It seems a common way to "disrupt" a market is to find a loophole to call yourself something else so you can avoid all the laws everyone else is beholden to that were put in place for people's protection.
Ubers are consistently safer than taxis, provide better customer service, don't intentionally take long routes to scam you, actually take credit card instead of pretending their credit card reader is broken, don't refuse to drive you because you have luggage or are going a short distance or are living in a bad part of town, etc etc.
It turns out that Uber's rating system is much better for people's protection than whatever laws and background checks taxis are subject to.
After you've arrived at your destination, have you really found any taxi driver who would rather take _no payment_ than a credit card? If all you have is plastic--and if the driver is required to accept that form of payment--then I guess I don't see the problem (for riders). I've had drivers take my credit card # on a carbon copy physical swipe. I've had drivers admit that the card reader actually _did_ work. Unfortunately for them, I've even had drivers accept underpayment in cash because they were legitimately unprepared.
- You are using "scamming" as a binary yes/no behavior, when in fact there is a huge difference between lying about a faulty machine and committing credit card fraud. The most likely reason for the lie (not "scam", that's too strong of a word here) is to avoid the credit processing fee. And that's _if_ they are lying in the first place. There simply isn't much (risk-adjusted) benefit for the driver to escalate that situation into credit fraud.
- The information on a hard-copy swipe is identical to a magnetic swipe and also the information provided to any online merchant (i.e. CC#, name, expiration; not CVV). Why should I be any more worried about this information on a piece of paper vs. the risk of a card skimmer at a gas station? Or a security breach of any one of the multitude of online retails who I have _ever_ shopped with?
- As you stated, the risk goes to the bank, as I am not liable for fraudulent transactions on my card. In fact, there's actually risk going to the driver as well: without an immediate approval, they don't know if I'm handing them a worthless card!
- The implication from your statement seems to be that... you wouldn't pay the driver, who has already rendered services and is capable of accepting valid payment from you. Is that what you mean? If so, that is not OK.
They're different experiences and certainly innovating. Just because they had to overcome legislation to grow does not mean that regulatory subversion is their only benefit.
Regulatory subversion is what gives them the margins to operate, and if a few people get hurt or discriminated against, I'm pretty sure Uber and AirBnB are okay with that trade-off.
Name those precautions and how exactly they relate to safety.
> AirBnB customers have reported heavy amounts of racism and bigotry
Millions of people stay in AirBnBs and the vast majority of them have positive experiences. There's no evidence of rampant racism or bigotry and any host who acted that way would be kicked off the platform.
This continued insistence that Uber and AirBnB are categorically inferior to legacy companies and only profit by skirting (useful) regulations is ridiculous. If taxis were better than Uber, why would anyone ever use Uber?