this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
110 points (84.4% liked)

Technology

68244 readers
3964 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] geekworking@lemmy.world 64 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Male drivers get your discrimination lawsuits ready for your lost income.

[–] nix@merv.news 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Did you even read the article? How would women drivers deciding they want more women and nb passengers cause male drivers to lose income…

How is this the most upvoted comment

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Next they should add white people to be able to get only white drivers to make them comfortable! /s It’s obviously sexist and not a real solution to their issues

[–] cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

I posted a description of how this causes bias here and here

When I run the numbers I do see this system as creating a financial bias in favour of women+.

[–] flumph@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Your comment makes no sense given the details provided in the article. The toggle runs a gender-based sort on available passengers when a driver indicates they're ready to pick up a new passenger.

  • Male driver, without this toggle, indicates they're ready for a passenger? All waiting passengers are sorted by current algorithms.
  • Female+ driver, with this toggle off, indicates they're ready for a passenger? All waiting passengers are sorted by current algorithms.
  • Female+ driver, with this toggle on, indicates they're ready for a passenger? All waiting passengers are sorted by gender then current algorithms.

At no point does the pool of available passengers for male drivers decrease.

[–] cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is zero sum, giving preference to one group in the list requires changing preferences to another groups.

Imagine you're at Walmart queued for checkout. You form a first-in-first-out line and the first checkout available takes you. With this women+ system there's a person sending women+ to the express checkout (>20% of total capacity) unless there are no women in line, in which case the express serves men now. At busy times both checkouts serve customers, but the women+ lines are always at least as busy as the other lines.

Obviously the algorithm for location and time based matching with ratings is different than queuing at walmart, but the principal is the same. If you have a system where A >= B it is possible to fall on the equal region, but at low traffic times or in less ride dense areas this is objectively unequal.

It is objectively always better to be in the women+ group than outside of it.

[–] flumph@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You've changed the perspective to potential wait time for male passengers. That may be true but it doesn't have an adverse impact on male drivers, which is what was stated in the comment I replied to.

It is objectively always better to be in the women+ group than outside of it.

Based on Ubers data, women+ are raped five times as often in ride shares. "Objectively" I bet a lot of women+ would choose "maybe a longer wait" over "5x chance of being raped".

[–] cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm talking about the impact on the drivers, not the waiting time of riders (though that would also become longer on average for men, (edit: it does not change waiting time)).

I ran a simulation study of the queuing+matching system described (a variation of M/M/c queue) and there is a clear negative impact on male drivers. There are three situations: too many riders, balanced demand, and too many drivers (there's also zero demand but we'll ignore it).

  1. Too many riders: in this situation men and women+ perform the same because the matching rarely happens. Women+ riders match to women+ drivers 23% of the time. Fares for women+ drivers are 53% women+.
  2. Balanced demand: women+ match 23% of the time, yielding a benefit of 5-9% more fares to women+ drivers. Women+ riders match to women+ drivers ~41% of the time. Fares for women+ drivers are 80% women+.
  3. Too many drivers: Women+ always match in this situation, making 5.5x more fares than men. Women+ riders only match to women+ drivers. Fares for women+ drivers are 85% women+.

The disparity can in theory go up to 8x more fares for women+, but the scenario where that happens has women always available in the system.

The actual outcomes of this would vary in real life of course, and queuing theory isn't really my thing. I assumed all women+ drivers opt in (because why wouldn't they?) and I'm using Lyft's own published numbers. The state of the system will oscillate between these outcomes, but in theory it should skew towards the two biased results.

Now to your point: obviously women raped and financial impact to men are two entirely different things and we can't even begin to compare them in this way. Rape and sexual violence is abhorrent and we should take actions to reduce and stop it, the question is always: which actions are reasonable and fair.

This system is financially biased against men, and significantly so. It would reduce the event of sexual violence (by reducing male-women+ interactions). Is the system a fair tradeoff, I don't know. My gut feeling is that I don't like it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] malloc@lemmy.world 51 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This idea of feeling safe is causing us to regress as a society. This “feature” is just discrimination wrapped in a nice sounding name — “Women Plus Connect” and UI.

We used to be able to identify the predators in our communities and do some sort of action: jail them, shame them, beat them up, whatever. Now we are using fear of them to perpetuate discrimination and AVOID them.

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 37 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We were historically terrible at identifying predators and mostly let them alone to victimize or if their victims were less important destroyed victims lives as a matter of course leading to wide scale silence by victims.

We have less crime by far and prosecute more scumbags than we did 50 years ago.

Communities "handling" bad folks by individual violence never worked worth a shit because communities have always cared about whose more important than who is right and it doesn't meaningfully scale which is why it never worked worth a shit it real life.

In order to deal with shit heads you have to have a dispassionate authority whose job it is to prosecute shit heads who isn't politically bound to give a shit about your penny ante local bullshit and the expectation that local yokels will properly do their job and push shit up the food chain or be held accountable.

