Even craigslist or ebay or the very first Ford Model T. They break rules because that's the only way to test the waters and see if the public wants the rule broken?
Craigslist seems like a straightforward digital version of what newspapers and community boards were doing for a long time. eBay is just a digital version of an auction house. And the Model T was just a cheaper more widely available car compared to the cars that came before.
None of them seem comparable to AirBnB (subverting hotel regulations by pretending to be something else) or Uber (subverting taxi regulations by pretending to be something else)
ebay used to allow the sale of presription drugs, prescriptions themselves, body parts , animal cadavers , pirated software, and shipping of weapons to restricted global areas.
ebay was also an unreported tax-haven-ish thing for a few early years.
(ebay was great fun to browse around in the mid 90s.)
the production of the model T had some interesting quirks. When production ramped he essentially bought the entire workforce from certain regions and caused all sorts of social issues. He had his employees self-tattle on each other for 'moral standards'.
The model-t itself was also produced off a different patent that was held by someone else and ignored; it was fought for later and won by Ford in 1911.
Because it was the same thing.
Uber started off great but quickly became incredibly expensive thanks to surge time and increased costs.
Private companies running a taxi service (arranged by phone) were widespread in the UK long before Uber, and surely also other places. Why couldn't Uber start there, if the USA was too restrictive?
Further, I don't think Uber started out breaking regulations. Initially you could only hail black limos and which were licensed. They only started offering rides from unlicensed drivers in response to competition from Lyft. Lyft in turn started as a long-distance ride sharing company which is also legal. So the hurdle for either company to move to the UK was even higher. Moving an established company to a less important market seems far fetched
Compare that to Airbnb or Uber whose business model was "Ignore the law" in the very beginning, which is why they got banned in a bunch of places. YouTube's business model was never "Ignore the law" nor was it banned on as a wide scale as Airbnb and Uber.
With Airbnb, there is no way to use the service as a host without violating the law in lots of jurisdictions. The service literally exists to glean some profit off facilitating illegal hotels.
With Tesla, I've no idea if there are laws preventing direct to customer selling, the "land of the free" has a lot of laws preventing freedom.
Ahh, land of the free
I don't know about Netflix.
Craigslist and ebay were "unregulated marketplaces".
You're absolutely correct that YouTube complied with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by implementing a takedown system for copyrighted content. However, YouTube's early operations still faced significant legal challenges and criticism because its platform enabled widespread copyright infringement on a massive scale. secondary liability. Viacom claimed that YouTube was aware of the widespread infringement and benefited from it, which they argued disqualified YouTube from DMCA safe harbor protections.
So I cant use my car to carry out people, without a permission. However, if I do it with uber, I suddenly can!
More than this, I wonder if I can create a company to do taxi bussiness. I will buy 5 car, then rent out 5 more, do taxi bussiness… what makes uber so special, I wonder
How about I go into your house and break the laws around theft? I promise to do good things for society with your property. The ends justify the means, according to your argument.
How do you feel about protesters who carry out acts of civil disobedience, violating laws to draw attention to the issue? Just curious.
Some laws are just, some aren't.
I can even accept exceptions for proportional acts of violence against evil people... But the way you speak is normally used by people trying to perpetrate moderate (a few times even large) acts of violence against large groups of innocent people. So, if that's what you want to know, I normally make exceptions for proportional acts of violence against that last group.