3 ms·

In cities where Uber is legal and regulated, they are not breaking any laws and have no requirement to track city investigations against them. Uber were also b

by nikcub 10y ago

In cities where Uber is legal and regulated, they are not breaking any laws and have no requirement to track city investigations against them. Uber were also being disobedient in order to get better laws for they and everybody else to abide by. Better yet - their technique pretty much won. There aren't many cities remaining that still attempt to ban ride sharing.

pharrington 10y ago
My reply to aianus applies equally to this. Consider further; how did the narrative of Uber needing to break the law to disrupt (read: try to overthrow) the existing taxi industry morph into excusing their practices as affecting positive social change? Remember, the context of the boycotts during the American civil rights movement was never to "disrupt" southern businesses.
- nikcub 10y ago
  Again, there are plenty of cities where Uber have been successful where they didn't break any laws. Likewise there are many cities that have banned Uber where they don't operate. The number of cities where they operate in a grey area of regulation are often few and often for short periods of time. Uber are more interested in operating in a regulated environment, hence all their lobbying and hence why their first hires in new cities are usually government liaison people. Uber is equally successful in cities where it was initially thought illegal, in cities where it was always legal and in cities where it became legal. Many other companies have ridden the coattails of the regulatory work that Uber has done. If they were an "anarcho-capitalistic" business then they simply wouldn't care for the laws anywhere. They'd be operating in Nevada, Austin and in all of these other cities that have since banned them. They would be signing up drivers with no license or background checks. They wouldn't need any government liaison people. They'd do no lobbying, etc. and as bad as they are - they aren't that company (although many want them to be)
  - pharrington 10y ago
    "Ridden the coattails of the regulatory work that Uber has done"? I think the problem is that you have a very poor grasp of how the branches of US government (legislative in particular) interact with businesses, and thus don't really know how to distinguish among any agent that effects legislative change. First learn about, and then read some commentaries on the functions and history of the three branches of US government. Then learn about how lobbying works, then read about the various rights movements that've occurred in the US.

by nikcub 10y ago

pharrington 10y ago

My reply to aianus applies equally to this. Consider further; how did the narrative of Uber needing to break the law to disrupt (read: try to overthrow) the existing taxi industry morph into excusing their practices as affecting positive social change? Remember, the context of the boycotts during the American civil rights movement was never to "disrupt" southern businesses.

nikcub 10y ago
Again, there are plenty of cities where Uber have been successful where they didn't break any laws. Likewise there are many cities that have banned Uber where they don't operate. The number of cities where they operate in a grey area of regulation are often few and often for short periods of time. Uber are more interested in operating in a regulated environment, hence all their lobbying and hence why their first hires in new cities are usually government liaison people. Uber is equally successful in cities where it was initially thought illegal, in cities where it was always legal and in cities where it became legal. Many other companies have ridden the coattails of the regulatory work that Uber has done. If they were an "anarcho-capitalistic" business then they simply wouldn't care for the laws anywhere. They'd be operating in Nevada, Austin and in all of these other cities that have since banned them. They would be signing up drivers with no license or background checks. They wouldn't need any government liaison people. They'd do no lobbying, etc. and as bad as they are - they aren't that company (although many want them to be)
- pharrington 10y ago
  "Ridden the coattails of the regulatory work that Uber has done"? I think the problem is that you have a very poor grasp of how the branches of US government (legislative in particular) interact with businesses, and thus don't really know how to distinguish among any agent that effects legislative change. First learn about, and then read some commentaries on the functions and history of the three branches of US government. Then learn about how lobbying works, then read about the various rights movements that've occurred in the US.