Pretty much every successful business is built around solid systems. The ability to automate these systems so they… The post Are algorithms by Uber, Bolt and inDrivePretty much every successful business is built around solid systems. The ability to automate these systems so they… The post Are algorithms by Uber, Bolt and inDrive

Are algorithms by Uber, Bolt and inDrive killing human interactions in e-hailing?

2026/03/04 19:00
6 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at [email protected]

Pretty much every successful business is built around solid systems. The ability to automate these systems so they continue to work with minimal human intervention has brought us to the age of algorithms.

Today, they control processes and improve service delivery efficiency.

The situation is not different in the ride-hailing space, where app companies like Bolt, Uber and inDrive run on algorithms. While this is great for the company, the nature of the e-hailing business requires thousands of smaller, independent players operating across apps as drivers and dispatch riders.

For these, algorithms can’t be trusted to recognise the nuances and peculiarities of their operations. Rather, it exerts control for e-hailing platform owners.

Indeed, the Secretary of the National e-hailing Federation of South Africa (NEFSA), Omar Parker, describes this as dehumanising, as its main purpose is to control drivers.

Are algorithms by Uber, Bolt and inDrive killing human interactions in e-hailing?Omar Parker/NEFSA

We are managed through algorithms where the human element is completely removed. What we are saying is that this type of management is dehumanising. There must be standards, at the level of the ILO, to have a strong convention that will regulate algorithmic management so that the app companies cannot just control us by virtue of a digital or psychotic tool which removes the human element,” Mr Parker said.

So, are e-hailing algorithms weapons of control?

Algorithms as systems of control

Today, most e-hailing app operations have been automated by algorithms. Drivers agree that somewhere between 65 and 100 per cent of app operations are overseen through the black and white lenses of algorithms.

These include ride matching, pricing surges, performance ratings, bonuses, suspensions, and even dispute resolutions.

App by app, it was generally agreed that between 70 and 85 per cent of Uber’s operation is left to machines. For Bolt, the range is between 65 to 75 per cent, positioning it as the company with the most human interaction. inDrive follows with 90 to 100 per cent.

“Those guys want nothing to do with human drivers,” one driver, Vincent Ajibola, said.

For Vincent, as with many drivers, these algorithms function to control drivers and not necessarily support them. It enforces strict metrics like acceptance rates and ratings thresholds, devoid of real-world variables like traffic, fuel costs, vehicle breakdowns, unpredictable passengers, economic realities, etc.

See also:5 major differences between e-hailing in Nigeria and South Africa

Expanding further, the Founding Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of App-based Transporters of Nigeria (AUATON), Comrade Ibrahim Ayoade, pointed out the dynamic nature of the job,

“Algorithms rarely account for these nuances, leading to unfair penalties or burnout. Human attention is needed for empathy and case-by-case judgment. So while algorithms are useful tools, over-dependence on them without balanced oversight isn’t ideal and can dehumanise the workforce,” he said.

For Vincent, app companies are using algorithms to shape how drivers think by straitjacketing them to fit into a response model.

“If you think outside this model or box, you’re likely not get a response because the machine will have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Those apps are using responses and automated answers to mould drivers into a stereotype narrative, barring any dynamism drivers may want to address at any instance,” he said.

Bolt, Uber, inDrive: Ranking Nigeria's e-hailing platforms for availability, pricing and safetyinDrive, Uber and Bolt logos merged into one

Technext reached out to these app companies, but only Bolt responded.

While admitting that algorithms should not replace human oversight, accountability, or engagement, the company explained that its systems are not designed as tools for control, but for marketplace balance.

“Metrics such as acceptance rate or cancellation rate are considered alongside broader marketplace dynamics, including traffic patterns, demand fluctuations, and operational realities. Our goal is to create a system that is fair, transparent, and sustainable for both drivers and riders,” Bolt said.

Algorithms in communication

It gets more delicate when drivers agree that depending on machines has eroded real-time communication with the app operators.

Many drivers insist that even when they have serious challenges, they hardly get to speak with actual people. Some pointed out that the possibility of going a full year without human interaction with the app companies is very high.

Yes, it’s entirely possible for a driver to go a year or more without speaking to a human being from these companies, especially if they don’t encounter major issues or if minor ones are handled algorithmically. Human involvement typically only kicks in for severe escalations, like appeals against account deactivation or complex safety reports, but even then, initial reviews are often algorithmic,” Comrade Ayoade said.

Most drivers agree that limited access to officials or customer care representatives is challenging. Because of this, app companies are regarded as faceless, and hiding behind apps, generic emails, or scripted support responses.

