2020年8月11日 星期二

On Tech: Uber’s next idea: A new labor law

Uber's "third way" would offer its drivers flexibility plus benefits. It's not totally crazy.

Uber’s next idea: A new labor law

Brian Stauffer

Gig workers for Uber, Lyft, Instacart and other companies are classified in the United States as independent contractors who have significant flexibility but aren’t entitled to standard employment protections, including a minimum wage and paid sick days. During the pandemic, the lack of a safety net for these workers has been glaring.

Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber’s chief executive, argued in The New York Times this week for a “third way” — a new employment status with the flexibility of contract work but also some employee-like protections.

This comes as a law in California that seeks to reclassify Uber and Lyft workers as employees puts Uber’s business at risk. But does Khosrowshahi have a point? Uber has created new job options, and employment law wasn’t written with apps in mind.

Khosrowshahi is also asking us to consider a big picture question: Is it better to have more work with less of a safety net, or fewer but arguably better jobs?

I talked to Noam Scheiber, who writes about workers and work for The Times, to assess Uber’s proposal.

Shira: What do you think about this “third way” worker status?

Noam: It is not a crazy idea in principle. But many experts would say that it’s not clear this third category is really needed. Uber says drivers like being able to work only when they want to. Well, there is nothing that would require Uber to take away drivers’ flexibility if they were classified as employees. Companies are entitled to parcel the day into 10-minute or one-hour chunks or whatever, and let employees claim a shift in an app.

ADVERTISEMENT

What about Khosrowshahi’s proposal to create a pool of cash that workers can use for health insurance, paid time off or other benefits?

Uber can do that on its own right now. But there’s a risk to the company. If a worker is dependent on a company for insurance, it starts to look more like the legal definition of an employer-employee relationship. That undermines Uber’s argument in court cases that it’s not the employer of drivers.

Are there holes in employment law that a “third way” addresses?

If someone is logged in to work simultaneously for Uber, Lyft, Postmates and Shipt, it’s not clear who the employer is between jobs. There are ways of resolving this, but that’s one example of ways that gig work doesn’t fit the current employment system.

ADVERTISEMENT

Is Khosrowshahi right that classifying drivers as company employees would increase the cost of many Uber rides and force it to have fewer drivers?

Most likely, yes. Certainly the profitability of rides would go down for Uber, and service would likely disappear in some low-demand neighborhoods.

That’s arguably because fares for Uber rides are artificially low now, because drivers are effectively subsidizing them by getting lower compensation than they would as employees.

But it’s fair to ask: As a matter of public policy, do we want drivers to subsidize Uber fares for passengers? If we agree that people in areas with lower demand should have access to Uber at an affordable price, then we can think about more of the cost shifting to taxpayers or to Uber itself.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fanning dangerous conspiracies

I know it’s easy to tune out tales of horrible things on the internet. Please pay attention to this one.

NBC News wrote an illuminating article about Facebook’s internal research that showed millions of people following Facebook groups and pages that support QAnon, a sprawling and false conspiracy claiming a traitorous cabal dominates government and other institutions.

The scale of QAnon supporters on Facebook stunned me, and the article raised two questions for me about how Facebook feeds this and other dangerous ideas:

Why do online recommendations still exist? NBC News found that Facebook’s computerized suggestions have pointed people toward online groups revolving around the QAnon conspiracy. Journalists and misinformation researchers have raised the alarm for years about computer recommendations on YouTube, Facebook and other spots that harden people’s belief in dangerous ideas.

What if, as my colleague Kevin Roose suggested about YouTube, we just turn off these internet recommendations? NBC News said that Facebook may, in fact, do that for QAnon-related groups, as it previously did to stop recommending online groups that oppose vaccines. That doesn’t stop people from wallowing in conspiracies online, but it makes it more difficult for newcomers to stumble onto dangerous ideas.

Why is Facebook researching this only now? NBC News wrote that Facebook had been “studying the QAnon movement since at least June.” (A Facebook spokesperson told NBC News that the company consistently punishes or removes QAnon-related groups that violate the social network’s rules.)

It has been clear for years that internet sites are where conspiracy theorists organize and, for some, become radicalized. We’ve seen examples for more than two years of people who believe in the QAnon conspiracy committing violence in the real world.

Did Facebook really start systematically researching its role in the conspiracy only a few months ago?

Before we go …

  • The legal fight over our faces: Clearview AI, which has compiled billions of people’s internet photos for a searchable human database, hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer to defend the company in lawsuits that accuse it of violating privacy laws. My colleague Kash Hill talked to the lawyer, Floyd Abrams, who said that the company planned to assert a free-speech right to disseminate publicly available photos. (Abrams also said that he hadn’t tried Clearview AI’s app, in part because he doesn’t own a smartphone.)
  • Your periodic reminder of how we’ve lost control of our digital data: The investigative news outlet The Intercept writes about ways that law enforcement is demanding information about TikTok users in possible investigations.A big worry about TikTok is that because it’s owned by a Chinese company, it may be forced to hand over data on Americans to the Chinese government. U.S. law enforcement has to go through legal channels to get information on us, but the article is a useful reminder that digital flotsam from all apps can be used against us in ways we never expected.
  • I have never seen so many people’s kitchens and living rooms. There’s a chef webcasting himself fixing dinner, and a high school tutor broadcasting conversations about teaching math. The Wall Street Journal writes about how the pandemic has pushed more people to post live videos of themselves — and has compelled more of us to watch, filling a void in personal interactions.

