There were two tweets about Uber recently that I found myself disagreeing with somewhat. Paul Graham tweeted

Uber is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it.

And on the same day Chris Sacca (who is an investor in Uber) tweeted

Before Uber came along, I never understood how deeply corrupt so many American cities and politicians are.

What do I not like about them? Equating Uber with the much larger idea of using technology to efficiently connect people who are driving with people who need a ride. 

Yes, Uber is by far the most visible company competing with traditional taxis but it is not the only one. And yes subtlety is not the strength of 140 character expressions (and clearly making the tweets Uber specific made them easier to understand and share).

But it also makes it seem as if there are no legitimate concerns at all about Uber and its specific approach. For instance, as I have written before, Uber presents itself to endusers as a straight up transportation company. That makes the claim that it should be regulated as a technology platform more difficult.

Another legitimate concern is whether Uber is trying to monopolize markets. That concern has some basis in the company’s fundraising, marketing and regulatory tactics. Yes existing taxi medallion systems in many cities are artificially restricted, so having competition from Uber is helpful now but not if it results in a new monopoly.

I have no doubt that many city governments are corrupt to varying degrees and that the taxi lobby tends to represent medallion owners (not drivers or riders). Overall though we are not doing the world a favor if we equate an important idea with a single company. It is also not the basis for a longterm credible dialog with regulators. Instead we should be working towards a position that is pro innovation and will give riders and drivers a competitive choice of platforms.

Disclosure: USV is an investor in Hailo and Sidecar which both compete with Uber.

There were two tweets about Uber recently that I found myself disagreeing with somewhat. Paul Graham tweeted

Uber is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it.

And on the same day Chris Sacca (who is an investor in Uber) tweeted

Before Uber came along, I never understood how deeply corrupt so many American cities and politicians are.

What do I not like about them? Equating Uber with the much larger idea of using technology to efficiently connect people who are driving with people who need a ride. 

Yes, Uber is by far the most visible company competing with traditional taxis but it is not the only one. And yes subtlety is not the strength of 140 character expressions (and clearly making the tweets Uber specific made them easier to understand and share).

But it also makes it seem as if there are no legitimate concerns at all about Uber and its specific approach. For instance, as I have written before, Uber presents itself to endusers as a straight up transportation company. That makes the claim that it should be regulated as a technology platform more difficult.

Another legitimate concern is whether Uber is trying to monopolize markets. That concern has some basis in the company’s fundraising, marketing and regulatory tactics. Yes existing taxi medallion systems in many cities are artificially restricted, so having competition from Uber is helpful now but not if it results in a new monopoly.

I have no doubt that many city governments are corrupt to varying degrees and that the taxi lobby tends to represent medallion owners (not drivers or riders). Overall though we are not doing the world a favor if we equate an important idea with a single company. It is also not the basis for a longterm credible dialog with regulators. Instead we should be working towards a position that is pro innovation and will give riders and drivers a competitive choice of platforms.

Disclosure: USV is an investor in Hailo and Sidecar which both compete with Uber.