes

through explicit partnerships with care providers (O’Donovan 2018). There are many reasons for

and problems with why riders already use Uber to get to and from hospitals and other medical

providers in the United States. What is already occurring is that people call 911 for non-

emergencies because they do not have health insurance. In addition to the inefficiency of that

practice, it speaks to the already stratified state of access to healthcare.

Taking an ambulance to the hospital may cost hundreds of dollars, and possibly over $1000.

Considering how cost prohibitive medical assistance can be, this factor causes many to instead

take matters into their own hands and seek out lower cost alternatives, such as an Uber or taxi.

As with regular Uber, Uber Health is a delegation of all risks to the drivers and riders.

Elsewhere, governmental health systems that are able to bargain with providers achieve an

economy of scale in terms of costs across the board. Also, the drivers themselves (i.e.

paramedics/ambulance drivers) are trained and skilled in the provision of medical attention.

While this article cannot be a comprehensive critique of the inefficiencies in the US health

system as a whole, it is important to discuss some cursory problematics of Uber Health at first

glance.

Lack of driver training and preparation

In order to become an Uber driver, there is a low bar to entry (be over 21 years old, pass a state

and federal background check, have 1 year of driving experience) (Uber.jobs n.d.). Once on the

job, any number of situations may present themselves due to the random nature of those who

require rides from one location to another. There is a dire lack of training for this increasing

population of precariously ‘employed’ drivers who do not have any classification besides being

independent contractors. The driver’s own vehicles are not held to any reliable standard, use

the driver’s own insurance, and the condition of the vehicle itself varies vastly. As far as licensed

taxi drivers go, they themselves are barely equipped to handle the variation in clientele in terms

of training and preparation, nevermind lay people who end up driving for Uber. Indeed, the lack

Page 7 of 16 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

of driver training and preparation are indicative of the lack of long term plans for human drivers

in general. Looking into the future, the human drivers are merely a stop gap measure in

anticipation of automated (driverless) cars.

Liability issues also abound. Considering the diverse range of people a rideshare driver may

encounter at any given point, there is relatively little training and preparation to become an Uber

driver. Moreover, drivers are using their own personal car insurance to operate rideshare

vehicles in a decidedly commercial fashion. As the rideshare company can claim to act merely

as a type of ‘matchmaking’ app, this arrangement means that all of the risks are undertaken by

the driver and rider. In at least one case, an injured UberX driver was left to assume the

consequences of a major car accident after alleging that Uber had assured him of insurance

protection (Lieberman 2015).

The Gig Economy as symptom of kleptocracy

The myth of the freelancer as freedom

‘Uber, but for [food, shelter, sex]’ has become part of the regular lexicon. Drawing attention to

the social, economic, and environmental damage of these kleptocratic practices casts a pall on

the promise of a bright, utopian meritocratic future where we supposedly all win and all boats

rise. Calo and Rosenblat (2017) with their critique aptly named, ‘The Taking Economy: Uber,

Information, and Power,’ join an increasingly large chorus of analyses that inform policymaking

through legal and ethical concerns of new and as of yet largely unregulated industrial practices.

The tension between entrenched industries and new ‘disruptive’ upstarts have shown up

headlines around the world. The U.S. audience appreciates a classic David and Goliath

narrative, even in stories like how Uber and Lyft are ‘destroying Chicago’s cab drivers’ (Ciolli

2017). However, the narrative of rideshare drivers taking on entrenched taxi cartels is too facile

and unidirectional. In contrast, the desperation was palpable in the case of one New York taxi

driver (Bellafante 2018) who committed suicide to demonstrate how ride hailing services have

financially devastated and disrupted their livelihoods.

A particular--though not at all rare--story is of people who have made the decision to drive for

Uber due to a life-altering event such as injury, layoff, retirement, or unspecified debts. That life

event may not have not been conducive to holding a regular full-time job with benefits, including

any form of health coverage in the United States. Moreover, for those who do have health

insurance, coverage does not guarantee access to affordable health care, as the deductible

model almost entirely ensures that a person seeking even rudimentary treatment will need to

pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars up front before coverage becomes apparent. This is a

troubling state of affairs, given that numerous households are potentially one accident away

from bankruptcy.

