Uber Asks Everyone To Stop Making It The New Tinder (sfgate.com)

Ride-sharers have been using Uber and Lyft "carpool" apps to meet dates -- and now Uber's trying to stop it. An anonymous reader quotes SFGate: This week Uber updated their community guidelines to discourage passengers from using the ride-sharing app as a hook-up opportunity. Some Uber and Lyft riders have been using the car-pooling option as a way to meet or hook up with others. But Uber is not pleased and has advised users to not flirt or touch passengers. "It's OK to chat with other people in the car. But please don't comment on someone's appearance or ask whether they are single," Uber's guidelines state.
Their new policy now specifically states that "Uber has a no sex rule. That's no sexual conduct between drivers and riders, no matter what."

Comments

Independent contractor?

[duckintheface]

One more piece of evidence (if more were needed) to show that the "independent contractor" fantasy is phony. Uber wants to call it's drivers contractors so they don't have to pay minimum wage or offer benefits. But if drivers really were contractors, it would be none of Uber's business if flirtation or consensual sex were on the menu of services offered.

Re:Independent contractor?

[jellomizer]

Having worked as an independent contractor before. I still needed to follow the rules of my customer. In this case the customer is Uber. States when hiring contractors often having rules where the need to disclose their incomes, bonuses if they are a minority...

Re:Independent contractor?

[110010001000]

Bullshit. Contractors have to follow the companies guidelines when they are working, or they get fired. Do you think government contractors go around and are allowed to sexually harass people in the office just because they are contractors?

Re:Independent contractor?

[greenbird]

But if drivers really were contractors, it would be none of Uber's business if flirtation or consensual sex were on the menu of services offered.

Ummm, that's just stupid. They're contractors. There's a contract between the drivers and Uber. Both sides have to agree to and abide by the terms of the contract. Uber sets all kinds of conditions in the contract. Including this condition is no different than condition regulating the type of car or anything else.

In other words your argument is completely fallacious both logically and legally.

This is not about drivers

[afgam28]

From reading the comments, it seems a lot of people are misunderstanding the situation here. I think even the summary is missing the point! This is about passengers hooking up with other passengers, not with drivers.

Uber Pool and Lyft Line are services that let you carpool/fare split with other people. You request a ride, and it tries to match you up with people who have requested a similar pickup/dropoff point.

It's common to make small talk with the other passengers (just like you would with a taxi driver, or a regular UberX/Lyft driver) and people have realized that this provides a social pretense to meet other people and chat them up. FTFA:

Although passengers have no control over whom they’re partnered with, there’s a high-enough density of young, single people in a city like San Francisco that occasional romantic interludes happen. As people share the ride to their respective destinations, they have a bit of downtime to get to know one another...It’s speed-dating on demand, and the people doing it say it’s better than Tinder.

Lyft has even experimented with features to facilitate this: https://techcrunch.com/2015/05...

They're "settling" their big California case

[rsilvergun]

it's only a matter of how much they pay. But that won't change how they treat employees as contractors when it's convenient for them. Still no benefits, not workman's comp, no unemployment insurance payments and no matching Social Security or Medicare payments.

It's especially bad for SS & Medicare. The 'gig' economy is going to be a big part of dismantling what's left of the safety net. It'll pull billions out of those systems and then the right wing will point to a lack of funds as a reason to privatize the system (they don't want to do away with it, they want to pocket the money for themselves...)