• Nix@merv.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

    • FlumPHP@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • FlumPHP@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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”.