6 ms·

It doesn't take a triple digit IQ to understand that Uber has operated a fundamentally illegal business model that does not respect the localities in which they

It doesn't take a triple digit IQ to understand that Uber has operated a fundamentally illegal business model that does not respect the localities in which they operate. In the past (pre-Uber), if you made this amount of money by engaging in large-scale, coordinated law breaking, you were called a gangster and got a big old nice RICO charge. Don't be confused or blinded by the valuation. That is a byproduct of breaking the rules. The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). As a business, if you do not like the legal environment (rules) of a certain location, the logical (and respectable) choice is to not operate in that region/location. My view is 10x more harsh on companies breaking the law in a coordinated manner than compared to an individual person.

rileymat2 7y ago
It is my understanding that many places distinguished between hailed services and on call services, but Uber was able to do on call at an unexpected scale? I am sure you can dig up illegal acts, but the secret sauce was the new dynamic that bent what people thought was possible at scale.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mullingitover 7y ago
> The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). Thank goodness it was only in theory. The taxi industry was and is terrible, the only thing propping it up is regulatory capture. > As a business, if you do not like the legal environment (rules) of a certain location, the logical (and respectable) choice is to not operate in that region/location. As a consumer, I'm glad that the rules were systematically broken in a way that benefitted everyone except the taxi industry.
- munk-a 7y ago
  > in a way that benefitted everyone I can definitely get aboard the taxi hate train, but do bear in mind that there has been a higher incident of sexual assaults tied to uber drivers over taxi drivers - it's not a free win for everyone, they broke both rules intended for regulatory capture and those intended for public safety.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    > higher incident of sexual assaults tied to uber drivers over taxi drivers citation with statistics? I don't know what world you lived in, but there was no lack of local news stories involving crimes by taxi drivers pre-ridesharing and there is a reason why taxi drivers were commonly suspects on crime drama shows like Law&Order.
    - dllthomas 7y ago
      The lack of meaningful comparison in every article on the topic always bugged me. I'd believe Uber was worse. I'd believe Uber was better. I'm reading your article partly because I want to know which.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    I'd love to see the statistics. That aside, the taxi industry collects zero feedback from customers on their drivers, so taxi drivers had no incentive to be polite, keep their vehicles clean, etc. The worst uber driver I've had was about on par with the best cab drivers.
    - hermitdev 7y ago
      Not sure about other jurisdictions, but in Chicago, you can call 311 to report a taxi driver. Just need the cab number. I called a few times when cabs nearly struck me as a pedestrian in a crosswalk with a walk signal. Couple of them, I was close enough that I was able to smack a window. Don't know if anything ever happened from those complaints, you dont get feedback after a complaint.
landryraccoon 7y ago
> The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). This is really problematic for me. If you restrict the scope rightly to only democracies that are truly representative (which many regulatory capture environments are not) I might be able to agree. But many governments in the world are not nearly legitimate enough to deserve this respect. I have no issue with individuals, businesses, revolutionaries and other for profit or not for profit companies trying to undermine the dictates, decrees, laws or rules or whatever you want to call them of oppressive or authoritarian governments. Taken to a logical extreme, this justifies for profit companies supporting and entrenching dictatorships, under the excuse of “we were just following the law”.
- munk-a 7y ago
  This is an intensely slippery slope, allowing companies to pick and choose which laws to follow is dangerous - would you be okay with sweatshops existing in the US because it allowed the companies to make more profits? What about outright slavery? Laws are the social contract that we've all agreed to - I am totally in agreement that a lot of laws were created through corrupt government action, but giving free reign to any private entity to ignore laws they find onerous pretty much removes lawful society.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    "People and companies can make judgements about the fairness of laws" does not imply "and they are always correct."
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >Laws are the social contract that we've all agreed to We have? I may go through the actions of consenting because I fear the repercussions of not doing so, but no part of me consents to giving the average person the right to harm me because of their personal beliefs.
    - munk-a 7y ago
SkyBelow 7y ago
>In the past (pre-Uber), if you made this amount of money by engaging in large-scale, coordinated law breaking, you were called a gangster and got a big old nice RICO charge. I'm thinking this isn't actually true. In some cases you definitely were. In others, you become the dominant player and enjoyed becoming wealthy. What exactly divided the former from the latter? I wish I understood that better.
nwah1 7y ago
Not a big fan of Uber, but on the other hand a lot of cities were operating crony "taxi medallion" rackets that were enriching vested taxi interests and speculators, but hurting drivers and riders. Ridesharing is more convenient, safer, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly. There's less idling, less aimless driving, less congestion, more carpooling, no clumsy exchange of cash or credit cards, the reputation of drivers is visible, and the ride is fully tracked so your whereabouts are known.
mlindner 7y ago
If they had been operating an illegal business model then they would have long ago lost in court. That they've succeeded means that it's fundamentally legal...
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  They have been fined, banned and kicked out of the countries all around the world because they showed no respect to local laws and customs.

