New App Lets You Rate and Review Actual Human Beings

Imagine all your worst ideas poured into an app and you’ve basically got it.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock / Chaikom

If there is one thing that absolutely no one has been asking for, it is a social media app that lets you rate people as if they were products or restaurants. But a Calgary-based company isn’t letting that major issue get in the way. Instead, it’s developed an app called Peeple, which allows anyone age 21 or over who has your phone number to rate you on a scale from 1 to 5, and to give you a review.

Sounds like just what the Internet needs, right? Another way for people to voice their unfiltered and unsolicited opinions on something — or someone, in this case — just because!

Here’s how this awful, no-good idea, which cofounders Nicole McCullough and Julia Cordray say will launch in November, will work: Users will log into Peeple via Facebook and enter their phone numbers to demonstrate they aren’t bots and to verify their identity. Then, to rate a person, they’ll have to pick a category that defines the nature of their shared relationship: personal, professional or romantic. From there, they can issue a rating and write a review, the way you might on Yelp or Amazon, only about a flesh-and-blood human being.

But wait, there’s more! Even if you don’t sign up for the app, someone else can create a profile for you. According to the Peeple site, “[i]f the person you are searching for is not in the app you can add their name, profile picture, and start their profile by rating them.” All you need is said person’s cell phone number. And once you have a profile in the Peeple app — even one you yourself didn’t create — it’s there for good.

Peeple co-founder Nicole McCullough, speaking to the Calgary Herald, said, “The aim of our platform is to showcase a person’s true character. I came up with this idea over a year and a half ago from wanting to find a good babysitter in my neighborhood. We tend to trust referrals and so we wanted to create a platform that allowed people to refer each other in several different ways.”

“People do so much research when they buy a car or make those kinds of decisions,” co-founder Julia Cordray told the Washington Post. “Why not do the same kind of research on other aspects of your life?”

The short answer is, because people are not cars or objects. Summing a person up on a scale of 1-5 seems irresponsible and overly simplistic, not to mention completely unnecessary. (You want to know what someone’s like? It sounds crazy, but you might try talking to that person.) If, as McCullough suggests, the company was simply interested in creating a means of vetting service providers — e.g., baby sitters — why not build a site like Healthgrades or Rate My Professor, which focus on rating a person in a capacity that it makes sense for a reviewer to comment on, or a potential customer to know? Why would anyone think that essentially inviting any acquaintance — from old lovers to former co-workers you mostly avoided — to weigh in with thoughts on a person is a good idea? Knowing what we know about the Internet, and how people behave online, who wouldn’t see this as a devolutionary step in social media? It’s all just so obviously made to go terribly awry.

What’s more, the Washington Post also notes that, even under the best of circumstances, rating sites and app users exhibit inevitable human biases:

[A]ll rating apps, from Yelp to Rate My Professor, have a demonstrated problem with self-selection. (The only people who leave reviews are the ones who love or hate the subject.) In fact, as repeat studies of Rate My Professor have shown, ratings typically reflect the biases of the reviewer more than they do the actual skills of the teacher: On RMP, professors whom students consider attractive are way more likely to be given high ratings, and men and women are evaluated on totally different traits.

McCullough and Cordray point to Peeple’s terms and conditions, which rule out things like bullying, abuse, hateful content, sexism and more, but I think we’ve all seen how effective that is in practice on any number of sites. Still, there may be one way to avoid the inevitable downsides of this whole thing. Positive ratings will post on a profile the instant they’re submitted, but negative ratings will be withheld for 48 hours while the parties involved attempt to settle the issue. If you aren’t registered for the site, you can’t engage in that process, and your page will therefore only display positive comments. (You can also respond to negative comments, Yelp-style, but I say not registering seems like the best route for everyone.)

Until their launch, McCullough and Cordray are speaking with angel investors and venture capitalists to raise funds. The Post estimates the company is currently valued at $7.6 million.

“Peeple will revolutionize the way an individual is seen in this world through their relationships,” Cordray said to the Calgary Herald. “When social graces are becoming lost to the past, we want to revive this forgotten manner and bring attention to how a person appears to others.”

It’s an ironic statement, considering the app seems to eschew the very social graces Cordray suggests it was created to promote.

The Myth of Trickle Down Innovation

Why is the world working on clickbait instead of going to Mars?

Here’s a tiny proposition: innovation is in danger of becoming a word that means something like making even more instant instant microwavable noodles


On-demand butlers, maids, chaffeurs, dog-walkers. Pet spas. Tap for a drone-delivered artisanally crafted designer taco. Swipe right for a date with a better profile pic. Swipe up for the economy’s next great, earth-shaking innovation…same day delivery of everything you had to wait two days for.

Let’s take a moment to be painfully honest. The above are fripperies, trivialities, a piffling of the human spirit. Let me present you with a list of great endeavors humanity’s boundless ingenuity should be devoted to. Reversing climate change. Curing cancer (and the like). Ending poverty. Fixing the ills of democracy. Giving every child a life-changing education.

So how did we end up with a generation’s brightest minds slaving furiously over the colossal, world-changing idea of…same day delivery? Right you are: largely, because of short-termism, growthism, and “shareholder” (read: hedge-fund bots programmed to earn a penny more profit even during the implosion of the known universe) pressure.

