Given Uber is one of the few companies who are lucky enough to have a separate page for all the controversies on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber), they also have their own fair of experience with police raids on their offices. They've also used "‘kill switch’ during raids to stop police seeing data" (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak...) before, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of legal "kill switch" or whatever that got triggered, so they can get rid of everything faster.
Shops and factories can be temporarily shut down if they don't comply with regulations. Businesses that require licenses like law practices may similarly have to stop operations. That is half of going to jail.
Unfortunately, the growth potential that software industry generally provides has generally prevented governments for creating and enforcing similar laws for software products and such.
In the current system, political parties who do things that stop the economy growing are usually voted out, more than political parties that refuse to take action against nebulous criminal activity. That's why, for example, my city refuses to do anything to stop the factories in the city from dumping waste into the river.
I would pay extra because I don't want the cognitive load of haggling on the cost. When I want/need A ride, it's because I'm either overloaded, away from home, or drunk. These are three times that I didn't want to bother with any more nonsense.
Having used it in Mexico, they usually have a suggested price that you can just pitch with, and usually people would accept that or add a tiny amount on it.
In a system where you are expected to haggle taking the opening price puts a pretty heavy tax on everything. It's more work to get to a vaguely similar equilibrium distributed slightly less evenly when you look at big markets for similar things.
One anecdote for a datapoint: Not sure if it's better now but I've lost a phone in an InDrive and I've lost an expensive bag in an Uber and it was significantly easier and less sketchy to get the bag back. I'm not a price sensitive rider so the insurance of a reputable 'comfort' tier Uber driver paid off. The InDrive driver made me get another ride to him then demanded $1000mxn (~$55usd) to return my phone. The Uber app had me pay ~$250mxn if I remember correctly and the driver promptly returned the bag.
I have a controversial take: outside the US/Europe, Uber is mostly a tourist app.
If you actually live in developing regions:
1) your income is much lower, and you are quite price sensitive. The Uber price premium (20-40%) hits much harder.
2) the Uber alternatives are noticeably cheaper for the exact same trip.
Regarding your experience, if you were local, that inDrive driver likely would not have tried to extort $1000 MXN out of you. They saw you were a visitor and took advantage of you.
In Nigeria or Uganda there are few tourists, so Uber cannot rely on a stream of price-insensitive travelers to fill their cars. It makes total sense why they struggled in (and gave up on) the local market there.
My experience in Brazil: Uber is way cheaper here. Compared to what I paid in San Francisco, I'd estimate a ~10x difference.
And things here are rarely 10x cheaper. The difference in restaurants is probably less than ~2x.
My point being it probably feels like less of a luxury for us than for people in the US.
I'd say it's probably the most popular app too. I've never met people who used others.
Uber isn't cheaper in India, but most people in urban areas prefer taking it over local alternatives or taxis. The cars are actually regular taxis, but the Uber tax is worth it over taxis for the convenience and potential safety/driver verification.
You claim it's wrong, yet don't bother to justify your position at all.
I've ridden on Uber, Lyft, Bolt, Grab, inDrive, Careem, Yandex Go, Gojek, DiDi, Kakao T; and in my experience, outside the US/Europe (plus a few others), Uber is mostly for tourists. The alternatives are cheaper.
> implying everywhere outside of USA and Europe is a developing region
I'm not doing so at all. Those are separate sentences.
I'm fully aware that Lyft, Careem, and Kakao T are on my list. It doesn't change the fact that in every region I've been to, Uber is always the most expensive option, or it is tied for the most expensive option.
I've never seen Uber cheaper than inDrive, Bolt, or Yango.
People like the knowledge that they are not being ripped off by the person they are interacting with. On Uber you are essentially guaranteed that you are paying the absolute max that you would accept algorithmically, and the driver is getting the absolute least they would accept to drive for. If the balance shifts in any way, someone is ripping off the person they will interact with.
Since the customer knows less about how much things should cost, they are more likely to be ripped off. People pay a 30% premium to ensure that they dont feel ripped off alone.
That means Uber is screwing the driver and customer the algorithmically maximum amount. It should be less, and it should be in the driver's favor. They should be able to afford a decent living.
Insurance goes up. Who knows how much liability they need to cover transportation. They likely deal with claims of being kidnapped or held hostage by driver on a regular basis.