Where this issue intertwines with the gig economy is the myth of the freelancer who is ultimately

liberated by the flexibility afforded by being an independent contractor, as opposed to an

Page 8 of 16Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

employee restricted by the prescripts of a single employer. The devastating narratives of actual

wages hit a fever pitch in early 2018 with the publication of data stating that the hourly wage of

an Uber/Lyft driver amounted to $3.37/hour (Levin 2018b). After a critical response from the

Chief Economic Offer at Uber about the widely publicized data, the author of the MIT study

revised their analysis to a wage range of $8.55-$10/hour (Winick 2018). However, that figure is

still below minimum wage and is immensely variable considering tips and local costs of living.

Numerous studies continue to show that more often than not, the worker in this case is in the

position of desperately cobbling together a living wage with these myriad flexi-jobs to stay afloat.

One must ask if this is the freedom largely envisioned, and who ultimately benefits from the

perpetuation of this myth.

Despite and likely because of the proliferation of precarious labor, there have been disparate

attempts to unionize rideshare drivers, as in the case of Seattle (Isaac, Wingfield & Scheiber

2015), and recently Millennials have been showing an increased interest in the formation of

unions after a long-term decline in workforce unionization (Chen 2018). Scholz (2017)

advocates ‘platform cooperatives’, which work with the platform and worker-owned cooperatives

to ‘rethink unions, and build a better future of work.’ The questions in his book, Uberworked and

Underpaid, remain in terms of how digital labor may be regulated, with much dependent upon

how collective organizing at the local and global levels take place.

Indeed, the precariat is not progress, and the struggles this large, multi-sector workforce face

are something akin to those encountered in the adjunctification of the professoriate, where 70%

of college professors are contingent labor (American Association of University Professors n.d.).

As with adjunct professors, there is a common misconception that these workers are merely

topping up a base income earned elsewhere, so they do not require any livable wage or benefits

in the contingent labor they are performing. While there is likely a small minority that fits the

stereotypical description, the data on these labor forces show that most are stitching together a

basic income through many precarious jobs.

A temporary stop-off on the way to autonomous vehicles

These increasingly neo-feudal conditions are allowed to continue under the rationalization of the

‘free market’, in favor of the celebratory discourse of the ‘Gig economy’. The embodied nature of

its workers who require food, shelter, health care, and a living wage are only a temporary

inconvenience on the way to the utopian imaginary of driverless cars dotting our sky.

Kai-Fu Lee (2018) predicts that autonomous vehicles will replace human-driven cars in about

15-20 years in the US and even less time in China if they continue advancing in AI research as

they have been to date. He also cautions that we are not ready for the massive societal

upheavals on the way to that vision. Due to the inconsistencies in law from state to state, Uber

has already been experimenting with autonomous vehicles (cars and trucks) in various locations

with minimal hindrance (Bonnington 2018).

Page 9 of 16 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

The long game is to starve out any real alternatives to these services, such as licensed taxis

and public transit, all the while using big data/machine learning to create fully automated routes.

Eventually, the vision is for driverless cars. Then where will the drivers be, who have leveraged

themselves in the meantime?

Ethical issues and Policy Implications

Indicative of the app-centered media age in which we live, hardly a day goes by in which Uber

has not made headlines in the mainstream media. The ethical issues have been challenging to

wrangle, due to the number of parties implicated and lack of precedent. Were it not for the sheer

number of ethical grievances coming to light in recent years, the demand for a comprehensive

analysis of the issues at stake would not have the same urgency that it does today. This section

identifies some of the major ethical issues that intersect with multiple stakeholders discussed in

this paper, which each deserve their own analyses, critiques, and action going forward.

Advocating for a focus on the ethical dilemmas associated with the Uber service sets the stage

for a broader critique of the platform/gig economies and their lack of regard for the social good.

It is particularly challenging, because a service such as Uber enjoys widespread popularity while

also being immensely problematic for those with the least power and mobility. For those who do

have the decision-making power, it is important to make instrumental decisions that are not only

popular, but also ethical.

With a company as powerful and pervasive as Uber, it is already difficult to operate without

touching or being touched by the organization and its practices. As Uber transitions from being

a company to an institution, and moving ever closer towards fulfilling the role of a utility or

essential service, it is more important than ever to make sure that people who hold the keys to

power in law and policy do not capitulate too easily to the interests of a private corporation that

is not beholden to a duty to serve the public.

