5 ms·

AirBnB, PayPal & Uber are better examples. The "follow the rules period crowd" would never have let them succeed. Is that really what we want?

by pbreit 11y ago

jacalata 11y ago
Why PayPal?
- pbreit 11y ago
  For starters, acting like a bank.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
With exception of PayPal, of which I know nothing that would explain them being included in this list, I'd say yes - that's exactly what we want. AirBnB and Uber are burning social trust to make money, they're literally poisoning the society. And to (literally!) add insult to injury, Uber management are also being assholes about the whole process.
- baddox 11y ago
  It seems like your "poisoning the society" claim is highly subjective, based on how you perceive their actions and what you think is the the "ideal" society. For me, and presumably a bunch of other people, AirBnB and Uber provide really services far superior to their predecessors.
  - majewsky 11y ago
    It's probably a case of adding insult to injury. Looking at AirBnB specifically, their most vocal opponents seem to be cities who already have too few apartments left to rent. When a sizable portion of the remaining few apartments is then put on AirBnB rather then rented, rent prices go even higher than they already were. At least, this is what happened in Berlin (and AFAIR also some other large German cities), which is why Berlin is looking into banning AirBnB (by requiring special permits for vacation homes). Source e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin-schraenkt-airbnb-vermietungen-radikal-ein-a-1086167.html http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin... So, it may not be AirBnB's fault primarily. They're just making bad situations even worse.
    - Bombthecat 11y ago
      Yep, and there is no incentive to create new homes. Except for airbnb. Why would you create a new home when you just can increase the rent?
      - mateo411 11y ago
        Usually there is a monetary incentive for developers to build new homes.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I don't think it's that highly a subjective viewpoint, if you don't ignore the social aspects of their business altogether. I do agree that the level of service of Uber (and probably AirBnB) is superior; I may also agree that a lot of regulations they're working around should be revisited. But the idea that when you don't like a law, you're free to ignore it is not something acceptable in a civilized society. There are ways and means to affect the legal situation (and numerous companies in Europe managed to use them successfully when it comes to taxis - so much that on the old continent, Uber is not really an innovative service), but you have to play by the rules. Breaking them should - and usually does - result in you getting fined or imprisoned. Uber is exploiting the high inertia of local government bodies; their strategy is to gain enough popularity fast enough that they can play the local population against lawmakers - not unlike a fast-spreading virus that overwhelms the host before their immune system can mount a defense. What I don't want is to see this blatant, unilateral defiance against the law to spread. Today it's a taxi company with a silly app and a big marketing budget; tomorrow it will be the next hot e-commerce site that plays fast and loose with customer protection laws; the next week it will be a biotech startup that thinks biosafety regulations are optional and otherwise a nuisance.
    - pbreit 11y ago
      I think it's mainly exploiting that the laws are kinda dumb and only perhaps made sense in an earlier age.
    - polyomino 11y ago
      Next week, it will be lawmakers soliciting terrible advice from the electorate. When will this horror end?
    - baddox 11y ago
      I fundamentally disagree with your belief that disobeying bad laws is an undesirable way to get bad laws to change. I think it is a very valid way to change bad laws, and in many cases the only remotely viable way. Do you honestly believe there was a viable way to get taxi regulations changed other than the general approach taken by Uber and Lyft? Granted, some of Uber's reported specific actions are slimy even to me, but I am convinced that their general approach (ignore the regulations and hope that the population realizes the superiority of your service faster than the government can shut you down) is the only viable way to do it. I'm tempted to go so far as to call this approach downright progressive, although I realize many self-proclaimed progressives will find that attribution repulsive.
  - pbreit 11y ago
    Even forgetting if the services are superior or whatever, is it all that crazy to be able to let people spend the night in your house or drive someone around for money?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      This isn't. But people are using this to turn their apartments into cheap-ass hotels instead.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  In what way are they burning trust? I wouldn't have trusted my AirBnB host if it weren't for AirBnB. Now I say to other people "don't worry, AirBnB hosts won't harvest your organs or anything" and they may begin trusting AirBnB hosts (or hosts in general) more.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    It's not about your trust in the service, it's about the trust that's present between various members of society. AirBnB is setting tenants against landlords (by encouraging former to do subletting, which leads latter to add terms to the agreements that otherwise wouldn't be needed), neighbours against neighbours (c.f. all the complains from people who'd like to be asked before having their apartment building turned into cheap-ass hotel) and people against cities (by encouraging violations of zoning laws). Trust on a social level is something that keeps civilization together. It's what lets you do business and deal with people without constantly looking over your shoulder worrying that everyone is out there to fuck you over. AirBnB makes a lot of their money by eroding this trust.

