>>Had Uber not have done that, the lobbyists for the Taxi industry would have kept the status quo.
Uber has lobbyist now, working to change laws to benefit what they want to do, i.e. no fingerprint background checks for drivers in Austin
see: https://www.curbed.com/2017/5/18/15657684/uber-lyft-austin-t...
From the above article
"nonprofit Texans for Public Justice says the companies has spent more than $2.3 million on an army of 40 lobbyists."
Is it right for Uber to use lobbyists to push for laws that limit background checks?
>>It was Uber, pushing hard, that changed the world, for the better. That's how the world changes, people pushing hard and breaking the rules when they know the rules are wrong.
No, Uber does not care whether rules are right or wrong, does not care about making the world better, it only cares about how things will affect the bottom line, case in point: Uber's behavior in NYC.
We should know by now, that Uber had to make payments for short-changing drivers on pay, companies truly interested in making the world better, don't mistreat their partners see: https://theoutline.com/post/1780/uber-hasnt-changed
In regards to rules, Uber did not pull out of NYC, yet NYC has tougher regulation than Austin. It rarely get’s reported but the only NYC regulation that was changed that helped Uber was allowing drivers to use smartphone apps for ride hailing. The other more expensive regulations remained. Not only do drivers have a relatively expensive background check process, but they also have to pay to register as a driver. All potential drivers are required to take several classes and pass several tests to become professional Taxi drivers. There is literally no legal ride sharing in NYC, all Uber drivers must be professionals.
An important part of Uber strategy is winning NYC, NYC does not need Uber. In the end Uber is like most businesses, it is not about making the world better, it is about making lots of money.