It's not inherently bad. Some regulations are dumb and should be challenged by the market, like Uber and Lyft did to taxi companies and the protectionist regulations that kept them from evolving and improving.

It's less about removing the review or listing and more about looking at the belief system in the business. If a local government says "this space is for permanent residents only" AirBnB would say, "why?" and would rather ignore or fight the regulation than comply (or more likely "take it up with the host, not us").

There are legitimate questions to what terms a government/HOA can force on property owners renting out their residences. From taxation to civil rights and racial equity there's a lot on the table to challenge. That said, companies can be reckless when choosing not deal with the question because it doesn't have an easy answer and grow/scale at ethics' expense.

AirBnB has actually had to deal with this, like removing the ability of hosts to see guest photos before booking because of racial discrimination, and charging the appropriate hospitality taxes on listings to comply with the vast number of of municipalities they operate in.

keep in mind why some of those taxi regulations were created in the first place.

In the not so distance past there was a FLOOD of drivers, few rules and regulations and eventually a "race to the bottom" (too many drivers chasing too few fares).

Then the pendulum of regulation swings TOO FAR in the other direction, creating the "medallion" system where these are worth a small fortune.

A happy medium is where the market self-clears with reasonble regulations to protect both drivers and consumers.

AirBnB is in the same boat. It was a good idea when it was individuals renting out unused rooms for some extra cash. now AirBnB is an unlicensed hotel, where people buy up houses specifically for AirBnB.

There are countless stores of people renting property, and then turning around and putting that on AirBnB.

And strongly agree, some rules are dumb, but the correct approach should be to push for change, not run illegal businesses like AirBnB, Uber, etc.

If i called someone to come get me from "A" and drop me off at "B" how is this "ride sharing" and not a taxi service?

> reasonable regulations to protect both drivers and consumers.

I would rather regulations exist to protect consumers and communities without respect for the business owners/operators' needs. Businesses don't have an inherent right to exist or be profitable and the choice to protect them is one of pragmatism (eg: national defense, airlines, rail).

I think something got lost in my last reply, I don't think companies should flagrantly break laws and feel that governments should take the gloves off more often to slap them with massive penalties for ignoring them. But it's not black and white.

Seems like thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Thesis: too many taxis result in badservice Antithesis: too many restrictions also result in bad service Synthesis: breaking some of the laws results in better service

Now we talk about regulating the gig economy, a horrible thing mostly brought by Uber and airbnb: let's see where it leads us.

The pendulum of regulation will swing too far in the other direction, it ALWAYS does.

Mostly because the government sits around and does nothing until things get really bad, then they institute very strict rules to prevent a repeat.

Had they gotten involved earlier they would have had more flexibility with the regulations.