athanas

It's somehow symptomatic that two of the eloquent replies below are:

"Some of us think that the similarities Uber has to other tech companies in this area is an indictment of these other companies, not an excuse for Uber."

and

"Uber is not just like every other company. That's seriously some "boys will be boys" type thinking to excuse the messed up behavior of a certain few."

It seems interesting (and characteristic of bellicose group discourse) that either of these arguments, which of course contradict each other perfectly, will do as well as the other. I think you hear each of them about as much. But generally not in the same place and never by the same person.

Think of the Uber controversy as a trial. It may be a trial by press or a trial by Twitter. But it's had real consequences, like a real trial.

You're a judge in this trial. You've heard the prosecution make a very eloquent case. You've been convinced. You've delivered your verdict. And the sentence has been executed.

But wait. Didn't we skip a step? Is there a missing step in this procedure? Perhaps that's a good exercise for the reader.