| ▲ | allknowingfrog 6 days ago |
| Do we have a term for this phenomenon yet? Airbnb is a great example. Uber is another. Regulatory loopholes are the way that these companies actually make money, but they call it "technology" and everyone kind of shrugs. |
|
| ▲ | wouldbecouldbe 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Airbnb was a bit more then a regulatory loophole, it at least started out as a new way for private homeowners to monetize one of their greatest asset. So it was much more an unused potential that was being tapped in. The regulation that came after has in my personal experience privatized airbnb and now it's hard to find a private renter, when I started using it that was the standard. |
| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Once Airbnb became systemically harmful, regulation followed. Nobody cares about small tech companies breaking the law for a few users. Everyone cares about {insert bad outcome from mass regulatory avoidance}. (Also, of the 3 airbnb founders, one has delusions of being the next Steve Jobs and turning it into an everything app (Chesky), another now works for DOGE (Gebbia), and the last is sucking up to Chinese government data requests (Blecharczyk)... so, yeah, not exactly the sort of folks that should be trusted with light regulation) | | |
| ▲ | wouldbecouldbe 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I know many many friends who were able to survive an expensive city because of it. Cities that are largely messed up due to the governments stupid games with taxes and interest | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think we might have different definitions of things if "survive" and "because of airbnb" can coexist in the same sentence. | |
| ▲ | hiatus 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wonder if those places would be more affordable if there weren't airbnbs. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cvs268 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One term for it is "Regulatory Arbitrage". |
| |
|
| ▲ | runarberg 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In my circles we have been calling it unregulated free market capitalism, or laissez faire capitalism. More examples include Uber to bypass taxi regulation, and generative AI to bypass copyright regulation (as well as consumer protection regulation in both cases as well as labor protections). |
| |
| ▲ | bongodongobob 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How does a user use AI to bypass copyright? | | |
| ▲ | runarberg 5 days ago | parent [-] | | By training models on unauthorized work and allow users to request them back. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43573156 | | |
| ▲ | runarberg 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I need to clarify, parent asked how does a user use AI to bypass copyright. But I answered how an AI company uses AI to bypass copyright. I am under no illusion that if a user of AI requests an image of Indiana Jones and uses it in their art, the rights holders will issue a takedown an would succeed. The AI company that owns the model that generated the model will however not face any consequences, and have therefor successfully have bypassed copyright protections. |
|
| |
| ▲ | umanwizard 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What we're talking about is a much more specific phenomenon than "unregulated free market capitalism". In fact, in an unregulated market, there would be no regulatory arbitrage opportunities, by definition (e.g. Uber would have no reason to exist since taxis would already be unregulated). | | |
| ▲ | runarberg 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The idea of the argument (or more accurately the joke) is that Uber is unregulated free market capitalism. It is what happens to the taxi market if they would lift all regulations. Uber’s whole “innovation” was to find a way to be unregulated while most of their competitors were still regulated. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | taberiand 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | forgotTheLast 6 days ago | parent [-] | | That term has a very specific meaning and I wish people stopped using it to mean "big tech doing something bad" | | |
| ▲ | wazdra 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, doesn't that specific meaning apply here? I mean, the lack of protection for end-users is at first compensated by investment money (low prices and huge effort on support). Once network effect is reached, the unregulated nature of the platform shows, end-users are wronged, only providers profit from the lack of regulation ... Or maybe I don't understand the meaning of enshittification? | | |
| ▲ | stevage 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It means something very different from your definition. | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No. The whole point of enshittification is that it is an intentional process, a bait-and-switch. You get a cool free service, you become dependent on it, and then they start monetizing it and limiting it. | |
| ▲ | verdverm 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My understanding is it is more tied to crafting UX that maximizes profit. Many cases involve both enshittification and regulatory arbitrage (as a peer comment so eloquently put it) | |
| ▲ | elteto 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification |
| |
| ▲ | taberiand 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes I know, which is why I looked up the Wikipedia definition to make sure I was using it correctly. Stripe provides a trusted service to its users, has a great reputation, then implements changes that will degrade that service by avoiding regulations designed to protect the consumer. Adding blockchain is enshittification. |
|
|
