

The Government Is a Hitman: Uber, Tesla and Airbnb Are in Its Crosshairs - aviraldg
http://time.com/31828/the-government-is-a-hitman-uber-tesla-and-airbnb-are-in-its-crosshairs/

======
bsder
I'm really getting tired of this.

Tesla is in a different category from Uber and Airbnb.

Tesla makes a real product, distributes it, and sells it. They are bumping
into old laws that actually make no sense in the modern era. _HOWEVER_ ,
unlike Uber and Airbnb, they are _attempting to comply_ while they get the
laws changed.

Uber and Airbnb are bumping into old laws that make _real sense for consumers_
even now. In the case of taxi laws, they demand that drivers have things like
a commercial drivers license (much harder to get than a standard license),
liability insurance, and some requirement for fair practices.

Uber explicitly ignored all of these and now they are getting bashed for it.
They didn't _have_ to ignore the taxi laws. They could have gotten certified
as a taxi service and overlaid that with effective use of technology. But that
wouldn't be a billion dollar social internet company that they could cash out
--it would be a solidly profitable 50 million dollar company that they would
have to run--and that's not what they wanted. So, now they're getting bashed--
_and they deserve it_.

In the case of Airbnb, lodging rules also have a purpose. They guarantee
things like liability insurance, standards of cleanliness (bedbugs are a real
problem again), and non-discrimination. Airbnb _could_ have complied with
these laws, but, again, chose to ignore them in order to enhance their
profitability. And now they are getting bashed for it. And they deserve it.

The difference is that Tesla attempted to do things itself and comply. Airbnb
and Uber attempt to push the liability onto someone else and flout the law.

I suspect that Airbnb and Uber are actually going to provoke a law that says
that companies also have some liability for their subcontractors. And that's
going to make a mess ... all because a couple of greedy business types wanted
to make a few extra bucks.

~~~
hrkristian
>they demand that drivers have things like a commercial drivers license

Not really relevant, you're essentially saying normal carpooling should
require a commercial licence on the driver's part.

I agree on your sentiments, there are regulations for a _reason_. However,
these apps are simply put P2P with a third party responsible for platform
legitimacy; not the legitimacy of the clients (other than by extension.)

I haven't personally used Uber, mostly because I doubt it's got much traction
in Norway anyway, but if the ranking system is as effective as, say,
ThePirateBay's VIP/Trusted system then what we're having is fear-mongering and
not an actual problem.

As for liability, whatever happened to accepting "at your own risk"? I suppose
it's a problem of perspective for me, being guaranteed not to pay more than an
equivalent of $700 a year no matter how badly my body is mangled.

~~~
bsder
> Not really relevant, you're essentially saying normal carpooling should
> require a commercial licence on the driver's part.

Carpooling is a touch different in that the drivers know one another. It's
also not really run as a business (usually).

> As for liability, whatever happened to accepting "at your own risk"?

It's actually less the liability of client than damage to other cars/property.
Because the drivers are putting in way more miles than their personal policies
would indicate, their risk category is very different from the insurance that
they are buying.

The biggest issue is that, unlike Tesla, Airbnb and Uber have significant
negative externalities that they are foisting off onto other people by
ignoring the laws that are in place.

------
massysett
So Portland has the temerity to block AirBnB in residential neighborhoods?
That's called zoning. I guess the author thinks zoning is a "hitman" and
should be eliminated?

------
mindslight
The Internet might stand a chance if government wasn't been fed vaccines in
the form of centralized faux-disruption web startups that will be quite juicy
targets to control. Conversely, outdated regulations might be something to be
up in arms about if these businesses were actually creating level playing
fields rather than just installing different middlemen to need protection
from.

~~~
bsder
I don't even really mind the different middleman.

I would love to have a cab service that I could call up and keep track of the
cab that's supposed to come get me by gps. I would love to have a cab service
that allows me to move from point A to point B in the suburbs. I would love to
have a cab service that doesn't bitch about taking me from the airport to my
house (because they're not going to have a reverse fare).

Uber or Lyft could have been this and would have had some very staunch
defenders. Creating a useful cab service in the suburbs would have made people
weep for joy.

But they explicitly chose not to be.

And, in fact, Uber and Lyft are leaving behind damage that is going to be
difficult to undo. At least one law being passed targets using GPS services to
coordinate transit of people. _THAT_ law is genuinely anti-competitive because
it's going to block a legitimate competitor--but it's going to get through
because Uber and Lyft are such easy targets by acting like jerks and flouting
the laws.