rileymat2 7y ago

It is my understanding that many places distinguished between hailed services and on call services, but Uber was able to do on call at an unexpected scale? I am sure you can dig up illegal acts, but the secret sauce was the new dynamic that bent what people thought was possible at scale.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mullingitover 7y ago

> The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). Thank goodness it was only in theory. The taxi industry was and is terrible, the only thing propping it up is regulatory capture. > As a business, if you do not like the legal environment (rules) of a certain location, the logical (and respectable) choice is to not operate in that region/location. As a consumer, I'm glad that the rules were systematically broken in a way that benefitted everyone except the taxi industry.

munk-a 7y ago
> in a way that benefitted everyone I can definitely get aboard the taxi hate train, but do bear in mind that there has been a higher incident of sexual assaults tied to uber drivers over taxi drivers - it's not a free win for everyone, they broke both rules intended for regulatory capture and those intended for public safety.
- malandrew 7y ago
  > higher incident of sexual assaults tied to uber drivers over taxi drivers citation with statistics? I don't know what world you lived in, but there was no lack of local news stories involving crimes by taxi drivers pre-ridesharing and there is a reason why taxi drivers were commonly suspects on crime drama shows like Law&Order.
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    The lack of meaningful comparison in every article on the topic always bugged me. I'd believe Uber was worse. I'd believe Uber was better. I'm reading your article partly because I want to know which.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  I'd love to see the statistics. That aside, the taxi industry collects zero feedback from customers on their drivers, so taxi drivers had no incentive to be polite, keep their vehicles clean, etc. The worst uber driver I've had was about on par with the best cab drivers.
  - hermitdev 7y ago
    Not sure about other jurisdictions, but in Chicago, you can call 311 to report a taxi driver. Just need the cab number. I called a few times when cabs nearly struck me as a pedestrian in a crosswalk with a walk signal. Couple of them, I was close enough that I was able to smack a window. Don't know if anything ever happened from those complaints, you dont get feedback after a complaint.

landryraccoon 7y ago

> The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). This is really problematic for me. If you restrict the scope rightly to only democracies that are truly representative (which many regulatory capture environments are not) I might be able to agree. But many governments in the world are not nearly legitimate enough to deserve this respect. I have no issue with individuals, businesses, revolutionaries and other for profit or not for profit companies trying to undermine the dictates, decrees, laws or rules or whatever you want to call them of oppressive or authoritarian governments. Taken to a logical extreme, this justifies for profit companies supporting and entrenching dictatorships, under the excuse of “we were just following the law”.

munk-a 7y ago
This is an intensely slippery slope, allowing companies to pick and choose which laws to follow is dangerous - would you be okay with sweatshops existing in the US because it allowed the companies to make more profits? What about outright slavery? Laws are the social contract that we've all agreed to - I am totally in agreement that a lot of laws were created through corrupt government action, but giving free reign to any private entity to ignore laws they find onerous pretty much removes lawful society.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  "People and companies can make judgements about the fairness of laws" does not imply "and they are always correct."
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >Laws are the social contract that we've all agreed to We have? I may go through the actions of consenting because I fear the repercussions of not doing so, but no part of me consents to giving the average person the right to harm me because of their personal beliefs.
  - munk-a 7y ago

SkyBelow 7y ago

>In the past (pre-Uber), if you made this amount of money by engaging in large-scale, coordinated law breaking, you were called a gangster and got a big old nice RICO charge. I'm thinking this isn't actually true. In some cases you definitely were. In others, you become the dominant player and enjoyed becoming wealthy. What exactly divided the former from the latter? I wish I understood that better.

nwah1 7y ago

Not a big fan of Uber, but on the other hand a lot of cities were operating crony "taxi medallion" rackets that were enriching vested taxi interests and speculators, but hurting drivers and riders. Ridesharing is more convenient, safer, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly. There's less idling, less aimless driving, less congestion, more carpooling, no clumsy exchange of cash or credit cards, the reputation of drivers is visible, and the ride is fully tracked so your whereabouts are known.

mlindner 7y ago

If they had been operating an illegal business model then they would have long ago lost in court. That they've succeeded means that it's fundamentally legal...

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
They have been fined, banned and kicked out of the countries all around the world because they showed no respect to local laws and customs.