4 ms·

It seems to me that the pattern here (for Uber, AirBnB and others) is: 1. Create a service that people love, flouting or violating local regulations. 2. Rely

by Zak 14y ago

It seems to me that the pattern here (for Uber, AirBnB and others) is: 1. Create a service that people love, flouting or violating local regulations. 2. Rely on user outrage to get the regulations changed. 3. Profit. It's frustrating that there's a regulatory model that makes it necessary to do this in order to innovate, but I'm glad to see it working out for Uber.

afarrell 14y ago
It is indeed frustrating when code is not fully general and therefore needs to be changed in order to handle a case that hand't been previously thought of.
shawn-butler 14y ago
Isn't that how representative democracies work? It's better than the alternative in some cultures which involves a lot of underhanded bribery to get people to look the other way. I honestly get a little tired of Uber, Airbnb, et al, who found startups pursuing models that turn their customers into unknowing accomplices in order to execute and gain traction. And then abuse the rest of the startup community just to gain press attention. It is profoundly unfair to take advantage of ethical lapses and should not be rewarded. Why isn't it the case that part of the proof for VCs for businesses of dubious legality is the advocacy of regulatory reform early in product development rather than paying for hot air punditry in media that makes everyone look bad after the fact? Is it because any advocacy they pay for would only help competition giving away lead time? I don't disagree that heavy-handed overregulation is a bad thing, but we are going to face more of it not less if recent history is any indication. Seems like some better strategies are needed.
- SilasX 14y ago
  >Isn't that how representative democracies work? No, the way it's supposed to work, as we're taught in civics, is to adhere to the laws as they currently exist, and if we want them changed, to get deeply involved in city council meetings until we can beg the council members, who have no understanding of the unseen costs and missed opportunities of the current system, and are typically in league with a local guild, to grant us special permits to do our innovative activity. On the way, we're supposed to develop our own political faction, and eventually get powerful enough to figure we can use the city regulatory apparatus to hold back our own enemies. Because we wouldn't want to risk people having a subpar experience from one of these upstarts, in contrast to the consistently ideal service we get from city-blessed operators. Or something.
TeMPOraL 14y ago
Uber, AirBnB, et al. are pushing it to extreme, but it's an example of an idea that laws (at least in long-term) follow the will of the society. Like anti-smoking laws, which happened only after we mostly figured out that cigarettes harm people. I just hope that the will of society will do the same to MAFIAA-influenced regulations, as they clearly go against the way people want to use technology and share information. That's the main reason I believe private entrepreneurs can have a bigger say in making the world a better place than governments, and starting a business is better than going into politics if you want to change something.

by Zak 14y ago

afarrell 14y ago

It is indeed frustrating when code is not fully general and therefore needs to be changed in order to handle a case that hand't been previously thought of.

shawn-butler 14y ago

Isn't that how representative democracies work? It's better than the alternative in some cultures which involves a lot of underhanded bribery to get people to look the other way. I honestly get a little tired of Uber, Airbnb, et al, who found startups pursuing models that turn their customers into unknowing accomplices in order to execute and gain traction. And then abuse the rest of the startup community just to gain press attention. It is profoundly unfair to take advantage of ethical lapses and should not be rewarded. Why isn't it the case that part of the proof for VCs for businesses of dubious legality is the advocacy of regulatory reform early in product development rather than paying for hot air punditry in media that makes everyone look bad after the fact? Is it because any advocacy they pay for would only help competition giving away lead time? I don't disagree that heavy-handed overregulation is a bad thing, but we are going to face more of it not less if recent history is any indication. Seems like some better strategies are needed.

SilasX 14y ago
>Isn't that how representative democracies work? No, the way it's supposed to work, as we're taught in civics, is to adhere to the laws as they currently exist, and if we want them changed, to get deeply involved in city council meetings until we can beg the council members, who have no understanding of the unseen costs and missed opportunities of the current system, and are typically in league with a local guild, to grant us special permits to do our innovative activity. On the way, we're supposed to develop our own political faction, and eventually get powerful enough to figure we can use the city regulatory apparatus to hold back our own enemies. Because we wouldn't want to risk people having a subpar experience from one of these upstarts, in contrast to the consistently ideal service we get from city-blessed operators. Or something.

TeMPOraL 14y ago

Uber, AirBnB, et al. are pushing it to extreme, but it's an example of an idea that laws (at least in long-term) follow the will of the society. Like anti-smoking laws, which happened only after we mostly figured out that cigarettes harm people. I just hope that the will of society will do the same to MAFIAA-influenced regulations, as they clearly go against the way people want to use technology and share information. That's the main reason I believe private entrepreneurs can have a bigger say in making the world a better place than governments, and starting a business is better than going into politics if you want to change something.