True: it's just anti-progress or at least anti-anything-that-doesn't-fit-a-hundred-plus-year-old-notion-of-how-things-should-work.

anti-worker, anti-customer, anti-morals. Let Uber die by a thousand cuts.

Pro-consumer.

Consumers overwhelming support ridesharing because of how cheap it is.

Also, if a consumer doesn't like these service, they are free to use any number of other transportation services.

That is what this fight is about. Letting consumers decide for themselves which services they prefer.

Consumers would support slavery if it was legal, hence labor laws and regulations. Just because you're a tech platform doesn't mean you're a special snowflake.

Consumers may choose from any service that follows regulations set forth by government.

Here's the thing, you can be pro-consumer without being anti-worker. Uber just haven't figured out how to do that.

My comment was less about this specific ruling and more about the trend. In the US, uber was practically illegal just like Europe. The US made it legal (or looked the other way) while Europe (and much of the rest of the world) decided to clamp down on the service with regulations without ever reflecting on whether the laws themselves were beneficial in the first place.

At least in the US, much of the fear mongering over the possible outcomes of Uber drivers not being properly licensed never came to pass.

Note there's all kinds of regulations affecting taxis in Europe: some have clamped down heavily, and others Uber operates totally above the law in.

Do you mean within the law? Evidently they have acted like they are above the law in most jurisdictions until legal rulings have required them to comply.

Uh, yes!

It just depends on how the company deals with it. AirBnB for instance is working with regulators which cannot be said about Uber.