You assume that because something is new that it is better. Hotel and taxi laws were put in place for a reason. Just because a new business comes along and doesn't want to play by the rules doesn't make that business right and the laws wrong.

In a civilization, it's up to the business to enumerate the reasons that the laws should be changed, and then go through the same legislative process as any other business or member of the public to have those laws changed.

Breaking the law and then blaming the law is like a five-year-old throwing a tantrum and expecting adults to feel bad for it.

That reason being to entrench the incumbent players by raising the barrier to competition.

And having laws requiring particular fare structures and payment methods is certainly meant to keep companies from competing with taxis.

What color is the sky in your world?

Should fire safety not apply to all large residential buildings? Why just hotels? Would generally applicable regulation not be better?

> And having laws requiring particular fare structures and payment methods is certainly meant to keep companies from competing with taxis.

At least in part.

Hotels have more strict fire safety laws because of the way they’re constructed and because there are more potential victims in a smaller space.

I will skull fuck a dead pig with a chicken shitting on my face before I ever try to use AirBnB again.

As for Uber. People complain that taxis are all just greedy fuckers who act like pricks to the customers, and then they expect a private company paying less than minimum wage to people will give them a better outcome. Let me know how that works out when Uber stops subsidising all the rides with VC money.