[southerntofu]

Uber is a very bad argument. In many parts of the world, the only reason they're profitable is because they're breaking the law. There has been much debate about it here in France and quite a few scandals, including how Macron when he was ministry of economy (before he became president) counseled and favored Uber to break labor law [1].

The government and courts are currently arguing whether Uber is legally the employer of the drivers [2], but that's not very debatable to be honest given the very clear subordination of drivers to Uber (one of the many criteria for a contractor to be legally reclassified as an employee).

They have taken all the power and benefits, and discarded all of the responsibilities and risks associated with employment. That's a strategy that only pays off through political corruption, and not a clear example that their profits are somehow unavoidable and that investing in Uber 10 years ago was wise.

Otherwise, investing in the mafia's drug trades might also be a lucrative opportunity. Which does not make it moral, nor a safe bet.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62057321

[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/02/02/france-d...

[cassepipe]

While I agree with you I feel your comment is moving the goalpost. The question was whether an new "disrupting" tech solution was going to be a flop or not. I think the question of whether the new thing is or should be legally constrained is yet another (interesting!) question.

[southerntofu]

Correct! My whole point was that whether that's a flip or a flop also depends on the legal environment and whether the law is actually enforced. Which is also applicable to AI and its massive copyright/copyleft violations at scale (whether or not that's legitimate or useful is yet another interesting question).

[Aurornis]

You could subtract out the French market and Uber would still be profitable.

Rebutting anti-tech arguments is hard because there's always another round of whataboutism to move the goalposts a little further.

My argument is that "tech is perfect and completely without fault". I was rebutting the arguments (more accurately, lack of a real argument) in this anti-tech blog post.

[southerntofu]

That blog post was definitely not anti-tech. Maybe you're not familiar with this term. The post was critical of technology from a social/political perspective (with arguments), as were the luddites, but that's not anti-tech.

Anti-tech primitivists [1] exist, though a minority on the political spectrum. I don't agree with your argument, but it may be more convincing without making a strawman of the original blogpost.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism