[morgante]

If that were true, I would expect the experience of using Uber to be identical to using a taxi, or for AirBnBs to be identical to hotels.

They're different experiences and certainly innovating. Just because they had to overcome legislation to grow does not mean that regulatory subversion is their only benefit.

[ocdtrekkie]

Uber lacks the safety precautions taxis do, and they're leaving cities who mandate the level of accountability taxi companies have. AirBnB customers have reported heavy amounts of racism and bigotry, things that wouldn't fly very far very fast in the hotel industry.

Regulatory subversion is what gives them the margins to operate, and if a few people get hurt or discriminated against, I'm pretty sure Uber and AirBnB are okay with that trade-off.

[morgante]

> Uber lacks the safety precautions taxis do,

Name those precautions and how exactly they relate to safety.

> AirBnB customers have reported heavy amounts of racism and bigotry

Millions of people stay in AirBnBs and the vast majority of them have positive experiences. There's no evidence of rampant racism or bigotry and any host who acted that way would be kicked off the platform.

This continued insistence that Uber and AirBnB are categorically inferior to legacy companies and only profit by skirting (useful) regulations is ridiculous. If taxis were better than Uber, why would anyone ever use Uber?