The ethical challenges here largely touch upon the predator/prey dichotomy that have been

symptomatic of the broader culture in which Uber has been developed. The cases surrounding

gender-based violence for riders (Levin 2018a), drivers (Levin 2017), and Uber’s developers

(Fowler 2017); racist practices by drivers (Newcomer 2016); systemic sexism and racism in the

company still coming to light (Ge et al. 2017); and privacy issues arising from unethical

treatment of user data (Hill 2014)--all speak to the profoundly troubling social issues that

continue to plague the company. The convergence of these pressure points serve to highlight

the position of trust inherent for a service like Uber to function and its effect on the vulnerable,

underscoring the need for ethical oversight. Without adequate measures to curtail and critique

these designs while they are being conceived, we will only encounter these problems out ‘in the

wild’, at which point it is often too late to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle, especially

concerning issues of data and privacy.

Page 10 of 16Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Designing the future

When we look at ethics, social justice, diversity and inclusivity, the effort to etch those facets

into policy must include both company culture and their creations. A service like Uber serves to

structure and restructure the way we do things like communicate and get from point A to point

B. Gender issues, as in many companies, have presented dysfunction in both the rank and file

as well as the ‘product’ produced. The argument goes that without diversity from the start of the

product cycle, from concept through to implementation and maintenance, the product (which is

already inscribed with the norms and values of the designers and engineers), will reflect similar

biases. What better way to show what a society values than how it enables the mobility of

different people and their various bodies?

Social media movements like #deleteUBER only individualize social issues and put the onus on

the rider to decide whether or not to use the service. Solutions that address the roots of

systemic issues need to come into play. In a networked society full of interdependencies, the

solution has never been to boycott. The recommendations here refer to the ethical

considerations forwarded in this paper and serve to open up dialogue to further discuss the

persistent issues facing a precarious future.

One major change would be to treat Uber like a taxi company as opposed to a web service. In

December 2017, such a ruling was made in the E.U. (May 2017). Another direction to pursue

would be to demand stronger partnerships with the municipalities in which rideshare companies

operate, in order to work towards linking public infrastructure with ride hailing operations rather

than competing with them. The methods of payment must be accessible and not serve to

exacerbate further inequalities in wealth and mobility. Related to mobility, the use of surge

pricing according to demand for transportation services is harmful and predatory, and must be

brought under control or eliminated altogether. Protections for public infrastructure,

increased (not decreased) investment in public transportation through data gathering, and

channeling revenue to socialized services through tariffs would cause ride cost to resemble taxi

costs more closely. In the case of Uber Health, measures taken to make the cost of medically

trained personnel available would also appropriately reflect costs. In essence, localities where

Uber benefits must themselves more explicitly benefit through increased partnerships and

regulatory policy.

Conclusion

As a reflection deriving from the conference on the Partnership for Progress on the Digital

Divide, this paper is a necessary opportunity to think through whether we are headed in the

right, just, and ethical direction. For decision makers and those attempting to formulate ethical

policies around ride hailing services, the task ahead is formidable. Corrosiveness, by its very

nature, is not readily apparent. Stewardship is not immediately recognized, and perhaps never

obviously rewarded. However, ethical practices must be built into the DNA of any organization,

permeating its practices, personnel, and products.

Page 11 of 16 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

With Uber rapidly becoming part of everyday life and a regular part of the public lexicon, this

paper was a comprehensive examination of the ethical dilemmas that already manifest in the

creation of a digital divide, their implications for public infrastructures, and the Gig Economy as

a symptom of kleptocracy rather than liberation. The approach is multi-pronged with many

interlocking pieces when examining communication technology from media justice, social

justice, and ethics perspectives.

Who is predator and prey in this gig economy of the Wild West? In its most ideal form, the

purpose of policy and regulation is to make things more regular, civilized, orderly, and peaceful.

Perhaps our practices may even be kinder in an otherwise cruel world. Despite all the

technological progress occurring every day, one must ask what the ultimate purpose of

innovation and advancement should be? If we are able to draw attention to how things are

getting worse for those already most vulnerable, should we not attempt to mobilize in order to

bring those harms to a halt? The situation is evolving, but this article asks the primary question,

given the issues and people at stake, is this the society we want?

Much like getting to choose the paint color for a car already in the parking lot, true change

cannot come as a result of consumer choice. It is a common deflection to place the onus on

comparatively powerless individuals when discussing systemic issues. The choice should not be

between Uber or Lyft, but rather between a healthy society or a toxic one. We have the

opportunity at this juncture to ask for the kind of society we really want. This paper is a critique

of the fundamental norms and values driving what amounts to a race to the bottom. The

optimistic kernel to take from this exposition is that this does not have to be our destination.

