We were talking about Sidecar, not Uber. SideCar was not huge at any point in its lifecyle. At one point in 2016/2017 it very briefly had the opportunity to become big, but failed the execution.
We were talking about whether critics are going to go hands-off for a company that does it the "right" way (and grant driver's genuine independence) as Sidecar did, when they have a viable example to point to. As best I can tell, no one distinguished Uber from Sidecar when the latter was a legit rival. Example of a typical article that mentioned the three but said nothing about what made Sidecar's case more defensible.
So yes, I'm skeptical that there's anyone out there who would actually follow through and recognize a driver as a contractor even if they had 100% control of who they accepted that platform really were just a matchmaker.
Edit: If nothing else, I think that shows that SC was significant enough to be talked about alongside Uber.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabi...
Raising the question that on-the-job injuries for drivers for the three could bring liability to the platform; no distinction for Sidecar:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/06/workers-co...
So yes, I'm skeptical that there's anyone out there who would actually follow through and recognize a driver as a contractor even if they had 100% control of who they accepted that platform really were just a matchmaker.
Edit: If nothing else, I think that shows that SC was significant enough to be talked about alongside Uber.