| I think you're coming at this from the wrong direction. Peers is a lobbying organization for SV companies that are trying to enter long regulated industries with a business model that does not work when regulated. They attempted the "This market needs disruption! We're cool and big government regulation is lame!" message at the beginning, and it was working alright. Then there is backlash after some AirBNB users trashed and robbed a house and an Uber driver in DC was arrested for sexual assault (charges dropped), etc. People are being reminded of why the regulation is there in the first place and that's not going to get those regulations relaxed in the american party politics system. Peers is an alternate strategy emphasizing a positive (sharing is great!) instead of a negative (regulation is bad!) and they appropriated the language and vocabulary of the existing culture/movement/whatever-you-want-to-call-it because it's great language and already tested as having a positive emotional impact on people. The American right gets the anti-regulation angle and the American left gets the "sharing culture" angle now. This guy is taking that appropriation personally, since some of these businesses are not at all compatible with the core tenants of the sub culture he belongs to. I can't blame him for that, he's absolutely right about that part. They are appropriating the language of a movement they are fundamentally at odds with for marketing/political purposes. > I can say with certainty that this article is heavily biased, ignorant of how most nonprofits work, and ignorant of the public policy process It's a personal blog post so of course it's biased, it doesn't pretend not to be, and there are no nonprofit groups involved (although there are a few non-profit groups that have partnered with peers) so throwing around the word "ignorant" when you have got your basic facts backwards is unwarranted. |