Pepsi is to Coke as Google + is to Facebook. They both have overlapping networks of drinkers/users that are not mutually exclusive. Facebook was able to get to

Pepsi is to Coke as Google + is to Facebook. They both have overlapping networks of drinkers/users that are not mutually exclusive. Facebook was able to get to market first and provide a tastier product. But the free market supports both products/networks. And there is more room for disruption in the Facebook/Google Plus space than the soft drinks market due to much shorter product lifecycles. Myspace lasted 5 years. Facebook will last longer due to strong tie-ins w/ businesses, schools, organizations, etc. but I, like many of my friends, have dropped it and are keeping an eye out for the next thing. The issue w/ Uber and Lyft is one of employment laws rather than regulated trust networks. If we changed the laws/prosecuted the companies they would have to raise prices due to higher employee wages/compensation which would have the ultimate effect of weakening the network as people looked at taxis and public transport as viable alternatives. So ultimately my point is that we should look at how attractive the service and why. In the case of Uber its because they are able to exploit an oversupply of low skill labor to bring prices down. This combined w/ advertising and promotions has created a strong network. Not sure it's the govs job to step in and weaken/nationalize that network. Perhaps regulate the employee/employer relationship, but this is nothing new.