3 ms·

I would like to add that quotes like this make me sympathize with abduhl's opinion even more: > An Uber spokesman in Seoul denied that the service was illegal

I would like to add that quotes like this make me sympathize with abduhl's opinion even more: > An Uber spokesman in Seoul denied that the service was illegal as Uber is “a technology company that connects drivers with passengers” and doesn’t directly run a taxi service with rented cars. I know they want to claim they're not a (distributed) taxi company but that's what they are; they pay drivers, verify the drivers, help the drivers get insured and connect them with their passengers. That's what a taxi service is. Yes, they don't rent cars, but that is not the defining trait. If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences?

josu 12y ago
>If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences? They are there to make money, and if fighting an injustice system is aligned with their goal of making money, they will fihgt. I get the feeling that Uber is idealized, same as Tesla.
- NotOscarWilde 12y ago
  Right, and I don't have a problem with them fighting the system; in fact, I believe as most of us do that the regulations may be too strict in most areas. However, this "half-fighting" when you criticise the regulations and at the same time you claim you're outside the law because you're just a "service" -- this rubs me the wrong way. It is this "half-fighting, half-outside" approach that is most evident in corporations. It's similar to corporations dealing with censorship -- everyone, even executives, agree that censorship is a bad thing but the company still wants to make money in China, so they have to obey it and respect it at the same time.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
> If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences? If you're trying to fight an existing, firmly entrenched system, you don't walk up to the front door as early as possible, knock, and say "Hi, I'm here to destroy you." You become as popular as possible as quickly as possible, and then you might have the ability to survive such a challenge. One notable advantage this gives: if you follow the letter of the law as written, any subsequent change to the law is effectively targeting you specifically, which gives you a substantial amount of high ground to operate from. Assuming you're doing something that people actually want, you're then much more likely to have the general public on your side.

josu 12y ago

>If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences? They are there to make money, and if fighting an injustice system is aligned with their goal of making money, they will fihgt. I get the feeling that Uber is idealized, same as Tesla.

NotOscarWilde 12y ago
Right, and I don't have a problem with them fighting the system; in fact, I believe as most of us do that the regulations may be too strict in most areas. However, this "half-fighting" when you criticise the regulations and at the same time you claim you're outside the law because you're just a "service" -- this rubs me the wrong way. It is this "half-fighting, half-outside" approach that is most evident in corporations. It's similar to corporations dealing with censorship -- everyone, even executives, agree that censorship is a bad thing but the company still wants to make money in China, so they have to obey it and respect it at the same time.

JoshTriplett 12y ago

> If they want to fight an injustice of a system, shouldn't they admit that's what they do -- and be ready for the consequences? If you're trying to fight an existing, firmly entrenched system, you don't walk up to the front door as early as possible, knock, and say "Hi, I'm here to destroy you." You become as popular as possible as quickly as possible, and then you might have the ability to survive such a challenge. One notable advantage this gives: if you follow the letter of the law as written, any subsequent change to the law is effectively targeting you specifically, which gives you a substantial amount of high ground to operate from. Assuming you're doing something that people actually want, you're then much more likely to have the general public on your side.