Reacting to this, Bolt said it recognises that some drivers feel automation can make interactions seem impersonal; however, the intention is not to reduce human contact.

“The intention is not to reduce human contact, but to ensure faster, consistent responses to common issues while allowing our local teams to focus on more complex cases that require individual review. We continuously review and refine our systems based on driver feedback to improve responsiveness and resolution quality,” Bolt said.

This calls into question whether the hubs and offices established by the apps, as required by law, are of any use. While admitting that companies like Uber (Greenlight locations) and Bolt (Driver’s Hubs) indeed have physical offices, there are, however, several bottlenecks that come with them.

The first is that they are only located in major cities like Lagos and Abuja, which means drivers in other cities like Ibadan, Enugu, Benin, etc are left unattended.

CNG: Bolt is considering a feature that tells riders if a car is CNG-poweredBolt’s driver engagement centre in Lagos

The second is that drivers have to book appointments and be cleared before they are attended to at the hubs. Even then, long wait times, unresolved queries, or being bounced between automated systems have been reported.

“In-person hubs feel more like transactional checkpoints than relational spaces. This anonymity fosters a sense of detachment, where drivers feel like cogs in a machine rather than valued partners, especially when issues arise, and support feels distant or unresponsive,” Vincent Ajibola said.

Reacting to this, Bolt says it maintains physical offices and local teams as well as Driver Engagement Centres where drivers can visit and lodge complaints. This enforces its belief that local presence matters, not only for regulatory compliance, but for driver engagement, onboarding, training, and issue resolution.

“We do have driver engagement centres both in South Africa and Nigeria, and our doors are open to drivers who wish to visit and physically lodge their complaints directly to our customer support teams. We remain open to strengthening structured human engagement where it adds value, and we continue to invest in improving both digital and in-person support channels,” the company said.

The post Are algorithms by Uber, Bolt and inDrive killing human interactions in e-hailing? first appeared on Technext.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

American Bitcoin’s $5B Nasdaq Debut Puts Trump-Backed Miner in Crypto Spotlight

American Bitcoin’s $5B Nasdaq Debut Puts Trump-Backed Miner in Crypto Spotlight

The post American Bitcoin’s $5B Nasdaq Debut Puts Trump-Backed Miner in Crypto Spotlight appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways: American Bitcoin (ABTC) surged nearly 85% on its Nasdaq debut, briefly reaching a $5B valuation. The Trump family, alongside Hut 8 Mining, controls 98% of the newly merged crypto-mining entity. Eric Trump called Bitcoin “modern-day gold,” predicting it could reach $1 million per coin. American Bitcoin, a fast-rising crypto mining firm with strong political and institutional backing, has officially entered Wall Street. After merging with Gryphon Digital Mining, the company made its Nasdaq debut under the ticker ABTC, instantly drawing global attention to both its stock performance and its bold vision for Bitcoin’s future. Read More: Trump-Backed Crypto Firm Eyes Asia for Bold Bitcoin Expansion Nasdaq Debut: An Explosive First Day ABTC’s first day of trading proved as dramatic as expected. Shares surged almost 85% at the open, touching a peak of $14 before settling at lower levels by the close. That initial spike valued the company around $5 billion, positioning it as one of 2025’s most-watched listings. At the last session, ABTC has been trading at $7.28 per share, which is a small positive 2.97% per day. Although the price has decelerated since opening highs, analysts note that the company has been off to a strong start and early investor activity is a hard-to-find feat in a newly-launched crypto mining business. According to market watchers, the listing comes at a time of new momentum in the digital asset markets. With Bitcoin trading above $110,000 this quarter, American Bitcoin’s entry comes at a time when both institutional investors and retail traders are showing heightened interest in exposure to Bitcoin-linked equities. Ownership Structure: Trump Family and Hut 8 at the Helm Its management and ownership set up has increased the visibility of the company. The Trump family and the Canadian mining giant Hut 8 Mining jointly own 98 percent…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:33
Tether commits $50M to Eight Sleep at $1.5B for on-device AI

Tether commits $50M to Eight Sleep at $1.5B for on-device AI

The post Tether commits $50M to Eight Sleep at $1.5B for on-device AI appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Tether invests $50M in Eight Sleep, accelerating on-device
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/03/05 06:41
Zerohash National Trust Bank: A Bold Bid for OCC Charter to Reshape US Crypto Banking

Zerohash National Trust Bank: A Bold Bid for OCC Charter to Reshape US Crypto Banking

BitcoinWorld Zerohash National Trust Bank: A Bold Bid for OCC Charter to Reshape US Crypto Banking In a landmark move for cryptocurrency regulation, Zerohash has
Share
bitcoinworld2026/03/05 05:55