In every discussion like this I've ever read on HN, the implicit assumption is: all the companies who take advantage of the new regulatory system will be like Uber.<p>Why is that a valid assumption? The Internet is full of sleazy companies utterly undeserving of anyone's trust.
Interesting post, however I have two things to bring up.<p>1) The author works at Union Square Ventures, which has a vested interest in '2.0' regulation. A quick search shows that although it might not be directly related to Uber, it is certainly in the ride-sharing space to the tune of $30 million [0]. I am sorry, but whenever someone (not the author personally, but still...) has that much money on the table, it's hard not to take what they say with a grain of salt.<p>2) What exactly is meant by the "real world"? Just because the Internet is not a thing we can touch or see, that does not make it "not real" and thus things that apply to the real world equally apply to things that are on the Internet and vis a vice (which is a nice point the author does make).<p>In either case, I do agree that something needs to be changed and there is something obviously foul with some of the things I have read recently such as that NYC had has gone from 10,000 to ~13,500 Taxi medallions over the past 30 years, which is just bupkis. Throw that in with the fact that American-born taxi drivers are a rare thing, the average taxi driver makes less than minimum wage and the owners of the medallions make a killing imply something is wrong. Please let me know if you'd like sources for what I just said, I'm sure I read most of this on HN though.<p>[0] <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/24/uber-rival-hailo-reportedly-set-to-close-30m-funding-round-as-it-expands-in-the-u-s/" rel="nofollow">http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/24/uber-rival-hailo-reportedly...</a>
I don't see what this has to do with the Internet. Just because a <i>business</i> uses a web site or app in place of the telephone doesn't imply it needs more or less regulation.