5 ms·

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. F

by 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.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Europe had its own taxi revolution going on for more than a decade. From personal experience in my city, the companies trying to change the status quo did exploit loopholes they could find, but they did not went and blatantly disregarded the laws. Ultimately the case of taxis vs. "people transport" companies got solved in court, proper adjustments to the law were made, and everyone is happy. That's how things should be done in a civilized society. The superiority of Uber's service over regular taxi is true (a bit smaller advantage over "people transport" companies we have in Europe, but Uber brought some "innovative" solutions to the continent too, like controlling taxi radio via Spotify...), but I absolutely disagree with the approach they take and even more I dislike the way this particular company behaves. There's also some blame to be put on the governments too, for not reacting quickly and decisively enough (kudos to Germany for doing it right) - there's little that can undermine the trust in the rule of law more than seeing people getting rich by ignoring the rules.
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 11y ago
  This isn't. But people are using this to turn their apartments into cheap-ass hotels instead.

by baddox 11y ago

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.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Europe had its own taxi revolution going on for more than a decade. From personal experience in my city, the companies trying to change the status quo did exploit loopholes they could find, but they did not went and blatantly disregarded the laws. Ultimately the case of taxis vs. "people transport" companies got solved in court, proper adjustments to the law were made, and everyone is happy. That's how things should be done in a civilized society. The superiority of Uber's service over regular taxi is true (a bit smaller advantage over "people transport" companies we have in Europe, but Uber brought some "innovative" solutions to the continent too, like controlling taxi radio via Spotify...), but I absolutely disagree with the approach they take and even more I dislike the way this particular company behaves. There's also some blame to be put on the governments too, for not reacting quickly and decisively enough (kudos to Germany for doing it right) - there's little that can undermine the trust in the rule of law more than seeing people getting rich by ignoring the rules.

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 11y ago
This isn't. But people are using this to turn their apartments into cheap-ass hotels instead.