MANUFACTORED OPETITIONS

On Friday Uber was stripped of its licence to operate in London due to repeated infractions of regulations around safety (Uber loses licence to operate in London, 23 September).

This follows the long-standing concerns about how Uber operates – its dubious taxation arrangements, its corporate model (loss-making, then raising costs and reducing driver pay) and its non-recognition of any worker benefits (sick pay, contracts, holiday etc).

The company will appeal anyway, meaning the service will continue potentially for months or potentially even years, irrespective of outcome.

The firm immediately took to the public petitions site Change.org, reproducing its own press release in the form of a petition to “Save your Uber in London”. Have I misunderstood the meaning of a public petition, or is a company producing a petition to protect its own profits something of a confused perversion of this long-standing mode of political participation?

Change.org allows advertisements by companies as long as they are “about public causes”, so they often take the form of petitions. The advertising revenue also allows them to “give the Change.org community an opportunity to provide grassroots support to a petition through promoted petitions”.

If I understand this rightly, it means that if you offer them enough money, they’ll use email addresses gathered from genuine grassroots initiatives and will advertise Uber’s petition to as many of their 100 million users as you’d like them to.

Does it still make sense to talk about “public opinion”, a “public outcry” or the “grassroots” in a context where modes of political participation are manufactured as public relations exercises for companies seeking political and legislative advantage?

Luke Samuel

Manchester

http://bit.ly/2wQicAH