Hacker News Reader

Comment by raiyu | Hacker News Reader

Yes and no. Was it operating in a gray area, yes.

However, that gray area wasn't the equivalent of dumping toxic waste into a river to build some product. The gray area was around how taxis were regulated in markets.

As a frequent Uber/Lyft/Taxi user in NYC I can say that the experience for the consumer has been fantastic. I never want to use a taxi again for many reasons.

1. There's very little recourse for lost items 2. You can't get one on-demand (now you can with apps but not before) 3. There's no recourse for having a bad driver or ensuring a good pleasant ride

So while it operated in the gray it was around archaic laws, it wasn't like it was destroying the environment.

View on HN

> gray area

It's not gray; it was black and white. Companies need to follow the law.

> archaic laws

The laws Uber is accused of violating, including their attempts to deceive law enforcement, are not archaic.

> Yes and no. Was it operating in a gray area, yes.

Why is it a grey area? I don't think those laws are good but they exist. I don't believe a company's willingness to ignore laws should give them a competitive advantage because that just creates an incentive to do so.

Also, companies should not be in the business of deciding what laws are okay or not okay to disobey.

> As a frequent Uber/Lyft/Taxi user in NYC I can say that the experience for the consumer has been fantastic.

I like Lyft a lot, but I don't believe the end justifies the means. The proper way to do this would have been to change the laws first and then make the business second.

> proper way to do this would have been to change the laws first and then make the business second.

Unfortunately, businesses tend to heavily influence the creation of the laws that give them an unfair advantage. Businesses get started, they get big, and then use their money to buy lobbying power. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was true in the taxi industry.

I don’t care for laws which exist to favor industry leaders.

> companies should not be in the business of deciding what laws are okay or not okay to disobey.

Why not? We do this everyday as individuals. A company a coherent group of people acting collectively.

Laws are a high-latency side chain of authority, not the Word Of God.

> Why not? We do this everyday as individuals. A company a coherent group of people acting collectively.

Because companies are concerned with profits. Even individuals should not be skirting laws for the sake of profit as that would be immoral.

What about a scenario where a company decides a law about censorship or a gagging order is not okay?

I think there's usually a lot of gray areas with regard to morality.

That's what I'm referring to, if the laws exist but there isn't a specific common good that they are addressing that the new entrant is destroying or hurting, then the laws should be adapted over time. Certainly they could have went the direct route to get the law changed, but as time has shown having power and then getting changes is usually a simpler process.

So they are operating in a gray area but not hurting the common good, so adapting the laws would make sense.

Not the same as producing something toxic as a by product of your product and then releasing that into the environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com