[xyzzyz]

> Blatantly illegal business practices and general sociopathy of the former,

Trust, morality and legality are not the same thing. Sure, Uber was operating illegally in many places, but millions of people used these illegal services and saw nothing wrong with it. They didn’t see using an unlicensed cab company as anything bad.

Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it morally wrong, or socially destructive. There have been plenty of cases where it’s the laws that are morally wrong and socially destructive. If you want to argue that Uber destroyed trust, you can’t simply say it broke the law and call it a day, you need also to argue that the law they broke was good and desirable.

So, what was the evil and socially destructive thing that Uber actually did?

[TeMPOraL]

> Trust, morality and legality are not the same thing. Sure, Uber was operating illegally in many places, but millions of people used these illegal services and saw nothing wrong with it. They didn’t see using an unlicensed cab company as anything bad.

People baited into purchasing new cars and screwed over car insurance sure did. But more importantly, everyone saw that the legal system in cities around the world isn't powerful enough to deal with direct offense. We saw you can build a multi-billion dollar megacorp not on just regulatory arbitrage, but plainly illegal business - and nobody got hold accountable (except for an off driver caught without proper insurance). All of this fundamentally erodes the trust in the rule of law - the trust on which modern society stands.

> Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it morally wrong

It doesn't, but it was illegal and greedy and exploitative, and dragged people into gig economy which arguably is itself morally questionable.

> If you want to argue that Uber destroyed trust, you can’t simply say it broke the law and call it a day, you need also to argue that the law they broke was good and desirable.

Taxi laws differ by the city. "Taxi mafia" was mostly a phenomenon of some places in the US; in many cities, taxis worked just well. Uber violated law almost everywhere they got, without any care for whether the law was useful or justifiable. It wasn't some act of civil disobedience - they did it for pure profit, to undercut competition and dominate the local markets they entered.

> So, what was the evil and socially destructive thing that Uber actually did?

Now, that's actually a topic much bigger than what I outlined above. The mischief of Uber's sociopathic management has been well publicized and well documented over the past 5+ years. It was a recurring topic on HN for a long time, too. I suggest starting with these two links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber#Criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber#Controversies

(Though they do seem to downplay the insurance issues and threats against journalists.)

[xyzzyz]

> But more importantly, everyone saw that the legal system in cities around the world isn't powerful enough to deal with direct offense. We saw you can build a multi-billion dollar megacorp not on just regulatory arbitrage, but plainly illegal business - and nobody got hold accountable (except for an off driver caught without proper insurance). All of this fundamentally erodes the trust in the rule of law - the trust on which modern society stands.

It's not that it wasn't powerful enough. The governments could fight Uber just fine, and they in fact did in many places. What actually happened was instead the government in most places have figured that the customers liked the illegal service so much, that if they do fight it, they will actually reduce, instead of increasing their legitimacy. Imagine the government tomorrow decides to ban shaking hands. Would prosecuting the hand-shakers increase the trust in government and its legitimacy? No: people would rightly conclude that it's the government that's wrong, and it doesn't deserve trust or charity here. This is the case with many aspects of the regulatory state: its legitimacy depends on people being unaware of how crippling and authoritarian it is in many situations. Making stupid laws and keeping people unaware of their stupidity is no way to build trust.

> It doesn't, but it was illegal and greedy and exploitative, and dragged people into gig economy which arguably is itself morally questionable.

Taxis have always been "gig economy". Even before Uber, few taxi drivers were salaried employees. Most of them were independent operators, or working on commission.

> Taxi laws differ by the city. "Taxi mafia" was mostly a phenomenon of some places in the US; in many cities, taxis worked just well.

Which cities were these? In every city I am aware off, on both sides of the pond, traditional taxis have not been able to compete very well with Uber. Sure, in some places the taxis were less bad than in others, but almost everywhere they were overpriced and untrustworthy. Have you tried paying with card in a taxi in Poland before Uber came up? Somehow, despite MasterCard sticker on the window, the payment terminal always happened to be broken... Also, try taking a non-Uber cab from the airport in Warsaw or Krakow.

[TeMPOraL]

> What actually happened was instead the government in most places have figured that the customers liked the illegal service so much, that if they do fight it, they will actually reduce, instead of increasing their legitimacy.

I don't think it's that, unless you think the dissatisfaction expressed by officials is just posturing. I believe that it's just because bureaucracy moves slowly - and the core of Uber's strategy was to corner the market and gain sympathy of the riders before local regulators could gear up - at which point they'd be fighting their own citizen. Basically, pitting people against their local governments.

> Imagine the government tomorrow decides to ban shaking hands. Would prosecuting the hand-shakers increase the trust in government and its legitimacy? No: people would rightly conclude that it's the government that's wrong, and it doesn't deserve trust or charity here.

I get your example and it's a fair point - but I must say we generally did just that in 2020 with COVID restrictions :). That itself initially impacted the trust positively, but I guess it's easier to imagine the threat of a pandemic than a threat of an underpaid and uninsured driver operating an illegal cab having an accident.

> In every city I am aware off, on both sides of the pond, traditional taxis have not been able to compete very well with Uber. Sure, in some places the taxis were less bad than in others, but almost everywhere they were overpriced and untrustworthy.

I'm not saying they weren't in need of some competitive pressure, but generally, taxis weren't able to compete very well with Uber because it's really hard to compete with an international corporation that just ignores the law, while subsidizing its offerings from practically infinite VC budget. Whether the existing taxi services in any given city were good or bad or in between, it didn't matter - they didn't stand a chance.

> Have you tried paying with card in a taxi in Poland before Uber came up? Somehow, despite MasterCard sticker on the window, the payment terminal always happened to be broken... Also, try taking a non-Uber cab from the airport in Warsaw or Krakow.

