[webmasterraj]

This atrocious bill is yet another example of how the biggest unicorns are facing a kind of challenge they aren't built to solve: the political one.

Until now, the rise and of tech companies has been determined by the double-edged blad of innovation. Someone makes something new that works better, gets big, and then someone else makes something newer and displaces them. Repeat cycle over and over. It's why in tech, we specialize in the art and business of innovation.

What we don't know how to do is navigate murky political waters. We're really, really bad at it. Can you imagine another $10BN company even letting this kind of bill happen, that would kill their largest market if it passed?

Airbnb isn't alone. Uber hired Obama's campaign manager because they realized they're biggest existential threat is a political one too. But see their ongoing lawsuits and outright bans in other countries – they haven't figured how to solve the political question either.

Meanwhile, car companies with a lower market cap, like GM, could figure out how to get a bailout from the government – right after it bailed out another huge industry, banks.

Those guys are just better at it. They have been for a long time. They get things like "don't optimize to something that solves problems. Optimize optics." Or that real deals get done behind closed doors, because you can control what happens there. That by the time it becomes a public debate, you've already lost the game.

We in tech have a disgust for politics. Rightfully so. It's useless at best and harmful more often. It doesn't follow the clear, hard and fast rules that the rest of tech does. But if we don't hold our nose and figure out how to play the game, or better yet, reinvent it, we'll get outplayed on the biggest board of them all.

[JonFish85]

"a kind of challenge they aren't built to solve: the political one."

And yet these are the battles that "technology" companies like Uber and Airbnb had to know were coming. At best, they live in a legal gray area. You can't start a company skirting existing laws and expect politicians to look the other way.

And it's not just politicians that are responsible for this. As a condo owner, I specifically don't want Airbnb to be available in my association. There are reasons that there are laws against leasing and subleasing apartments, and it's not just to screw over startups.

Uber and Airbnb grew to huge valuations on the back of pushing externalities onto others. Airbnb is taking their cut and looking the other way on things like taxes, zoning regulations and such until they are forced to deal with it. Uber pushes similar things off onto their "contractors".

Now the political environment is catching up to them, and it's time to deal with the same legal environment that every other company has to deal with.

[meatysnapper]

Strongly agreed. If you are running an 1) illegal cab company or 2) illegal hotel company, you have to expect this. At a certain scale you are tolerated, but when you are a major player you will get some scrutiny that cannot just be "disrupted" away.

[rayiner]

I think it's a dumb bill. And you're not entirely wrong but I think some of your self-righteousness is misplaced. Politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. They're a manifestation of the interactions between different stakeholders in society.

If you run a $10 billion company that's in the business of housing, one of the most sensitive subjects not just politically but socially, and you don't anticipate pushback, then the problem isn't politics, it's a lack of social awareness. There's nothing murky or unknowable about it: people care deeply about the character of their communities and if that's your business then you've got to get ahead of their concerns before they blame you when changes happen that they don't like.

To ordinary people, disruption is a bad thing. The onus is on the people hoping to profit from disruption to explain to people why change will be for the better. You can't do that if you cultivate a disgust for the political process.

[gaius]

We in tech have a disgust for politics. Rightfully so. It's useless at best and harmful more often

Speak for yourself. Uber and AirBnB's businesses are extracting profits by ignoring the costs of complying with regulation, or by pushing those costs onto others. In an apartment building, probably none of the other residents signed up for the additional wear and tear on the common parts of the building, the noise and the security risk of a hotel suddenly appearing in their building - but they quite literally pay for it, and the "landlord" pockets the difference.

Similarly Uber isn't a tech company, they are just unlicensed minicabs, something that most cities stamped out with good reason.

[JamisonM]

$10BN companies have laws passed that go against their interests all the time, car companies, who have a combined value far in excess of $10BN (particularly when you consider up and down the supply chain) face all sorts of regulatory hurdles. The reason they do is not because of lack of influence but because the thing they do has a significant impact on society. Citing the auto bail out as some sort of triumph of lobbying is silly, practical considerations, the sort of considerations that influence politics and political choices all the time, had a lot more to do with the bailouts in the financial crisis than some out-sized political influence by car companies.

I for one do not have a blanket disgust for politics, I am mature and realistic enough to understand that it is a necessary part of having a functioning government.

[maratd]

> $10BN companies have laws passed that go against their interests all the time

And you don't see them complaining too much about those regulatory hurdles. Because those same hurdles also create a barrier to entry.

It's much easier to overcome a regulatory scheme if you're a $10BN company, than a $10M one.

[pbreit]

The main reason they aren't built to solve it is because they generally just believe that politicians are idiots.