4 ms·
I don't get why he thinks a sharing economy couldn't do all the things he points out to be bad without being mislabeled. He can argue "disruption" by rule brea
by fwn 11y ago
I don't get why he thinks a sharing economy couldn't do all the things he points out to be bad without being mislabeled.
He can argue "disruption" by rule breaking is a somehow objectively bad thing. He can believe that selling something shouldn't qualify as "sharing".
All of this seems very constructed to me.
To me it looks like he just doesn't like those services, rationalized it and spins it in a way where he assumes others were misleaded to gain attention.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoI would say that for the purposes of his essay, he's being a classic Burkean Conservative. That position means that our ability to discern all the things that could be lost by the disruption will be hard to determine up front. Agreed that the assault on the word "sharing" seems tacked on, somehow. I suspect it is - it means "somehow like Napster".