3 ms·

it is. Airbnb tried to pull the same trick in New York City. All Uber has to do is follow the law. Of course they can't since their business model is based on v

it is. Airbnb tried to pull the same trick in New York City. All Uber has to do is follow the law. Of course they can't since their business model is based on violating labour laws. If your business model relies on doing something illegal to make money then you are no better than the mafia, it's just organized crime. As for people here who invoke "freedom of work". Most people doing these jobs don't have much choice at first place, in order to survive. But eventually Uber will backstab them, one way or another.

paulgb 6y ago
> Airbnb tried to pull the same trick in New York City I think this is a good comparison, with the caveat that there is a major difference in the political calculus: the people who get the most benefit from AirBnB in NYC are people visiting NYC (i.e. people who can't vote in NYC). AirBnB is generally not popular among the people who live here because people don't like transients in their buildings and perceive it (probably rightfully) as driving up rents. Uber/Lyft on the other hand are used by locals (i.e. voters) as well as tourists. They are perceived as bringing prices down by breaking the supply constraints of the medalian system. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
Legality can't be used to derive ethics. Slavery and prohibition were all legal in the past, but I don't think they're ethical. In the same way, I consider unethical removing people's freedom to work in the way they voluntarily choose. Sure, this is what we have now and not following the law, hoping to change things (aka disrupting the taxi lobbies) is a business risk , but I still hope for a society in which people are free to decide how they work. I wouldn't compare them to mobsters that use violence. Uber may not have a stellar reputation, but it's not forcing anyone to work. It's the government which actually resembles a giant mafia gang, imposing rules and asking 99% of the population for money (taxes, or just call it pizzo) on threat of imprisonment - while letting their rich friends avoid them.

paulgb 6y ago

> Airbnb tried to pull the same trick in New York City I think this is a good comparison, with the caveat that there is a major difference in the political calculus: the people who get the most benefit from AirBnB in NYC are people visiting NYC (i.e. people who can't vote in NYC). AirBnB is generally not popular among the people who live here because people don't like transients in their buildings and perceive it (probably rightfully) as driving up rents. Uber/Lyft on the other hand are used by locals (i.e. voters) as well as tourists. They are perceived as bringing prices down by breaking the supply constraints of the medalian system. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

Legality can't be used to derive ethics. Slavery and prohibition were all legal in the past, but I don't think they're ethical. In the same way, I consider unethical removing people's freedom to work in the way they voluntarily choose. Sure, this is what we have now and not following the law, hoping to change things (aka disrupting the taxi lobbies) is a business risk , but I still hope for a society in which people are free to decide how they work. I wouldn't compare them to mobsters that use violence. Uber may not have a stellar reputation, but it's not forcing anyone to work. It's the government which actually resembles a giant mafia gang, imposing rules and asking 99% of the population for money (taxes, or just call it pizzo) on threat of imprisonment - while letting their rich friends avoid them.