Man in some of the shitty countries I've had the misfortune of living in, taxi drivers were outright predatory and sometimes downright hostile. Uber was a godsend in such environments.
Uber was never really in Nigeria much, despite apparently being here a long time. I use ride-hailing a lot, and I've never used it because it is not available in my state, or in most states, for that matter.
I read that in Nigeria (may misremember), the fares set by uber were too low (possibly it was a long-tail country with some incorrect exchange rates), so the drivers and riders had a custom of agreeing to different fees, I believe it came to the point where drivers would share an image or a copypasta with the actual rates and would ask the passenger to accept before picking them up.
Bolt lost their license in Thailand due to poor safety tech after a Bolt driver (that borrowed another account, didn't have a license) attempted to kidnap a school girl [0].
Bolt creates 'good' jobs for criminals, but I don't think that is what we want.
What a nightmare, the kind of thing most founders fear, that their tech be used for evil and that they are responsible for aiding in that crime. (a nightmare for the actual victim too, no doubt)
has Uber had a positive ROI on the billions invested in it? I am pretty sure the return on the preferred price from the late rounds 10 years ago is basically zero. Net income has always been negative or close to zero. From a consumer perspective, in late stage cities, uber rides are the same or more expensive than old taxis, and the quality of vehicles is lower. what was it all worth?
This reminds me of this bit on a podcast where a tidbit of learned information so blatantly contradicts basic logic.
There's always an explanation, in this case, the tidbit was that "dull knives are more dangerous", because you apply more force when cutting vegetables and can end up hurting yourself, but it's laughably wrong when applied to weapons.
In the case of the tidbit of "uber actually loses money" that might have been relevant in the first years, there's this phenomenon where companies operate at a loss for some time (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_dumping) in order to accumulate market share (i.e a monopoly) and then they increase prices in order to recoup their investment and make profits.
So you read somewhere that "uber actually loses money" and this was from presumably a trusted source, but you failed to account the date of the knowledge, when Uber was somewhat smaller and their margins were smaller, and you read it assuming it applies to the present, so you somehow thought that one of the biggest tech companies in the world, that charges around 30% per trip, and has almost no marginal costs, would operate at a loss.
So I don't want to be offensive, but it's so wrong that it has a comedic quality.
> at $156B market cap someone sure is making money.
So 50x Pets.com or 2x Enron.
> judging a mega-corporation on lemonade-stand level accounting is a fool's errand.
Disagree. Unit economics matter and can help you cut through a lot of hype and nonsense. "Where's the money coming from?" is always a good question to ask. Sure, sometimes a megacorp loses money on each transaction and makes it up on float or whatever, but that's at least worth knowing if that's what's going on.
Agree due diligence is required. FTX, Theranos, Enron are a reality. But it’s also tempting to color the assessment with virtue.
Im morally against Meta but it’s the world’s greatest money printing machine ever conceived. To say they or Uber don’t make money would be too virtue-tainted.
downvote isn’t personal. it takes more than one to become gray.
Im trying to say it doesn’t matter what we plebs think about these massive entities. Maybe it should but if we’re talking creating (economic) value, they clearly are.
Even in countries where taxis are regulated, sometimes Uber is more expensive but safer. Like in Romania. When I used to go there a lot the official taxis were mandated to offer such low standardized rates that there was a lot of scamming going on. One of my colleagues was basically abducted by a taxi driver (taken to a dangerous gypsy area and told they would kick him out of the car unless he paid them hundreds of euro). Uber was a lot safer because you have tracability on the driver, but more expensive too. And there weren't a lot of them.
There were ways to get safe drivers in some cases by booking them through the yellow machines. But in the end the company hired private drivers for us. Though personally I would just use the metro and tram a lot too :P If you know where you're going it's not a dangerous place.
Not sure if the taxi situation is still as bad there by the way. I would hope not.