References

American Association of University Professors n.d., Background Facts on Contingent Faculty,

viewed 17 March 2018, https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-f

acts

Barnes, L 2018, 'New study reveals just how little Uber drivers make', ThinkProgress, 6 March,

viewed 17 March 2018, https://thinkprogress.org/uber-drivers-often-make-le

ss-than-minimum-

wage-according-to-new-study-912d388c3c82/

Bellafante, G 2018, ‘A Driver’s Suicide Reveals the Dark Side of the Gig Economy’, The New

York Times, 6 February, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/nyregion/livery-d

river-taxi-uber.html

Bonnington, C 2018, ‘Uber’s Secretive Self-Driving Trucks Could Undermine the Industry’,

Slate, 7 March, viewed 18 March 2018, https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/uber-self-drivi

ng-

truck-efforts-need-more-transparency.html

Page 12 of 16Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Calo, R & Rosenblat, A 2017, ‘THE TAKING ECONOMY: UBER, INFORMATION, AND

POWER’, Columbia Law Review, vol. 117, no. 6, viewed 17 March 2018,

http://columbialawreview.org/content/the-taking-econ

omy-uber-information-and-power/

Castells, M 2009, The Rise of the Network Society, With a New Preface The Information Age:

Economy, Society, and Culture Volume I 2nd ed., Wiley, Hoboken.

Chen, M 2018, ‘Millennials Are Keeping Unions Alive’, The Nation, 5 February, viewed 17 March

2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/millennials-are-ke

eping-unions-alive/

Ciolli, J 2017, ‘Uber and Lyft are destroying Chicago's cab drivers’, Business Insider, 7 June,

viewed 18 March 2018, http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-and-lyft-are-des

troying-chicagos-

cab-drivers-2017-6

Fowler, S 2017, ‘Reflecting On One Very, Very Strange Year At Uber’, Blog — Susan Fowler,

web log post, 19 February, viewed 18 March 2018,

https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecti

ng-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber

Greenfield, A 2015, 'Uber, or: The technics and politics of socially corrosive mobility', Adam

Greenfield's Speedbird, web log post, 29 June, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://speedbird.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/uber-or-t

he-technics-and-politics-of-socially-

corrosive-mobility/

Greenfield, A 2017, Radical technologies : the design of everyday life, Verso, Brooklyn.

Hill, K 2014, ‘“God View”: Uber Allegedly Stalked Users For Party-Goers' Viewing Pleasure

(Updated)’, Forbes, 3 October, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/

god-view-uber-allegedly-stalked-users-for-

party-goers-viewing-pleasure/#5bedd1ae3141

Isaac, M, Wingfield, N & Scheiber, N 2015, ‘Seattle Considers Measure to Let Uber and Lyft

Drivers Unionize’, The New York Times, 13 December, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/technology/seattl

e-considers-measure-to-let-uber-and-lyft-

drivers-unionize.html

Jerch, R, Kahn, M & Li S 2016, 'Efficient Local Government Service Provision: the Role of

Privatization and Public Sector Unions', NBER Working Paper, No. 22088, doi: 10.3386/w22088

Kraemer, K, Dedrick, J & Sharma, P 2009, ‘One laptop per child: vision vs. reality’,

Communications of the ACM, vol. 52, no. 6, pp.66-73.

LeBlanc, S 2018, 'Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities', The Associated

Press, 25 February, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://apnews.com/e47ebfaa1b184130984e2f3501bd125d

Page 13 of 16 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Lehdonvirta, V 2015, ‘Uber and airbnb make the rules now — but to whose benefit?’, The Policy

and Internet Blog, web log post, 27 July, viewed 17 March 2018,

http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/uber-and-airbnb-mak

e-the-rules-now-but-to-whose-benefit/

Lee, K 2018, ‘Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs’, MIT Technology

Review, 21 February, viewed 18 March 2018,

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610298/tech-compa

nies-should-stop-pretending-ai-wont-

destroy-jobs/

Levin, S 2018, ‘Uber accused of silencing women who claim sexual assault by drivers’, The

Guardian, 15 March, viewed 18 March 2018,

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/15/u

ber-class-action-lawsuit-sexual-assault-

rape-arbitration

Levin, S 2018, ‘Uber drivers often make below minimum wage, report finds’, The Guardian, 5

March, viewed 17 March 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/u

ber-lyft-

driver-wages-median-report

Levin, S 2017, ‘Female Uber driver says company did nothing after passengers assaulted her’,

