waves smartphone "Uber is not a taxi service." -"Uber isn't a taxi service"
waves smartphone "There is no need to regulate us as a taxi service." -"There's no need to regulate them like a taxi service."
waves smartphone "Uber drivers are not employees." -"These drivers are not employees."
At least for government, that wasn't a smartphone he was waving. It was a stack of something with drawings of U.S. Presidents on it, sort of greenish.
> waving a smartphone in the face ... the public was the next best thing to a Jedi mind trick.
In that case, the smartphones were the ones in the public's hands: Uber ran an effective media campaign, including paid-for editorials in major newspapers (and I'm guessing elsewhere) about how great it is to be an Uber driver, and, AFAICT, astroturfing in online forums and social media. Uber was a darling of the business world, a paragon of SV and American innovation. Not so long ago, you couldn't say anything negative about Uber on HN without being voted down to oblivion, and the talking points were repeated in every discussion.
My question is: Why do we need separate this two "faces"? And if we need, even when they want the same thing, should we have both?