Comment by briandear | Hacker News Reader

Comment by briandear | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

And then we can go back to getting ripped off by taxis. I’ve lost more money in taxi rip offs than I ever spent on Uber.

Other than the sexist nonsense of the CEO, there really is an irrational hatred of Uber. Are many of us secretly moonlighting as cab drivers?

Uber’s nonsense is minuscule compared to generations of taxi corruption.

This isn’t me excusing Uber but it does seem like many people, especially Europeans have an inordinate amount of glee over anytime AirBnB or Uber get in trouble. Has the hacker ethic really devolved into statism?

We should be cheering over disruption of the status quo. Does anyone actually long for the days of getting ripped off by over-regulated and over taxed hotels and taxis?

Do you people actually like having government pick winners and losers? Do you actually trust government to do the right thing? Governments have a strong track record of stifling innovation, abridging freedom and giving regulatory handouts to the privileged classes. People here get all kinds of sanctimonious when it comes to patents and copyrights yet seem to fall firmly on the side of the entrenched incumbents when it comes to things like disrupting hotels and taxis. It’s a weird double standard; a hatred of government when they want to prevent people from stealing movies, but a love of government when they want to prop-up taxis and hotels.

Or maybe it's because people have valid concerns about little things like privacy, ethics, sexism, and the longer term effects of disruption that places more money and power into the hands of companies that are more than willing to overlook whatever regulations they deem are irrelevant.

Having those concerns isn't the same as unfailingly supporting incumbents, out of date regulation or a love of government.

I feel like I've read almost this exact same post from you the last time Uber was in hot water. 'But what about the taxis' isn't a good defence, it's called a tu quoque fallacy and it ignores the existence of other competitors like Lyft and others who would surely fill the market gap if Uber were to disappear.

It's a really crappy and obvious distraction tactic, made worse by the addition of cliched libertarian sighs.

AirBnB might solve the hotel problem, but left unregulated, they would (and did) stress the rental market. Not just in Europe, but also in San Francisco.

> regulatory handouts to the privileged classes

And unregulated AirBnB is basically a way for rich people (privileged classes) to buy apartments in cities and turn them to money-making machines, to the detriment of the lower-incomed renter (lower-incomed because they can only afford to rent, not to buy their own place).

> Do you people actually like having government pick winners and losers

Yes, many many people do.

Most European cities I've been in have way better public transportation than any US city, which makes Uber a much less valuable proposition. On top of that, taxis tend to be more professional, so even as a high-end option uber is less compelling.

taxis are also participating in the social security system : they pay taxes and therefore get social protection. Uber drivers don't get that. So basically Uber is pulling social security standards down. I understand they do fill a niche and they provide good service, but they have to play by the rules (esp. when the rules are here to help people). Now you can always complain that the social security system is not efficient but that's an entirely different debate

There's definitely an element of jealousy about Uber. It's the largest startup, still not public and very selective in hiring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com