In Brazil, it wasn't a matter of regulation, but honest because multiple taxi drivers normally drive to where you want really slow to increase the cost of your travel. Although, when they don't have any passengers they drive like crazy and really unsafe!
taxis “weren’t competitive” when Uber rides were heavily subsidized and Uber was burning billions. I ride taxi now exclusively because it is almost always cheaper than Uber
We have an issue where Uber Drivers dont know the local laws about child restraints. They dont need them. Taxis, Busses, Trains and Ride Shares are given explicit exemption from the laws about child restraints. My wife, taking my kiddo around, has had to stop using Uber because they turn up, see the kid, and drive off cancelling the fare. However, Taxis do know the law, and are centrally enforced into permitting children. So she often makes some trips with uber, and some with taxis depending on when my kids along.
Roughly speaking, same time of day, same route, same tolls. 25 - 30 dollar Uber, 40 - 60 dollar Taxi.
Its a pretty steep charge for "Understands the laws regarding child restraints"
Also worth noting, age is a protected characteristic in Australia, Uber refuses to do anything about their drivers, but when I have enough evidence of rejected fares I am considering throwing it to some hungry lawyers.
"Child restraints are not required on buses, trains or personalised transport services such as taxi, limousine and ride-booking services. A bus is a motor vehicle that can carry 13 or more people (including the driver)."
Have not spotted a booster seat, or been offered one in an uber in like 3 years with the kiddo.
"Cannot Safely Carry" be hard to justify when the legal definition permits them to just sit in a normal seat with a normal belt.
It is precisely in unregulated markets I would want to use a ride shape app else they'd try to scam you on the price. Multiple times I've had drivers attempt to triple the agreed to price, or I'd have to haggle them down before the ride etc. This was over 20 years ago and Uber and the like did away with all that.
I disagree, that was only true 15 years ago. In developed countries, ride hailing is highly regulated. Uber is one of the few companies willing to implement all the required rules and procedures.
In Nigeria: Lithium totally irrelevant compared to oil. I think people have this really weird idea that lithium is to electric cars as oil is to regular cars, but it’s literally like a factor of 50 less.
According to some people on X, they shut down immediately, while rides were still active. Sounds like an unplanned (and quite crazy) action.
https://x.com/gergelyorosz/status/2095256757178188113
Given Uber is one of the few companies who are lucky enough to have a separate page for all the controversies on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber), they also have their own fair of experience with police raids on their offices. They've also used "‘kill switch’ during raids to stop police seeing data" (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak...) before, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of legal "kill switch" or whatever that got triggered, so they can get rid of everything faster.
> They've also used "‘kill switch’ during raids to stop police seeing data
If Uber wasn't a VC backed company, they would have been charged with destruction of evidence or similar.
They likely were but Companies don't go to jail they pay fines
Shops and factories can be temporarily shut down if they don't comply with regulations. Businesses that require licenses like law practices may similarly have to stop operations. That is half of going to jail.
Unfortunately, the growth potential that software industry generally provides has generally prevented governments for creating and enforcing similar laws for software products and such.
How does growth potential relate to legal enforcement?
In the current system, political parties who do things that stop the economy growing are usually voted out, more than political parties that refuse to take action against nebulous criminal activity. That's why, for example, my city refuses to do anything to stop the factories in the city from dumping waste into the river.
The way everybody involved makes money
Various Uber city team managers have spent time in jail.
The manager of Uber Paris was jailed for just that.
It was planned. What's Nigeria and Uganda gonna do?
This is hilarious. They are legally kidnappers at this point. No reason to even stop the ride and let you get out for free.
Makes sense, Uber's 30-50% cut is far too much. How can they compete with inDrive which only takes 10%. And on inDrive you set your own fare.
Rides are 20-40% cheaper elsewhere, why would anyone pay extra for Uber?
I would pay extra because I don't want the cognitive load of haggling on the cost. When I want/need A ride, it's because I'm either overloaded, away from home, or drunk. These are three times that I didn't want to bother with any more nonsense.
Having used it in Mexico, they usually have a suggested price that you can just pitch with, and usually people would accept that or add a tiny amount on it.
