4 ms·

They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobby

They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.

protocolture 3y ago
>They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". And Uber is not the plucky underdog you're portraying them as. They built an empire on capital from the likes of Blackrock, JPMorgan, Softbank and other heavy hitters.
  - theshackleford 3y ago
    > Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". More do, than don’t. You won’t find many shedding tears for the bullshit grift that was most of the Australian taxi industry. Good riddance to it and the completely terrible laws that allowed their nonsense to continue unabated for as long as it did.
    - NoPicklez 3y ago
      Exactly. Even if Uber had "Uber" funding, using Uber is a far better experience than using our Taxi services. Paying for and knowing how much your ride is going to cost before hand, using an app to be able to hail an Uber and see in real time as they're coming. Just the basics they never had
  - protocolture 3y ago
    They arent a plucky underdog, they are a very large monied dog whose interests align better with the consumer than cabcharges near legislative monopoly.

4 ms·

They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobby

by kevingadd 3y ago

protocolture 3y ago
>They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". And Uber is not the plucky underdog you're portraying them as. They built an empire on capital from the likes of Blackrock, JPMorgan, Softbank and other heavy hitters.
  - theshackleford 3y ago
    > Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". More do, than don’t. You won’t find many shedding tears for the bullshit grift that was most of the Australian taxi industry. Good riddance to it and the completely terrible laws that allowed their nonsense to continue unabated for as long as it did.
    - NoPicklez 3y ago
      Exactly. Even if Uber had "Uber" funding, using Uber is a far better experience than using our Taxi services. Paying for and knowing how much your ride is going to cost before hand, using an app to be able to hail an Uber and see in real time as they're coming. Just the basics they never had
  - protocolture 3y ago
    They arent a plucky underdog, they are a very large monied dog whose interests align better with the consumer than cabcharges near legislative monopoly.