[mschuster91]

I think the problem with VC that GP means is more a systemic one - it's not specific or even applicable to Figma, but for other large VC projects.

It's fine if a company like Figma takes VC to build a good product that fills a niche that hasn't been explored before and uses the VC to grow and eventually exit to the general public market so that the investors get their return.

It's not fine if larger companies like Adobe can simply swoop in and pay billions to get rid of a competitor, although that one should be dealt with by anti-trust agencies anyway.

It's not fine if a company like Uber uses cheap VC money to price-dump against essential services - and yes, taxis are essential for those without a car, and the anti-discrimination frameworks make sure that access to them is fairly available to everyone, no matter why they would need a taxi for. Uber, in contrast, routinely got associated with everything from wage dumping over racism [1] to extorting people with excessive surge charges [2].

It's not fine if a company like AirBnB uses cheap VC money to wreak havoc on local rental markets [3][4] or to run effectively hotel-like operations in residential zones, while conveniently ignoring things such as fire codes [5], neighbors' quality of life [6], taxes [7] or that people (both guests and hosts) were and are randomly banned for "background checks" [8][9], a return of ages-old banned housing discrimination.

Society definitely needs a hard regulation on anything where VC is involved.

[1] https://venturebeat.com/ai/researchers-find-racial-discrimin...

[2] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/...

[3] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/ferienwohnungen-stehen-le...

[4] https://travelnoire.com/the-airbnb-effect-on-an-already-high...

[5] https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-medi...

[6] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/living-next-to-airbnb-sharin...

[7] https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/airbnb-...

[8] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/201...

[9] https://www.airbnbhell.com/banned-from-airbnb-over-backgroun...

[scarface74]

Those taxi companies that are their “for the poor” routinely wouldn’t go into “poor” neighborhoods or pick minorities up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/23/...

If a company could bootstrap their company and grow organically, they wouldn’t need VC funding. By definition any company that is using VC funding is pricing their product less than it takes to make it - ie “price dumping”.

There are already laws about zoning that should keep AirBnB in check. I’m doing the digital nomad thing starting next year. I am specifically avoiding AirBnbs and staying in hotels - mostly mid range extended stays.

[mschuster91]

> Those taxi companies that are their “for the poor” routinely wouldn’t go into “poor” neighborhoods or pick minorities up.

There's no reason to replace an already poor service with one that's even worse and requires a smartphone and a bank account, which adds a further layer of discrimination as about 5% of US households don't even have a bank account, much less a credit card, and 24-13% of poorer classes don't have a smartphone [2].

In contrast, a taxi can (at least by law) be used by anyone with cash, and the data about your travel is not available for police or anyone else to abuse [3].

> By definition any company that is using VC funding is pricing their product less than it takes to make it - ie “price dumping”.

IMO, there's a difference between using VC money to provide funds for growth (aka, a high-risk loan) and using VC money to intentionally provide a service at below-cost - five euros for half a hour taxi ride is not sustainable, it won't even pay for the working time of the driver.

> There are already laws about zoning that should keep AirBnB in check.

Yes, now after years and years of issues and complaints. AirBnB could only grow as large as it did by following the "better ask for forgiveness than permission" lifestyle and blatantly breaking all kinds of laws.

[1] https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/22/digital-div...

[3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbqq7y/is-uber-doing-enough-...

[scarface74]

Cell phone penetration in the US is above 85%. Cell phone penetration has been higher in developing countries for years.

At least I as a minority don’t have to worry about a taxi cab bypassing me when I take an Uber.

Taxi companies have been breaking laws for decades against discrimination and don’t get me started about the government monopoly in regards to the medallion system in major cities.

[mschuster91]

> Cell phone penetration in the US is above 85%. Cell phone penetration has been higher in developing countries for years.

Taxis should be available for everyone, not just the 85% that own a smartphone and don't end up banned by the app out of random [1].

That existing taxi companies don't follow up to the regulations is a different problem (and one where the government definitely has to step up), but Uber and friends aren't even required to follow the same rules, that is the whole point of why these kind of services are so dangerous for society!

[1] https://www.johnnyjet.com/got-banned-uber-fix-problem/

[scarface74]

Taxis aren’t available “to everyone” they don’t go into “dangerous neighborhoods” or pick up minorities

[mschuster91]

To repeat myself in a bit more detail: by law and regulations they are available to everyone. Non-discrimination is a criteria in almost all medallion / license contracts, not to mention certain laws (e.g. the ADA [1]).

These laws and regulations are, I admit that, often sparsely enforced and most people don't complain anyway, which makes the problem worse as it isn't quantified and shows up on the statistics that politicians and activist groups use either. A lack of data is the single biggest issue in fighting discrimination!

The solution however is not to promote apps like Uber, to which taxicab regulations do not apply at all (or severely restricted) and which just a few weeks ago entered a multi-million dollar settlement for over 65.000 cases of discrimination because they violated the one law that actually is enforced [2].

[1] search for "taxi" on https://www.ada.gov/enforce_current.htm

[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/uber-commits-changes-and-pays...