My reasoning comes from the amount of cash investors pour money into startups, and startups having insane amount of deals at the very start in order to attract costumers like uber had and airbnb to an extend. After the 1st or 2nd round is where a strong cfo either joins or the VC's involved want to capitalize on what they got so they are trying to squeeze things in and butcher the level of service something provided so they can either IPO or sell for big $.

What am saying is not always the rule but it does apply to a lot of things.

- New currency exchange card coming out amazing rates etc, 3 years down drops down to whatever your bank was going to give you - uber is a cheap taxi alternative you can use by abusing its own staff and investor money, cool 5 years down the line it becomes the same as any other taxi out there and still manages to abuse their staff - airbnb has some nice quality for money accomodation cause they are taking care of the product? fine again few years down the line when it gets streamlined and is getting squeezed for its maximum value they drop their customer support standards etc.

So yes thats it for me, am not going to remain a loyal customer anymore, am going to use your startup and its initial investing deal you are giving me, and am going to jump ship to the 1st startup that is coming out to beat you. Sounds very egoistic, its not though, am just tired of getting treated like a sheep.

P.S not a startup but a company that I very much liked Blizzard is changing face and its getting squeezed out for money from Activision, I feel betrayed so am a bit biased on my views but as my father once said: 'I bought a miele washing machine 25 years ago and it still works like a charm. I bought a brand new Samsung washing machine as a 2nd and broke within 3 years and good luck with warranty, if companies are going to treat me like this from now on, then am going to treat them like that'.

Of course I bought jewelry from the Nazis - it was cheap while it lasted!

Lets be clear about that, using uber is not the same as buying jewelry from war criminals. (hit a vein cause my grandpa was executed by them).

Everyone used uber and keeps using uber no matter what comes into light. Certainty not many of us knew beforehand what uber was doing, and once it was out I think uber tried to cover it quickly by increasing benefits and whatnot for the drivers. So no its not the same and am not enabling any dodgy business or anything, don't misjudge my comment, uber is a multi-billion $ company of course its dodgy as any multi-billion $ company out there.

So no, everyone doesn't.

Uber is built on squeezing safety and security from the drivers of cars for hire and somewhat from the customers. By using Uber you are complicit in this.

The passenger can't pick what driver they get, so who are those reviews helping?

I have a worrying suspicion that it's only so Uber can put pressure on drivers in some way.

Drivers also tend to prefer high starred riders and might reject low star riders.

Frankly, and probably to the detriment of a few ultra libertarians in here; I prefer a government regulator with established processes, a mandate and enforcement for drivers to observe rest times and drive sober and a requirement by law to be properly insured and health - (let alone background-) checked if you drive people around on a commercial basis to a completely arbitrary review system, which is a joke to begin with.

I can't judge Uber, since I never used and never will use it. But just about any other review system is rather unreliable. That 4 1/2* restaurant on trip advisor, which is mediocre at best? All those 5* AirBnb reviews for places where you have to tip-toe around strangers and find a constantly occupied bathroom? This would get a 3 * rating - if you feel generous - if that would be a hotel room.

edit : spellos and slight clarification

In my city, I remember when the news came out that drivers also rate passengers. The quality of passenger behavior skyrocketed.

I think most of the bad views of Uber come from disgruntled drivers and passengers with poor people skills. I know many many drivers and passengers who are happy with the product.

Also, ever since Travis Kalanick left the quality of driver support has tanked badly. It's very difficult to get issues fixed. The level of crippling bureaucracy within Uber is clearly growing. Not sure if that's a coincidence or indicative of his leadership.

That's not to defend Uber's predatory practices, but it's disingenuous to pretend that the service industry hasn't been at the mercy of those they serve. Also there are regulations, including background checks, for drivers? At least for Lyft.

I leave your comment 2 stars, would prefer not to read again.

The problem is that Airbnb stays are similar to airline flight delays - the cost of a problem can result in many times more costs than just the cost of the flight.

The EU has very strict laws - if you booked a flight in good faith, then the airline is responsible for getting you to your destination, paying for your needs (food/housing) until that happens, and pay cash compensation of up to 600 euros.

In my opinion, the government should provide the same type of legislation for short-term stays. If you make a booking, the platform should at least be responsible for housing you for the duration of your stay.

Why couldn't you get travel insurance that could cover accommodation costs and replacement costs due to theft?

If the parties to the transaction are bearing the cost, it's not an externality. It may be a hidden cost, but it's only an externality if it is born by someone outside the voluntary participants in the transaction.

Often enough, the neighbors also bear externalities: noise from guests dragging their heavy roller coffers up and down the stairs and smashing all doorbell buttons in the hope someone opens the door as they locked themselves out, rents rising because it's far more profitable to rent 100€/night/AirBnB than 1000€/month on the open market, ...

At the end of the day, it may still be a good thing for the temporary housing marketplace if people who want certainty (in general or just for the trip) stay in a hotel, and people who are willing to trade certainty for some savings stay in Airbnbs. This would lower demand for hotels, and therefore cost. But this is only an efficient outcome if Airbnb guests understand how the company will leave them high and dry if something goes wrong.

I'm convinced the majority of "unicorns" ignore (or actively dodge) externalities in favor of lucrative profits.

I think most companies develop convenient ethical blind spots where profit motive conflicts with the ethical problem from generating externalities.

AirBnB takes a strong moral stand on "inclusion" as a principle but has a clear blind spot when it comes to consumer, property, and residential externalities. Facebook takes a strong moral stand on free speech, but it has a clear blind spot for privacy and public discourse.

Other companies don't necessarily take moral stands, but they still develop convenient blind spots. Youtube (Google) and ideological polarization in its recommendations, Equifax and its lack of cybersecurity measures, and so on.

I think Facebook expressly does not take a stand for free speech, they've been pretty clear about banning offensive/hateful/sexual content from their platform (to the point of being prudish, e.g. with female nipples).

It does?

Some investors would not be dissuaded by (2), if they are purely looking for financial returns. In fact, if you could make a compelling argument that you're externalizing some of your costs, it could be attractive to financial investors because it would help prove that your business model can be profitable.