[–] patchwork@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A dispassionate authority is more effective at protecting local communities from predators, but at what price? Unfortunately that dispassionate authority also has little compassion for the poor and marginalized people it rules and even less accountability to them. I’m also more afraid of the Orwellian police state being proliferated by the marriage of federal law enforcement and multinational corporations than criminals in my neighborhood. Those people breaking the law in my neighborhood probably need better access to mental healthcare instead of long sentences in federal prisons handed down by said dispassionate authority.

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Our justice system is a POS but fixing it is the only reasonable path forward. Community "justice" is how we got lynchings. It was and would continue to be a horror.

[–] patchwork@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago

I highly recommend Howard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States” to gain a better understanding of how and why such deplorable things took place in the US.

[–] flumph@programming.dev 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The actual numbers speak for themselves and the clear motivation for this feature.

About 91% of the victims of rape were riders and about 7% of the victims were drivers. Women made up 81% of the victims while men comprised about 15%

Uber releases safety data: 998 sexual assault incidents including 141 rape reports in 2020

Women Plus were 85% of the victims. This is despite the "ways" Uber has implemented to increase safety.

[–] 5BC2E7@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

That’s half of the story the breakdown of drivers and riders would make it look even worse (i am assuming most drivers are actually male)

[–] dsmk@lemmy.zip 48 points 2 years ago (9 children)

Since users choose their gender in the app, this has some potential to be used for more nefarious purposes, no?

Not a big fan of discriminatory options like this, btw.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 years ago

They'd need a toggle for the feature on the rider side as well. Like "hide my gender"

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Wouldn't need it at all if rideshare drivers stopped sexually assaulting passengers

[–] db2@sopuli.xyz 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There are plenty of sexually aggressive riders too. It's not one sided. We can summarize it thus: people suck.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

True! Good point

[–] flumph@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago

riders were the accused party 43% of the time in sexual assault incident reports

[–] dsmk@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Can't really comment on that as in my city (not US) to drive for these companies you need a license. To get the license, they perform background checks, check your criminal record, ask for medical approval, etc, every time you have to renew it, and all this seems to stop a lot of bad stuff. Not saying it doesn't happen - you can't never completely stop it - but there are ways to reduce it.

Anyway, they could just allow customers to select their preferred gender, would make anyone that wants to use such option happy, and we wouldn't even have to talk about discrimination.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'd assume if you get legal action thrown at you though, it'd be a lot harder to deny if you also were picking a gender to get specific drivers.

[–] dsmk@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Legal action for picking the "wrong" option in an app? Also, "I'm gender fluid, your honor", so good luck proving anything.

By "nefarious purposes" I meant serious stuff. Some deranged fuck decides to kill (edit: a certain gender) and there's not much you can do after they point a gun or put a knife to the driver's neck. It's too late by then.

I don't know, I understand their intention, but it seems to have some flaws.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure the nefarious purpose one isn't actually dealt with by this and is an extreme outlier

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ChrislyBear@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (7 children)

So as a driver I have now a filter for better rape and murder victims? Nice!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 33 points 2 years ago

Great news for all the would-be predator Lyft drivers out there!

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Discrimination is never a good thing. Separate but "equal" is never a good thing.

[–] 5BC2E7@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I guess that if I ever use lyft I would describe myself as whichever classification gives you more privilege. In this case I would go with non binary woman

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Step 0: Be the sort of scum that would assault a lyft driver
Step 1: Set your identity to non binary as a rider
Step 2: Dress in a way to appear non-binary, even a little bit. Honestly just painting your nails purple and wearing thick glasses is probably enough to not raise suspicion. Most people wont try and question this and interrogate you over it. If they do, filter them off and be a normal rider.
Step 3: If they don't question it, congrats, Lyft has no just done the work of assisting you with finding your next victim, great job Lyft!

Bonus round~!

  1. Be a nazi
  2. Do steps 1-3 above
  3. Set your destination to be somewhere vaguely secluded where your fellow nazi friends are lying in wait.
  4. Congrats, Lyft has now successfully routed a non-binary identifying person directly into you and your nazi friend's clutches, great job lyft!
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago

Wow, this thread is a bunch of people spouting an updated version of the "men in women's bathrooms is gonna lead to rape" bullshit.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

Wow good way to make the women feel incredibly unsafe and easily targeted.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Choosing this will “increase their chances of matching with women and nonbinary drivers,” according to this blog post from Lyft.

If someone goes through the steps to change their gender in the app, we are going to assume that is how they identify,” Audrey Liu, Executive Vice President/Head of Design at Lyft, said in a statement.

“Inclusivity is a core value at Lyft and we are committed to creating a community in which riders and drivers feel as though they are included and belong.”

Lyft says this feature has been highly requested and will give women and nonbinary people more control over both the driving and riding experience.

Currently, that demographic accounts for less than a quarter of Lyft drivers, which is comparable with the rest of the rideshare industry, according to a report by Gridwise.

Those in launch cities can download the latest version of the Lyft app starting tomorrow, Sept. 13th to access the feature.


The original article contains 478 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] tfw_no_toiletpaper@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wasn't there a BoJack horseman episode almost exactly like this lmao

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah, this will end up just as well I'm assuming

[–] fsmacolyte@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

John Wayne Gacy is really unhappy with this feature.

load more comments
view more: next ›