[toomuchtodo]

If technological disruption is going to cause mass unemployment regardless, or the shifting of the burden onto "contractors" as Uber likes to refer to them, why should the EU accept it? I'm not sure what leverage SF startups have against nation-states that would prefer the well-being of their citizens over the pure free market "winner takes all" these marketplace startups (Uber, Taskrabbit, Homejoy) are advocating for.

Internet-based disruption? Easy. Physical world disruption using public infrastructure and slave wage labor? Not so much.

[krapp]

I think part of the game plan of that physical world disruption is not actually giving states a choice in the matter.

It's an interesting sort of revolution action -- to merely will a free market into being and ignore the existence of the state until you become big and rich enough to break its back.

[toomuchtodo]

Is "Just take an Uber" going to be the new "Let them eat cake"?

If the NSA can siphon data between Google datacenters, who is Google going to complain to when a government severs their fiber? They don't appear to be doing so well in China, so clearly it can be done.

[krapp]

I remember when the thread about Uber's problems in Germany appeared, several German posters mentioned that they were perfectly satisfied with the existing, regulated system there.

Uber's argument that regulation = 'innovation stifling economic collapse' doesn't always track, not every market is New York or SF and not everyone is willing to accept at-will employment for slave wages with total personal liability.

Still, I think it will be interesting to see how far Uber is willing to push and how hard states are willing to push back.