Its not that much. And you can just bypass it by accepting the first offer you get
In a system where you are expected to haggle taking the opening price puts a pretty heavy tax on everything. It's more work to get to a vaguely similar equilibrium distributed slightly less evenly when you look at big markets for similar things.
haggling when drunk is super fun
but haggling with drunks is not
I’d sooner drink with hags.
your uber driver better not be drunk, so that's not a passenger problem, but only a driver problem
One anecdote for a datapoint: Not sure if it's better now but I've lost a phone in an InDrive and I've lost an expensive bag in an Uber and it was significantly easier and less sketchy to get the bag back. I'm not a price sensitive rider so the insurance of a reputable 'comfort' tier Uber driver paid off. The InDrive driver made me get another ride to him then demanded $1000mxn (~$55usd) to return my phone. The Uber app had me pay ~$250mxn if I remember correctly and the driver promptly returned the bag.
I have a controversial take: outside the US/Europe, Uber is mostly a tourist app.
If you actually live in developing regions:
1) your income is much lower, and you are quite price sensitive. The Uber price premium (20-40%) hits much harder.
2) the Uber alternatives are noticeably cheaper for the exact same trip.
Regarding your experience, if you were local, that inDrive driver likely would not have tried to extort $1000 MXN out of you. They saw you were a visitor and took advantage of you.
In Nigeria or Uganda there are few tourists, so Uber cannot rely on a stream of price-insensitive travelers to fill their cars. It makes total sense why they struggled in (and gave up on) the local market there.
My experience in Brazil: Uber is way cheaper here. Compared to what I paid in San Francisco, I'd estimate a ~10x difference. And things here are rarely 10x cheaper. The difference in restaurants is probably less than ~2x.
My point being it probably feels like less of a luxury for us than for people in the US.
I'd say it's probably the most popular app too. I've never met people who used others.
99 is quite popular in Brazil, and is often cheaper, but Uber does seem ubiquitous there and is the leader.
Uber isn't cheaper in India, but most people in urban areas prefer taking it over local alternatives or taxis. The cars are actually regular taxis, but the Uber tax is worth it over taxis for the convenience and potential safety/driver verification.
Your take isn't controversial, it's just wrong. And you seem to be implying everywhere outside of USA and Europe is a developing region?
You claim it's wrong, yet don't bother to justify your position at all.
I've ridden on Uber, Lyft, Bolt, Grab, inDrive, Careem, Yandex Go, Gojek, DiDi, Kakao T; and in my experience, outside the US/Europe (plus a few others), Uber is mostly for tourists. The alternatives are cheaper.
> implying everywhere outside of USA and Europe is a developing region
I'm not doing so at all. Those are separate sentences.
FYI the ones you named include ones priced exactly the same as Uber. Uber doesn't take the same cut in every country.
I'm fully aware that Lyft, Careem, and Kakao T are on my list. It doesn't change the fact that in every region I've been to, Uber is always the most expensive option, or it is tied for the most expensive option.
I've never seen Uber cheaper than inDrive, Bolt, or Yango.
Could simply be because it’s a phone which nowadays is a considered bigger loss than a bag means bigger chance of extorting money to give it back.
Can't speak for InDrive's safety rating, but I would pay 30-50% more for Uber's safety tech (on a $5 ride) than a company with less funding.
(I'm ex-Grab).
People like the knowledge that they are not being ripped off by the person they are interacting with. On Uber you are essentially guaranteed that you are paying the absolute max that you would accept algorithmically, and the driver is getting the absolute least they would accept to drive for. If the balance shifts in any way, someone is ripping off the person they will interact with.
Since the customer knows less about how much things should cost, they are more likely to be ripped off. People pay a 30% premium to ensure that they dont feel ripped off alone.
That means Uber is screwing the driver and customer the algorithmically maximum amount. It should be less, and it should be in the driver's favor. They should be able to afford a decent living.
Insurance goes up. Who knows how much liability they need to cover transportation. They likely deal with claims of being kidnapped or held hostage by driver on a regular basis.
Man in some of the shitty countries I've had the misfortune of living in, taxi drivers were outright predatory and sometimes downright hostile. Uber was a godsend in such environments.
30% is fair. Don’t like it start a cab company
Uber was never really in Nigeria much, despite apparently being here a long time. I use ride-hailing a lot, and I've never used it because it is not available in my state, or in most states, for that matter.
I read that in Nigeria (may misremember), the fares set by uber were too low (possibly it was a long-tail country with some incorrect exchange rates), so the drivers and riders had a custom of agreeing to different fees, I believe it came to the point where drivers would share an image or a copypasta with the actual rates and would ask the passenger to accept before picking them up.
