I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I think the point is that Uber can do shitty things that should be punished and provide a good service that should be encouraged.
To put it another way, the world I want to live in gives you a fair chance of running a competitive business without having to be mega rich and chummy with the leaders of the countries you operate in.
The idea that Uber is creating slaves that have no agency is the typical elitist arrogance, sitting in their ivory towers, picturing all these poor Uber drivers suffering when it’s simply not the case.
> Uber identified police officers through data mined from the app and then, using an internal tool called “greyball”, served them a fake view of the UberPop app, populated with ghost cars that wouldn’t stop for them. They could also block anyone from booking in certain zones, like around police stations, using a tool called “geofencing”. [1]
Fair enough if you disagree with the court ruling, but they should abide by the law like everyone else.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-f2971465-73d2-4932-...
if you disagree with a court ruling, and then set up intentionally a system to avoid the police detecting you continue your behaviour, you should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. The people who orchestrated that behaviour should have money confiscated from their illegal enrichment, and jail time for purposely working to circumvent a legal order for a court. And if not back then, today.
They broke through all of those unfair laws and now we live in a system that benefits from them breaking the rules for the better. Seriously, you think the taxi monopoly was so much better than now? That’s laughable!
Should the Dutch farmers who are being regulated out of business sit idly by while all their hard work goes to nothing?
Uber chose to break the rules against an illegal taxi monopoly and I’m thrilled they did because otherwise no one would have been able to break it. Because they put their necks out on the line we have a driving service around the world that would never have existed if we didn’t have them pushing the boundaries.
I would, for a large number of reasons, at the basic level no one really agrees what the "world should be" thus your regulations for a utopia would not match mine.
Further government has proven through out history to be very poor at creating the kind of word "we want the live in"
Instead government, the law, "rules and regulations" should be about impartial conflict resolution and protection of natural rights not attempting to create some kind of Utopia that it can never achieve and will make everyone life worse in the attempt