I am from Kraków, I was born there, and I moved out only ~3 years ago. I've been riding taxis ever since childhood. From my perspective, network taxis weren't all that bad (it was common knowledge you don't use the "entrepreneurs" that park outside airports and railway stations, you probably even remember a TV show that revealed how they scam you if they think you're a tourist). Uber itself didn't introduce anything substantial over what iCar did a decade before. And while iCar was also playing a bit loose with the regulations, and there were some conflict with the local taxi networks (I recall articles about some tire slashing), they've ultimately managed to settle it through courts and iCar could deliver its value proposition completely legally. Uber didn't even bother.

[xyzzyz]

> I don't think it's that, unless you think the dissatisfaction expressed by officials is just posturing. I believe that it's just because bureaucracy moves slowly - and the core of Uber's strategy was to corner the market and gain sympathy of the riders before local regulators could gear up - at which point they'd be fighting their own citizen. Basically, pitting people against their local governments.

And what's the problem with that? The government is meant to serve people, not to rule over them. If the governments can't push their power, because the people will hate it and won't allow it, that's good: that's why we have representative democracy in the first place. If one can improve the lives of the people and make them happier by subverting the law, this is really damning for the government.

> That itself initially impacted the trust positively

Yes, and then people saw the government restrictions mostly for what they were: a safety theater.

> but I guess it's easier to imagine the threat of a pandemic than a threat of an underpaid and uninsured driver operating an illegal cab having an accident.

I don't think that risk of car accident is something so completely foreign that people entering a cab don't know what they are getting into. More importantly, even if you grant the government the authority to take away people's freedom to do things the government considers too risky, purely out of paternalism, the fact is that the government had no reason whatsoever to believe that Uber cabs are less safe: if you want to argue that the government is better informed about the risks of riding a regular cab vs. Uber than a regular person, it had better actually be better informed.

> I'm not saying they weren't in need of some competitive pressure, but generally, taxis weren't able to compete very well with Uber because it's really hard to compete with an international corporation that just ignores the law,

If the law is so onerous, and Uber violating it results in its repeal (or at least ceasing enforcement), then instead of complaining, the taxi companies should rejoice, and thank Uber for the great service it provided.

This is of course ridiculous, because the reason traditional taxi companies are unhappy about Uber breaking the laws precisely because the laws help protect their business and extract rent at the expense of the consumers. Fighting against rent-seekers is a good thing, and rent-seeking is another reason why not all laws governments pass are good, and why it's not always morally wrong to violate them.

> while subsidizing its offerings from practically infinite VC budget. Whether the existing taxi services in any given city were good or bad or in between, it didn't matter - they didn't stand a chance.

Weren't you just a moment ago saying that the drivers were "underpaid"? If it ain't the drivers who are subsidized, then who is, exactly?

> From my perspective, network taxis weren't all that bad (it was common knowledge you don't use the "entrepreneurs" that park outside airports and railway stations, you probably even remember a TV show that revealed how they scam you if they think you're a tourist).

They were expensive, they didn't always arrive when called, you had to always be on the lookout to not be scammed, the vehicles were old, often dirty, the drivers were rude, the payment was cash only, and many more. I remember that, and Uber was improvement on every single metric. Cabs are much better now, precisely because Uber forces them to behave better or die.

> Uber itself didn't introduce anything substantial over what iCar did a decade before.

If so, how did Uber gain any foothold at all? If it's all VC subsidies, they'll run out, and in the meantime, the customers keep benefitting from subsidized rides.

[TeMPOraL]

> If one can improve the lives of the people and make them happier by subverting the law, this is really damning for the government.

People run to below-costs services like cats to catnip. You can make anyone happy by selling them $10 bills for $1. The problem is, what happens when all the competitors are gone, and the reason for below-cost offering ends?

> More importantly, even if you grant the government the authority to take away people's freedom to do things the government considers too risky, purely out of paternalism, the fact is that the government had no reason whatsoever to believe that Uber cabs are less safe

Of course they had, and we grant such authorities all the time. There's a special type of insurance covering commercial transport of people, it's illegal to engage in commercial transport of people without such insurance (and for good reason, if accident happens, then both the driver and the passengers are screwed); the problem, in Uber's case, was too little enforcement, and Uber shielding itself behind "independent contractor" veil and pretending they didn't encourage it.

> the reason traditional taxi companies are unhappy about Uber breaking the laws precisely because the laws help protect their business and extract rent at the expense of the consumers

These laws didn't came out of the blue and weren't just instances of random regulatory capture. The laws creating barriers to entry and (in some places) granting taxi companies limited monopoly are the flip side of the legal requirements that come with the taxi service being treated as a part of public transport infrastructure. Things like the legal requirement for taking passengers in unprofitable locations, or having cars in the fleet adapted for the needs of people with limited mobility. Things Uber did not do, because it didn't have to (and couldn't, really, with their "just a platform" business setup). Instead, Uber offered subsidized rides for able-bodied people in city centres, and no rides at all for elderly or disabled or people living further away.

> Weren't you just a moment ago saying that the drivers were "underpaid"? If it ain't the drivers who are subsidized, then who is, exactly?

The rides were. The prices you paid for a ride were sometimes less than the driver would get from Uber, but Uber wasn't going to pay the drivers more than they needed to (at least not until some follow-up competition came).

> If it's all VC subsidies, they'll run out

That's why Uber is betting so hard on self-driving. They've been operating on a loss for many years now, and they know they can't sustain it.

> and in the meantime, the customers keep benefitting from subsidized rides.

The meantime always ends, eventually. Leaving behind a thoroughly destroyed market. C.f. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/