Which is enabled by VC funding, which IMO makes them complicit on a systemic level. It's arguable whether you can blame a particular investor for Uber's thoroughly rotten and antisocial business model - but once you see more of such startups getting funded left and right, it's fair to ask the question, "why such business model is even a possible option".

I don't agree that Uber's business model is fundamentally "rotten and antisocial". Short range point to point transport (cabs) was awful before Uber and Lyft. The rides are easier to get, the drivers are less likely to screw you over, and you know in advance just how much things will cost.

I'm glad they took on a legal gray area because cabs had completely used regulatory capture to get away with being a terrible service to the public.

I'm talking about the "it's better to force forgiveness than ask for permission" part, and they weren't in grey area - in a lot of places, they were doing plainly illegal business. I'm talking about their business model of "let's do illegal business and use deep pockets to keep regulators at bay, until we get enough public support to make ourselves invulnerable". Also known as totally unfair competition. I'm also talking about insurance and worker rights shenanigans, and a host of other sociopathic behaviors their management exhibited (all reported on in detail over the past years).

On top of that, cabs were awful in some cities in some places around the world. They worked well enough in others. Over here (Kraków area, Poland), we had private point-to-point transport companies that managed to change the law through a proper court process, like civilized people do.

>rotten and antisocial business model

What's rotten and antisocial about providing cheap, reliable transportation ?

It's about how it's being provided. The history of Uber's sociopathic and often outright illegal behavior is long and well-documented.

Key to their strategy was actually providing the public with something most people actually wanted, regardless of legality. Very few lawmakers want to aggressively go against public sentiment just because the law says they should.

> Key to their strategy was actually providing the public with something most people actually wanted

The people who want the service are not necessarily the same as the people who are affected by the externalities of the service.

Everyone loves having AirBnb available to expand selection in NYC when they visit, but how many New Yorkers who aren’t AirBnb hosts love having tons of short term rentals in their building?

I agree that people didn't really understand what they were getting into fully when they initially agitated for it, but it's definitely the case that there was broad initial public support which is what allowed the companies to get a foothold.