Because one can type "Uber" into the HN search box and read all those threads. Look specifically at the angry posts and frequent rants.
What is the recurring theme in all those angry posts?
It is not about people wondering about trust. The nastiness is all about economic unfairness.
"Trust" is orthogonal to "Economics".
The authors essay is not a "solution" to the issues people are actually debating. Also, the specific issue with DiBlasio was congestion and vehicle caps and not "trust".
While the issues of economic unfairness and trust are both important, indeed weighty enough to merit much more substantive discussion, the issue that Nick Grossman is debating in the article is regulatory oversight. The same issue is expanded on in a recent a16z podcast.
The author doesn't need to address all problems at the same time. He's not missing anything just because he doesn't discuss what you and HN want to discuss.
As my other comment to the author states, his essay in isolation is fine.
The mismatch is that his article's content (which is ok) underdelivers on the title which it oversold as "a solution to Uber's problems".
In other words, I'm not asking for his article to solve all of Uber's issues and solve world hunger. I also have no desire to discuss Uber labor. My point is that the article doesn't match the title. A more accurate title could have been, "A solution to let NYC monitor freelance driving services". (Admittedly, that type of title wouldn't attract as many clicks.)
What is the recurring theme in all those angry posts?
It is not about people wondering about trust. The nastiness is all about economic unfairness.
"Trust" is orthogonal to "Economics".
The authors essay is not a "solution" to the issues people are actually debating. Also, the specific issue with DiBlasio was congestion and vehicle caps and not "trust".