AirBnB, PayPal & Uber are better examples. The "follow the rules period crowd" would never have let them succeed. Is that really what we want?

by pbreit 11y ago

AirBnB, PayPal & Uber are better examples. The "follow the rules period crowd" would never have let them succeed. Is that really what we want?

jacalata 11y ago

Why PayPal?

pbreit 11y ago
For starters, acting like a bank.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

With exception of PayPal, of which I know nothing that would explain them being included in this list, I'd say yes - that's exactly what we want. AirBnB and Uber are burning social trust to make money, they're literally poisoning the society. And to (literally!) add insult to injury, Uber management are also being assholes about the whole process.

baddox 11y ago
It seems like your "poisoning the society" claim is highly subjective, based on how you perceive their actions and what you think is the the "ideal" society. For me, and presumably a bunch of other people, AirBnB and Uber provide really services far superior to their predecessors.
- majewsky 11y ago
  It's probably a case of adding insult to injury. Looking at AirBnB specifically, their most vocal opponents seem to be cities who already have too few apartments left to rent. When a sizable portion of the remaining few apartments is then put on AirBnB rather then rented, rent prices go even higher than they already were. At least, this is what happened in Berlin (and AFAIR also some other large German cities), which is why Berlin is looking into banning AirBnB (by requiring special permits for vacation homes). Source e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin-schraenkt-airbnb-vermietungen-radikal-ein-a-1086167.html http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin... So, it may not be AirBnB's fault primarily. They're just making bad situations even worse.
  - Bombthecat 11y ago
    Yep, and there is no incentive to create new homes. Except for airbnb. Why would you create a new home when you just can increase the rent?
    - mateo411 11y ago
      Usually there is a monetary incentive for developers to build new homes.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I don't think it's that highly a subjective viewpoint, if you don't ignore the social aspects of their business altogether. I do agree that the level of service of Uber (and probably AirBnB) is superior; I may also agree that a lot of regulations they're working around should be revisited. But the idea that when you don't like a law, you're free to ignore it is not something acceptable in a civilized society. There are ways and means to affect the legal situation (and numerous companies in Europe managed to use them successfully when it comes to taxis - so much that on the old continent, Uber is not really an innovative service), but you have to play by the rules. Breaking them should - and usually does - result in you getting fined or imprisoned. Uber is exploiting the high inertia of local government bodies; their strategy is to gain enough popularity fast enough that they can play the local population against lawmakers - not unlike a fast-spreading virus that overwhelms the host before their immune system can mount a defense. What I don't want is to see this blatant, unilateral defiance against the law to spread. Today it's a taxi company with a silly app and a big marketing budget; tomorrow it will be the next hot e-commerce site that plays fast and loose with customer protection laws; the next week it will be a biotech startup that thinks biosafety regulations are optional and otherwise a nuisance.
  - pbreit 11y ago
    I think it's mainly exploiting that the laws are kinda dumb and only perhaps made sense in an earlier age.
  - polyomino 11y ago
    Next week, it will be lawmakers soliciting terrible advice from the electorate. When will this horror end?
  - baddox 11y ago
    I fundamentally disagree with your belief that disobeying bad laws is an undesirable way to get bad laws to change. I think it is a very valid way to change bad laws, and in many cases the only remotely viable way. Do you honestly believe there was a viable way to get taxi regulations changed other than the general approach taken by Uber and Lyft? Granted, some of Uber's reported specific actions are slimy even to me, but I am convinced that their general approach (ignore the regulations and hope that the population realizes the superiority of your service faster than the government can shut you down) is the only viable way to do it. I'm tempted to go so far as to call this approach downright progressive, although I realize many self-proclaimed progressives will find that attribution repulsive.
- pbreit 11y ago
  Even forgetting if the services are superior or whatever, is it all that crazy to be able to let people spend the night in your house or drive someone around for money?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    This isn't. But people are using this to turn their apartments into cheap-ass hotels instead.
saint_fiasco 11y ago
In what way are they burning trust? I wouldn't have trusted my AirBnB host if it weren't for AirBnB. Now I say to other people "don't worry, AirBnB hosts won't harvest your organs or anything" and they may begin trusting AirBnB hosts (or hosts in general) more.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's not about your trust in the service, it's about the trust that's present between various members of society. AirBnB is setting tenants against landlords (by encouraging former to do subletting, which leads latter to add terms to the agreements that otherwise wouldn't be needed), neighbours against neighbours (c.f. all the complains from people who'd like to be asked before having their apartment building turned into cheap-ass hotel) and people against cities (by encouraging violations of zoning laws). Trust on a social level is something that keeps civilization together. It's what lets you do business and deal with people without constantly looking over your shoulder worrying that everyone is out there to fuck you over. AirBnB makes a lot of their money by eroding this trust.