Hugs to this

Honestly, this six-foot-long Furby doll is giving me nightmares. (And the replies in this Twitter thread are fun.) Please enjoy!

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2020年8月10日 星期一

On Tech: The global internet is a mirage

The TikTok deal risks fracturing the internet. But let's be honest, it's always been fractured.

The global internet is a mirage

Leon Denise

The U.S. government’s proposed ban on Chinese apps like TikTok and WeChat plays into technologists’ fears that the internet utopia is crumbling.

The worry is that instead of a world brought closer together by the internet, a tech fight between the United States and China threatens to further splinter the digital world along country borders.

I share those concerns. But let me explain why a splintered internet isn’t so novel, or necessarily a horrible thing.

First, the internet was never as global or interconnected as the ideal. What we mean when we talk about a unified global internet is a history in which the internet was dominated by America, with U.S. companies and U.S. values infusing the world. The exception was China, which operated a parallel internet world.

For years, foreign governments at times pushed back at the American-tinged internet. They sometimes had understandable reasons. Germany, for example, has strong norms of personal privacy and strict rules against denial of the Holocaust. That has resulted in conflict with the American internet companies’ standards of personal data collection and free expression.

Other times, governments have imposed restrictions on online activity to silence opposition from their own citizens. Whether or not we agree with such tactics, the internet has never been a single global blob where borders didn’t matter.

ADVERTISEMENT

And do we want it to be? I’m an American, and I prefer our relatively freewheeling internet to what exists in Russia or Vietnam. But I also recognize that each country has its own tax codes, labor laws and auto safety regulations. When Ford makes car bumpers, it has to figure out how to alter designs to meet different safety rules in Italy and Nigeria.

There are technical reasons that it’s trickier to make country-to-country rules about a website than the strength of car bumpers. But the idea of internet policy changing when you go from Brazil to Argentina is not crazy.

That’s not to say that there’s nothing to worry about. I’m concerned that banning apps, writing laws restricting what people can say online or shutting down internet access entirely costs people digital lifelines to the outside world, and that the internet is one more way for authoritarian regimes to exert dominance.

But it’s not productive to pine for a utopian internet that never really existed. When technologists lament the fracturing of the internet world, I wonder if what they’re really mourning is the fracturing of the world, period.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Tip of the Week

The pros and cons of smart TVs

Brian X. Chen, a personal technology columnist for The New York Times, walks through the benefits and drawbacks of “smart” televisions that let us download Netflix, YouTube and other video services directly from our sets.

Carolyn Moore from Lubbock, Texas, asked, “Can you write about the pros and cons of buying a smart TV during the pandemic?”

It’s an intriguing question because for the most part, you don’t have a choice but to get a smart TV these days. A vast majority of new televisions from reputable brands connect to the internet and include streaming apps from providers like Netflix and Amazon.

Even the cheap TVs tend to be “smart,” in large part because they collect information about our viewing activity and location. The data, which is shared with third-party marketers, has become an additional revenue stream for television makers.

ADVERTISEMENT

That’s the major downside of smart TVs: They compromise privacy. My colleagues in Smarter Living wrote a step-by-step guide to opting out of data tracking by sets sold by Samsung, LG, Sony, Vizio, TCL and Roku. It’s worth revisiting.

Another downside is that some smart TVs have crummy user interfaces that are confusing to navigate. Samsung TVs are difficult to use, in my experience. Some TVs also won’t have all the apps you want. My smart TV from LG doesn’t have the HBO Max app, for example.

I like Roku smart TVs because of the simpler software interface and the broad catalog of available streaming apps.

The benefit of smart TVs is that you won’t have to buy or plug in a separate streaming video device such as an Apple TV, Roku streaming stick or Google Chromecast.

As for me, however, I have an LG smart TV, but I still use my Apple TV set-top box because it has all the apps I want to use.

I hope that helps, Carolyn!

Before we go …

  • Digging behind claims of conservative bias online: Ben Smith, The Times’s media columnist, writes that misinformation on social media “is a central tactic of the right” in the Trump era, and that’s why posts from right-wing media are more often flagged for fact-checking or moderation online.
  • For the Monty Python fans: Start-ups are not dead yet. Experts — and I — expected that investment money would dry up during the pandemic and the decade-long golden age for young tech companies would end. That hasn’t really happened, my colleague Erin Griffith writes. Some start-ups did lay off large numbers of employees or close, but investment money and faith in start-ups have largely continued as before.
  • Everything on the internet is terrible, except for this: A woman frustrated with demeaning conversations online started a Twitter account that combines images from historical art with captions that capture her rage about “mansplaining” and other experiences women face. It is hilarious, and my colleague Alisha Haridasani Gupta writes that the Twitter account is becoming a book.

Hugs to this

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/