I get frustration with X, Y, or Z policy. I (generally*) don't get taking out frustration with front-line employees who are simply following company policy.

There are three issues that Uber/Lyft would have trying to pair masked/maskless drivers and riders. The first is dealing with wait times (remember, the company models are based on a prompt arrival time for your ride; splitting the field would invariably jam folks on one side of the divide or the other and you'd get complaints about that). The second is dealing with local health and safety mandates. The third is that there's a risk that you'd end up with a price disparity due to the modeling, and either riders or drivers would (as a result) feel pressure to go one way or another, and the optics on that would be hell.**

As to the rating system, what you described is about what it was when things started. The issue is that you soon saw a lot of pressure towards five-star ratings (538 did a piece studying average ratings, IIRC, which showed some heavy "grade inflation" over the first few years of the system) and so what resulted was the default. You can "not rate" a driver (just ignore the prompts and the system auto-completes within 24 hours or so), though I don't recall if you can "skip out" otherwise.

*The exceptions tend to involve "policies" that really aren't policies, or employees following a policy in the most malicious way possible.
**It's sort-of like how I'm surprised that nobody's ever seriously proposed solving the "employees must deal with the smoke as well" bit by proposing hazard pay...but, given the pay there, I think we can agree you would see effective pressures as a result of that as well.

(Bolding mine). If you send that feedback, they might de-activate your account.

Why? Retaliation? Is the leadership at Uber Communist? Expressing feedback that disputes the narrative that Uber buys into? Punishing Dissent?

Because you are trying to punish the driver for following company policies and safety procedures. Essentially, you are attempting to coerce the driver (through the threat of a punitive rating) to behave unsafely, and risk their own health to please you. This probably violates some program rules.

If I comply with the mask policy and don't discuss masks or the policy or ratings and maybe either talk about other stuff such as traffic or weather, etc. or don't carry on a conversation at all and just quietly do the rating and send the feedback afterward there really would be no coercion because in that case I would not have actually asked the driver to violate any policy. I would have just given negative feedback to the policy in the only way I know how that would not run foul of their community guidelines.

The company is not interested in your opinion about the policy of wearing masks, nor they solicited feedback about it. They have made their decision about mask use based on scientific public health data. Your rating is meant only to rate the driver on relevant issues, not to comment on policy. You are using your rating of individual drivers in an inappropriate way, for which it was not meant to be used. In fact, you penalize the driver for acting professionally, which may result in this driver being de-activated and lose their jobs, for the sole reason of being professional and following health requirements. They may also assume that you are trying to coerce the driver to act unsafely, either through talking about it (they don't know what you do in the car), or indirectly through the rating. Either way you are using the rating system inappropriately and unfairly to the driver, which may be grounds for account de-activation.

In other words, the rating system is not meant to be used for policy feedback, and it is tied to the driver's professional evaluation, and you are abusing the system if you treat it as a means for policy feedback.

Source ?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/driver-cra...ry?id=70346532

The mask in that crash was a N95 mask, which nobody should be wearing out in public. It is possible that wearing a N95 mask can lead to labored breathing in people with reduced lung function and cause a medical problem. If you are truly concerned about excess crash risk from an N95 mask, you shouldn't get in the car at all if they are wearing a N95 mask. How does rating someone lower after you have safely exited the car make you safer?

Wearing a cloth mask does not have a risk of reduced lung function. What is your concern with cloth masks?

First Uber Ride Post C19
 

Went on first Uber ride since the coronavirus scare. Wore Mask. Driver wore mask. Front window was open when driver arrived but driver put all windows up after I got in. I think that is contrary to what Uber wants but I did not argue as I wanted the A/C on. After the ride I saw there was an option to skip rating the driver so I took that option as I thought that would be fairest for all concerned given my personal views regarding mask policy as well as the rating system.

Do I risk any problems if I constantly decline to rate drivers?

I doubt it, I think it is your right not to rate, if you do not want to. I have done it a few times when I was ambivalent about giving a bad rating.

No. I never rate at all.

I had to use Uber yesterday for the first time since February. When the app confirmed my ride, it said the driver verified he will be wearing a mask. When he showed up, he was not and I saw no evidence of masks in his vehicle. This was the only car in the area so I took the ride, wearing my own mask. Is there some way to, or should I, report this? Other than giving him a poor rating on the app.

Yes, under "my trips", choose the trip, "help", "my driver was unprofessional" or similar category.

Ha, I never realized you can tap those for more details! You learn something new everyday (and shows how often I actually use Uber!) Thanks.

and definitely give a poor rating. I believe you can even request a refund as they are guaranteeing their drivers wear masks