This is hardly something that is for the common man, and has little to do with self-driving cars or automation.
WHAT?! How are the vehicles on this site even close to a limousine? http://uberestimate.com/what-is-uber-black/
Every corporation seeks to maximize profits. They may make investments, but every company expects a positive return on those investments in the long term.
I think we are responsible for our own actions. No one forced this driver to use Uber. Uber and Lyft always had very open relationship in the sense that drivers routinely double dipped in the pool without legal issues. There is absolutely no expectation that the terms under which the drivers are operating are set in stone and they aren't going to change in the future.
You have to look at things within the legal framework. $97k is a lot of money and people sue for much much less. That driver probably had no case at all.
No, but it functions in a society, and shouldn't be under the mistaken belief that it is immune to societal change.
We can all agree that self-driving cars and automation in general are a positive technological development. But what if it results in mass unemployment? It's short sighted to say that Uber only has to seek to maximise profits - it also has an interest in there being a large customer base with money available to use their product. Presumably it would also prefer that those customers are not rioting and trashing vehicles in the street.
This is a mini version of that. Uber has screwed over this driver, and he is justifiably angry about it. "Well, we'd lose market share if we don't do it" is not a winning argument to anyone except other advantaged rich people.