Bolt (the CEE ridesharing app) is the primary player in Nigeria. In Uganda it's primarily a bunch of local startups.
Lovely. That's tech creating good jobs. I hope Uber leave my country too.
Bolt lost their license in Thailand due to poor safety tech after a Bolt driver (that borrowed another account, didn't have a license) attempted to kidnap a school girl [0].
Bolt creates 'good' jobs for criminals, but I don't think that is what we want.
[0] - https://www.khaosodenglish.com/tech/2026/05/12/bolt-tightens...
What a nightmare, the kind of thing most founders fear, that their tech be used for evil and that they are responsible for aiding in that crime. (a nightmare for the actual victim too, no doubt)
Driving for Uber in Lagos I suspect has to be very challenging
has Uber had a positive ROI on the billions invested in it? I am pretty sure the return on the preferred price from the late rounds 10 years ago is basically zero. Net income has always been negative or close to zero. From a consumer perspective, in late stage cities, uber rides are the same or more expensive than old taxis, and the quality of vehicles is lower. what was it all worth?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uCMu9MoRwCo
This reminds me of this bit on a podcast where a tidbit of learned information so blatantly contradicts basic logic.
There's always an explanation, in this case, the tidbit was that "dull knives are more dangerous", because you apply more force when cutting vegetables and can end up hurting yourself, but it's laughably wrong when applied to weapons.
In the case of the tidbit of "uber actually loses money" that might have been relevant in the first years, there's this phenomenon where companies operate at a loss for some time (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_dumping) in order to accumulate market share (i.e a monopoly) and then they increase prices in order to recoup their investment and make profits.
So you read somewhere that "uber actually loses money" and this was from presumably a trusted source, but you failed to account the date of the knowledge, when Uber was somewhat smaller and their margins were smaller, and you read it assuming it applies to the present, so you somehow thought that one of the biggest tech companies in the world, that charges around 30% per trip, and has almost no marginal costs, would operate at a loss.
So I don't want to be offensive, but it's so wrong that it has a comedic quality.
at $156B market cap someone sure is making money.
I've no say in the manner in which they ran/run their business but judging a mega-corporation on lemonade-stand level accounting is a fool's errand.
> at $156B market cap someone sure is making money.
So 50x Pets.com or 2x Enron.
> judging a mega-corporation on lemonade-stand level accounting is a fool's errand.
Disagree. Unit economics matter and can help you cut through a lot of hype and nonsense. "Where's the money coming from?" is always a good question to ask. Sure, sometimes a megacorp loses money on each transaction and makes it up on float or whatever, but that's at least worth knowing if that's what's going on.
Agree due diligence is required. FTX, Theranos, Enron are a reality. But it’s also tempting to color the assessment with virtue.
Im morally against Meta but it’s the world’s greatest money printing machine ever conceived. To say they or Uber don’t make money would be too virtue-tainted.
thank for your lovely ad-homenim and downvote. truely a thoughtful intellectual debate on the merits of the premise.
downvote isn’t personal. it takes more than one to become gray.
Im trying to say it doesn’t matter what we plebs think about these massive entities. Maybe it should but if we’re talking creating (economic) value, they clearly are.
why they do that
In developing countries, the taxi market is largely unregulated and Uber faces actual competition. Uber cannot compete on price in these regions.
Even in countries where taxis are regulated, sometimes Uber is more expensive but safer. Like in Romania. When I used to go there a lot the official taxis were mandated to offer such low standardized rates that there was a lot of scamming going on. One of my colleagues was basically abducted by a taxi driver (taken to a dangerous gypsy area and told they would kick him out of the car unless he paid them hundreds of euro). Uber was a lot safer because you have tracability on the driver, but more expensive too. And there weren't a lot of them.
There were ways to get safe drivers in some cases by booking them through the yellow machines. But in the end the company hired private drivers for us. Though personally I would just use the metro and tram a lot too :P If you know where you're going it's not a dangerous place.
Not sure if the taxi situation is still as bad there by the way. I would hope not.
Does no one have any memory of what taxis were like and how much they cost? The taxis are gone because they weren't competitive.
And taxis weren't competitive because they were heavily regulated in most markets by a medallion system that artificially kept the supply low.
