I have trouble supporting the viewpoint that these things should’ve been “illegal” in the first place.

The pendulum swings I suppose…

randallsquared 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If they should have been illegal, then we should oppose the actions, or if they shouldn't be, we should oppose the regulatory capture of making them illegal or wrapping them in red tape afterward. No need to agree on which are which to disapprove of the pattern.

▲

danaris 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You don't think banks should have to follow rules about how they safeguard their depositors' money? (PayPal)

You don't think hotels should have to follow rules about how they keep their properties, or require their tenants to follow local ordinances? (AirBnB)

You don't think it should be illegal to be someone's sole employer, have full and total control over their schedule and duties, and yet treat them for legal and tax purposes as if they're a contractor? (Uber, et al)

'Cause if you're the type of person who believes that laws and regulations like these shouldn't exist, you are 100% part of the problem, and you are (much like the rest of us) only able to live the kind of life you do because of the existence of such laws and regulations, so your desire to remove them is just a matter of pulling up the ladder behind yourself writ large.

	▲	zozbot234 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		PayPal is not a bank, AirBnb is not a hotel and plenty of drivers will freely serve rides from Uber, Lyft and a variety of other ride sharing services; they aren't "employees" of any single firm. (Of course they must serve a single ride at a time for sensible policy reasons, but aside from that they're quite free to pick their favorite ones.) These things actually make sense, even though they might not be what you're directly used to.