[JoshTriplett]

Depends on your point of view. It's also detrimental to society if every new idea has to prove its viability while following the rules written for (and often purchased by) the previous generation of technology. It'd be a lot easier to get stuck in local maxima that way. Some ideas would never get traction, because getting the rules changed requires power and traction in the first place.

[aaroninsf]

I would submit that this maxim does not well apply to the business model of AirBnB, Lyft, Uber, and the like.

They do not IMO represent an interesting application of technology. Just the profits of exploiting lag time between what is possible, and what is 'burdened' by consumer and labor protections.

I.e.: the industries they have moved into are highly regulated for pretty transparent reasons. Their MO works well until the regulators catch up.

[bpodgursky]

Seriously?

Uber had not proven how much of a quality-of-life improvement it was for users, there is absolutely 0% chance that any city councils would have reformed taxi laws and made explicit exceptions for them, sight-unseen.

They are only BARELY at the point where their critical mass of users can force city governments to give them a legal path (see: de Blasio in NYC), and even that doesn't always work (see: Austin).

[Steltek]

A quality of life built on relabeling employees as "contractors" to avoid paying them a fair wage with appropriate benefits. But yes, the medallion system was also very broken.