In Brazil, it wasn't a matter of regulation, but honest because multiple taxi drivers normally drive to where you want really slow to increase the cost of your travel. Although, when they don't have any passengers they drive like crazy and really unsafe!
taxis “weren’t competitive” when Uber rides were heavily subsidized and Uber was burning billions. I ride taxi now exclusively because it is almost always cheaper than Uber
A taxi to the airport in Melbourne was >AUD100 from where I am more than 10 years ago. An Uber is ~AUD70 still, past all the subsidies.
Yes but what’s a taxi to the airport cost now? Otherwise the comparison doesn’t mean much.
In my region an Uber to the airport is still cheaper than a taxi and much more convenient
13cabs, a licensed cab operator, just gave me an estimate of AUD144, UberX 79, Uber Comfort 90.
We have an issue where Uber Drivers dont know the local laws about child restraints. They dont need them. Taxis, Busses, Trains and Ride Shares are given explicit exemption from the laws about child restraints. My wife, taking my kiddo around, has had to stop using Uber because they turn up, see the kid, and drive off cancelling the fare. However, Taxis do know the law, and are centrally enforced into permitting children. So she often makes some trips with uber, and some with taxis depending on when my kids along.
Roughly speaking, same time of day, same route, same tolls. 25 - 30 dollar Uber, 40 - 60 dollar Taxi.
Its a pretty steep charge for "Understands the laws regarding child restraints"
Also worth noting, age is a protected characteristic in Australia, Uber refuses to do anything about their drivers, but when I have enough evidence of rejected fares I am considering throwing it to some hungry lawyers.
At least Victoria and NSW treat ubers exactly like private cars in terms of child restraints.
"Cannot carry safely" is valid defence for whatever discrimination suit I believe.
Then again, plenty of Uber drivers carry a booster seat, I wonder why Uber doesn't just have a checkbox for that.
Yeah but in QLD: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/children/exemp...
"Child restraints are not required on buses, trains or personalised transport services such as taxi, limousine and ride-booking services. A bus is a motor vehicle that can carry 13 or more people (including the driver)."
Have not spotted a booster seat, or been offered one in an uber in like 3 years with the kiddo.
"Cannot Safely Carry" be hard to justify when the legal definition permits them to just sit in a normal seat with a normal belt.
exactly! it was more expensive, now taxi is often 20-30% cheaper and almost never more expensive
Nope, see above - 144 vs 80-90 right this moment, taxi is way more expensive.
pffft - 901 Bus to Broadmeadows station, then jump onto the train to Southern Cross
Total cost: $AU2.85
Takes FOREVER though :)
It is precisely in unregulated markets I would want to use a ride shape app else they'd try to scam you on the price. Multiple times I've had drivers attempt to triple the agreed to price, or I'd have to haggle them down before the ride etc. This was over 20 years ago and Uber and the like did away with all that.
Even in Ukraine, it's far more expensive than the local equivalent which works flawlessly.
Counterpoint : in Portugal they are regulated under TVDE, and Uber is competitive with Bolt
That's not a counterpoint.
In other words Uber did not bribe the politicians enough in their favor, market was not favorable for them, so they exited.
their only leg up in 1st world countries was largely going around any laws governing taxis
I disagree, that was only true 15 years ago. In developed countries, ride hailing is highly regulated. Uber is one of the few companies willing to implement all the required rules and procedures.
Read the article to find out.
US SOCOM also just pulled out of Nigeria.
The rumor is that this is becoming politically sensitive, so the US DoW is turning things over to none other than Erik Prince (Blackwater, Xe, etc).
Nigeria is an important source of minerals, for example: lithium.
Africa is being hotly contested right now between ISIS, the US / West, China, and state-local political factions.
In Nigeria: Lithium totally irrelevant compared to oil. I think people have this really weird idea that lithium is to electric cars as oil is to regular cars, but it’s literally like a factor of 50 less.
> US DoW
To be clear, it is the DoD - Department of Defense
Clears up understanding but the new name encompasses the new regimes stance quite effectively.
For lithium, isn’t South America and other parts of the world a better deal due to having the largest reserves and being more politically stable?
lucky you!
Does this mean that america is planning to bring democracy to uganda and nigeria?