Hacker News Reader

Comment by StClaire | Hacker News Reader

I respected Uber when they started for pushing against bs regulations like, "you're drivers need to belong to a taxi union," or "stay away from airports."

But why screw with taxes? They won't win that fight. Why not just pay California a little bit of money to legally run their self driving cars? It'll cost them more in salaries to have a meeting about the issue than to pay it. And why not just deal with sexual harassment in the workplace? It's the right thing to do

View on HN

Uber's most successful PR move was convincing everyone that using an entirely unethical, toxic company was sticking it to that monstrous boogeyman, "taxi regulations."

Shows how far you can go with a business model based on imaginary enemies and fairy tales about ethical consumption.

You are sticking it to a monstrous bogeyman, even as you use an entirely unethical, toxic company. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

The NYC taxi cartel, in particular, which routinely sees all the consumer-protection parts of its regulations broken with zero consequence, deserves to die.

(By this I don't just mean the part which says the cab isn't allowed to ask you where you're going and refuse you a fare if you're inconvenient, or any petty act of casual racism through which they similarly refuse a fare, or just avoid certain neighbourhoods. I mean that I've had actual coworkers who were actually briefly kidnapped by someone who was driving the taxi illegally with someone else's license, which is utterly routine.)

Uber has all of those problems, but uses their mountain of VC cash to convince you they're exclusive to the taxi industry:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/study-fin...

http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents#kidnapping...

http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents#Imposters

As you point out, a lack of consumer protections and appropriate policing is the cause of these problems. But they're endemic to this sector of the transportation industry, not taxi companies specifically. And Uber opposes these kind of protections anyway, so the idea that they're improving the situation is a joke.

What's the difference between the "bs regulations" like the "taxi union" and other regulations like tax? I'm not saying one is better than the other, but it's hard to appeal to the idea of "BS regulations" without admitting the possibility that VAT is BS.

Popular opinion. Uber are a populist company, political entrepreneurs as much as economic ones. People will call their representatives and show up for events to fight the taxi unions [1]. Few will do the same for tax dodgers.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ubers-bare-knuckle-b...

Or, conversely, that maybe "taxi union" regulations are not BS.

Either way, arbitrarily ignoring laws is not how one should run business in a civilized society.

Regardless of the merits of the suit, taxes are not regulations in the same way taxi union rules are: they are a way to provide the government with revenue. People may disagree about whether government should involve itself in the taxi business, but as long as we have one, we need a way to fund it somehow.

Uber needs roads. Uber does damage to roads. Uber should help pay for the roads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com