The Guardian, 1 May, viewed 18 March 2018,

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/u

ber-sexual-assault-allegations-female-

drivers-san-diego

Lieberman, C 2015, ‘UberX driver says he will take legal action against company after major

crash’, Global News, 18 August, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://globalnews.ca/news/2172234/uberx-driver-says

-he-will-take-legal-action-after-major-

crash-in-toronto/

May, K 2017, ‘Uber told it's a taxi company, not a web service’, PhocusWire, 20 December,

viewed 17 March 2018, https://www.phocuswire.com/Uber-loses-EU-taxi-ruling

McAlister, M 2016, ‘Transportation v communication: the fight for control of the new frontiers’,

The Guardian, 24 May, viewed 17 March 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/media-

network/2016/may/24/google-facebook-self-driving-car-virtual-reality-information-distribution

McLuhan, M & McLuhan, E 1988, Laws of media : the new science, University of Toronto Press,

Toronto.

Mirani, L 2014, ‘The secret to the Uber economy is wealth inequality’, Quartz, 16 December,

viewed 17 March 2018, https://qz.com/312537/the-secret-to-the-uber-economy

-is-wealth-

inequality/

Page 14 of 16Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Molla, R 2017, 'The app economy will be worth $6 trillion in five years thanks to mobile

commerce', recode, 27 June, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://www.recode.net/2017/6/27/15876294/app-econom

y-6-trillion-mobile-commerce-amazon-

alibaba

Millsap, A 2016, 'Privatizing Public Transit Lowers Costs And Saves Cities Money', Forbes, 20

April, viewed 17 March 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2016/04/20/

privatizing-

public-transit-lowers-costs-and-saves-cities-money/#1f978af422e6

Mosco, V 2004, The digital sublime myth, power, and cyberspace, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Mosco, V 2014, To the cloud : big data in a turbulent world, Paradigm Publishers, Boulder.

Mosco, V & McKercher, C 2009, The Laboring of Communication: Will Knowledge Workers of

the World Unite?, Lexington Books, Lanham.

Newcomer, E 2016, ‘Study Finds Racial Discrimination by Uber and Lyft Drivers’, Bloomberg

Technology, 31 October, viewed 18 March 2018,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/s

tudy-finds-racial-discrimination-by-uber-

and-lyft-drivers

Noble, S 2018, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, NYU Press,

New York.

O’Donovan, C 2018, ‘People Are Using Ubers As Ambulances — And Drivers Hate It’,

BuzzFeed News, 26 February, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/taking-ube

r-lyft-emergency-room-legal-

liabilities?utm_term=.ekYPJ3Bqw#.dpOK5WQzv

O'Keefe, B & Jones, M 2015, ‘How Uber plays the tax shell game’, Fortune, 22 October, viewed

18 March 2018,http://fortune.com/2015/10/22/uber-tax-shell/

Scholz, T 2017, Uberworked and underpaid : how workers are disrupting the digital economy,

Polity Press, Cambridge.

Schutz, D 2012, Building the Boat While Sailing, online image, viewed 17 March 2018,

http://www.petzel.com/artists/dana-schutz/featured-w

orks#43

Smith, Y 2016, 'Can Uber Ever Deliver? Part One – Understanding Uber’s Bleak Operating

Economics', Naked Capitalism, 30 November, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-eve

r-deliver-part-one-understanding-ubers-

bleak-operating-economics.html

Page 15 of 16 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Sundarajaran, A 2015, ‘The “gig economy” is coming. What will it mean for work?’, The

Guardian, 25 July, viewed 17 March 2018,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/2

6/will-we-get-by-gig-economy

Squires, G 2013, Urban and Environmental Economics: An Introduction, Routledge, New York.

Uber.jobs n.d., Requirements, viewed 18 March 2018, https://uber.jobs/

Uber Help n.d., Uber Car Seat, viewed 17 March 2018, https://help.uber.com/h/3abcbae1-132b-

42a9-8277-0dab00fa3879

Winick, E 2018, ‘Maybe Uber and Lyft drivers *can* make a living’, MIT Technology Review -

The Download, 6 March, viewed 17 March 2018, https://www.technologyreview.com/the-

download/610428/maybe-uber-and-lyft-drivers-can-make-a-living/

Zuckerman, E 2013, 'Google cars versus public transit: the US’s problem with public goods’, My

heart’s in Accra, web log post, 15 October, viewed 17 March 2018,

http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2013/10/15/google

-cars-versus-public-transit-the-uss-

problem-with-public-goods/

Page 16 of 16Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society