4 ms·

This is terrible for the users but hardly surprising. I know it's not a popular opinion but some of the laws setup around service industries like hotels, taxis

This is terrible for the users but hardly surprising. I know it's not a popular opinion but some of the laws setup around service industries like hotels, taxis, etc, are for the protection of the user from potentially dangerous providers. "Ripe for disruption" is just "lots of laws we can ignore"

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> "Ripe for disruption" is just "lots of laws we can ignore" On the whole, I think society probably benefits from this kind of edge testing. I certainly don't encourage it. And taking on federal or state laws is a different game (legal and moral liability-wise) from challenging municipal codes, particularly when people get hurt. But Uber challenging the taxi industry forced everyone to take out the rulebook and reconsider what is and isn't truly necessary. Something similar is happening with hotels. One could argue, with Bitcoin et al, too.
- exelius 9y ago
  Honestly, Bitcoin is proving to the world why we need financial regulation.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    Is it? The way I see it, it's the consequence of financial regulations, and proves nothing - you can't really compare traditional currencies spanning hundreds of years with one that was there for just a decade.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      Of course I can. In fact, comparing new products with ones that have existed for decades is sort of the DNA of Hacker News.
      - TomMarius 9y ago
        Well, yeah, of course you can, but the comparison is nonsense.
  - repomies6999 9y ago
    How so? What are the problems caused by btc?
- stephenr 9y ago
  Uber spent more money campaigning to prevent a law requiring background checks on drivers in one city than it would have cost to do background checks for all their drivers in the entire country. These companies can try to claim it's about making things better all they want. It's clearly just about money to them. I learnt that the hard way trying to deal with AirBnB. Tip: companies "doing the right thing" don't charge your credit card then require you to login with Facebook (which I don't have) or upload a video explaining why I want to rent a house.
  - mcintyre1994 9y ago
    I don't understand how Uber can be "just about money" if they spend more money campaigning against laws than it would cost to follow them? Sounds like it's more about not following laws than money?
    - stephenr 9y ago
      I believe that falls under "spend money to make money", not to mention precedent. It was more money at the time - I can't imagine they have a particularly stable workforce and background checks for a revolving door workforce will get expensive, not to mention it means they have less potential drivers to make money from.
  - pliftkl 9y ago
    I think that's a slight oversimplification. Uber wasn't fighting doing background checks in Austin, they were fighting doing background checks the way the city of Austin wanted them to. But at a more meta-level, what they were really fighting was a precedent that would create a patchwork of local regulation on Uber that would make it harder for them to scale. But yeah, it is ultimately about the money.
    - stephenr 9y ago
      A self-imposed background check is essentially no background check. The differences between Uber's and e.g. Taxi's is laughable, when you read accounts from actual Uber drivers like http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-around-background-checks-1596982249 http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...
devdoomari 9y ago
I don't think Airbnb's management is intentionally ignoring the law -- rather, it's just that AirBnb got too big to look at its toes... should definitely work on improving internal communications, and penalizing those customer service ppl responsible.
darawk 9y ago
How would the laws around hotels have helped in this situation?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> "Ripe for disruption" is just "lots of laws we can ignore" On the whole, I think society probably benefits from this kind of edge testing. I certainly don't encourage it. And taking on federal or state laws is a different game (legal and moral liability-wise) from challenging municipal codes, particularly when people get hurt. But Uber challenging the taxi industry forced everyone to take out the rulebook and reconsider what is and isn't truly necessary. Something similar is happening with hotels. One could argue, with Bitcoin et al, too.

exelius 9y ago
Honestly, Bitcoin is proving to the world why we need financial regulation.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  Is it? The way I see it, it's the consequence of financial regulations, and proves nothing - you can't really compare traditional currencies spanning hundreds of years with one that was there for just a decade.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Of course I can. In fact, comparing new products with ones that have existed for decades is sort of the DNA of Hacker News.
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      Well, yeah, of course you can, but the comparison is nonsense.
- repomies6999 9y ago
  How so? What are the problems caused by btc?
stephenr 9y ago
Uber spent more money campaigning to prevent a law requiring background checks on drivers in one city than it would have cost to do background checks for all their drivers in the entire country. These companies can try to claim it's about making things better all they want. It's clearly just about money to them. I learnt that the hard way trying to deal with AirBnB. Tip: companies "doing the right thing" don't charge your credit card then require you to login with Facebook (which I don't have) or upload a video explaining why I want to rent a house.
- mcintyre1994 9y ago
  I don't understand how Uber can be "just about money" if they spend more money campaigning against laws than it would cost to follow them? Sounds like it's more about not following laws than money?
  - stephenr 9y ago
    I believe that falls under "spend money to make money", not to mention precedent. It was more money at the time - I can't imagine they have a particularly stable workforce and background checks for a revolving door workforce will get expensive, not to mention it means they have less potential drivers to make money from.
- pliftkl 9y ago
  I think that's a slight oversimplification. Uber wasn't fighting doing background checks in Austin, they were fighting doing background checks the way the city of Austin wanted them to. But at a more meta-level, what they were really fighting was a precedent that would create a patchwork of local regulation on Uber that would make it harder for them to scale. But yeah, it is ultimately about the money.
  - stephenr 9y ago
    A self-imposed background check is essentially no background check. The differences between Uber's and e.g. Taxi's is laughable, when you read accounts from actual Uber drivers like http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-around-background-checks-1596982249 http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...

devdoomari 9y ago

I don't think Airbnb's management is intentionally ignoring the law -- rather, it's just that AirBnb got too big to look at its toes... should definitely work on improving internal communications, and penalizing those customer service ppl responsible.

darawk 9y ago

How would the laws around hotels have helped in this situation?