I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s that highly a subjective viewpoint, if you don&#x27;t ignore the social aspects of their business altogether. I do agree that the level of service of Uber (and probably AirBnB) is superior; I may also agree that a lot of regulations they&#x27;re working around should be revisited.<p>But the idea that when you don&#x27;t like a law, you&#x27;re free to ignore it is <i>not</i> something acceptable in a civilized society. There are ways and means to affect the legal situation (and numerous companies in Europe managed to use them successfully when it comes to taxis - so much that on the old continent, Uber is not really an innovative service), but you have to play by the rules. Breaking them should - and usually does - result in you getting fined or imprisoned.<p>Uber is exploiting the high inertia of local government bodies; their strategy is to gain enough popularity fast enough that they can play the local population against lawmakers - not unlike a fast-spreading virus that overwhelms the host before their immune system can mount a defense.<p>What I don&#x27;t want is to see this blatant, unilateral defiance against the law to spread. Today it&#x27;s a taxi company with a silly app and a big marketing budget; tomorrow it will be the next hot e-commerce site that plays fast and loose with customer protection laws; the next week it will be a biotech startup that thinks biosafety regulations are optional and otherwise a nuisance.