[cmhnn]

Some of my favorite themes here.

1) People asserting that the court was right or wrong followed by some "argument". The court simply ruled. Anything beyond that is the same as people who use statistics to provide "evidence" about their preconceived notions.

2) Examples that mean one thing to someone and something else to another but both sides claim right or wrong. See 1. For fun, I'll do an example but not claim it proves something. Most well known professional wrestlers work for a tyrant. Until very recently when another billionare entered the game they didn't have a lot of choices. Just like uber drivers they are mostly told what to do and even have sold their real names. They can also be seriously injured and die just like uber drivers. They also are "independent" contractors. Despite those odds, some did leave and became well known outside of that tyrant's world and are now getting richer than ever before...Would any of the events above including the new billionare deciding they could compete by picking up those independent minded wrestlers ever have happened if they were employees all along?

3)Portrayal of evil corps and the downtrodden who are forced to serve them as stereotypical "underclass" victims. If you are in Redmond soon and you take an Uber don't be surprised if you are being driven around by a PM who is getting out of the house or trying to get an extra edge against the high cost of living there.

My personal feeling here is I do not care either way. What I care about is from the consumer standpoint that Uber is accountable. My primary dislike of Uber, Airbnb, Vroom or similar enterprises is that they all claim to be of one stripe when things are going well but when things go wrong the company claims "Oh that's not us it is this entity we represented as part of the process but who we disclaim any responsibility for". As others have pointed out all the major tech companies use contractors. I don't know of any that would get away with the "oh that's not really us" defense.