But those exist in the first place because of a great myth. The Myth of Trickle-Down Innovation. I’d bet that you’ve heard it before, often from venture capitalists high-fiving each other in congrulatory blog posts (“aww shucks, Bob. No, you’re the Thomas Edison of the twenty-first century!!”). It goes like this: today’s luxuries are tomorrow’s necessities. What the rich enjoy today, so the poor will enjoy tomorrow. Hey, presto! Innovate!! Rinse, apply, repeat, problem (aka all of humanity’s greatest and most pressing challenges, issues, and dilemmas) solved.

The problem is that the Myth of Trickle Down Innovation isn’t really true. Like all great myths, it hides a greater truth — and symbolizes an article of faith that we ritualistically repeat, mostly to comfort one another that we are moral, just beings. While it’s certainly true that the majority of innovations trickle downwards through the strata of the economy, to the very bedrock, it’s truer that many don’t — and they are often precisely the ones that should; or worse still, that on its voyage through the strata of the economy, what was once the pure, clean water of prosperity gets polluted into something more like toxic sludge.

I just bought a new TV. Wow! It’s the kind of miraculous gadget six year old me could only have dreamt of in his widest-eyed fantasies. It’s huge, paper-thin, and does wondrous things like making everything on it 3-D. Amazing, right? Right. Innovation trickling down to a humble nobody like me. But. If the hidden cost of my new TV is that I don’t enjoy stability, mobility, opportunity, retirement — which should I want? I know, it’s a tough choice.

Here are three more examples, to make my point. Cars. Everyone has one today. But because society invested heavily in a groundbreaking (at the time) set of highways. No highways — less cars. Lesson: innovation doesn’t trickle down in a magical, unstoppable alchemy —even when it does, it often requires help, a gentle nudge, a spark (read: investment, laws, social norms). Food. It’s true that people today enjoy a cornucopia in their local supermarket. But it’s truer that food deserts exist, and much food is riddled with additives and preservatives: sure, innovation trickled down — but the high-fructose-saturated-food-like products many can afford aren’t quite the pure, clean Whole Foods the rich enjoy. Education. If you’re very rich, you can send your kids to a liberal arts school, where they’ll enjoy careful, personalized one-on-one instruction in classes of a few dozen. But if you’re not…well, fear not, innovation’s trickling down. You might enjoy online classes (read: Powerpoint presentations with canned voice-overs) with thousands of other students, with maybe a scratchy Skype connection and a few multiple-choice quizzes to boot. Not quite the same thing, are they? What’s trickling down at the very bottom isn’t the pure, clean water of life at the top of the economic mountain.

Still don’t accept my tiny theory? Here are just a few things that the richest have, that the middle class doesn’t, and probably won’t in the foreseeable future. Wealth managers, private jets, members’ clubs, private islands, property portfolios, designer yachts. Some things are more like caviar than water: they don’t trickle down the economic mountain at all.

The converse is also true. If what’s trickling down from the top of the mountain is champagne, but the people at the bottom are thirsty for water…then you’re probably not innovating in any meaningful sense. We can make all the on-demand masseuses and pet spas and same-day delivered designer sheets in the world — but they’re not going to benefit people as much as high quality jobs, incomes, savings, rights, mobility, opportunity…happiness, meaning, a planet. While some innovations never trickle down, and some turn into sludge along the way — often, innovations that do trickle down are of little benefit in the first place. Doggy butlers trickling down when most Americans can’t afford $400 for an emergency expense is like smiling and giving a person dying of thirst a designer straw to suck air through.

The trickle-down theory of innovation is essentially the discredited ideology of trickle-down economics restated using gadgets instead of formulas. The latter argues that prosperity will trickle down (it hasn’t), and the former suggests that prosperity trickles down through goods magically getting cheaper (instead of turning toxic, pointless, or simply disappearing along the way). But just as trickle-down economics has been squarely debunked, repudiated even by the IMF, for example, so it’s time for us to update our tired, rusting mental models of innovation.

Rather than employing the illogic of trickle-down innovation, you and I should ask a wiser question: what are the long-term real social benefits of this product, service, idea, project? What does it add in human terms — does it make people smarter, fitter, wiser, closer, happier? Will it change anyone’s life, in even a small way, for the better, and how many lives can it realistically change thus — or is it just another coal in the bonfire of the vanities?

Why? Because the truth is that we don’t get too many shots at groundbreaking things — and it’s those shots that come to define the worthiness of our days. If we’re going to spend our time, effort, money, imagination, our best minds and our brightest spirits, on the grand challenge of…delivering stuff we don’t really need with money we don’t really have to impress people we don’t really like to live lives we don’t really want…a few microseconds sooner…we’re not surely not investing our veryselves wisely: spending our brief time on earth accomplishing things that truly matter. And lest you suggest I’m an idealist, the simple fact is: that is how great institutions, leaders, and lives, those that earn our respect, love, and admiration — and so lend our brief days a sense of greater meaning, higher purpose, and abiding worth — are built.

September 2015

Kids Who Use Computers Heavily in School Have Lower Test Scores

In top performing nations, teachers, not students, use technology.

For those of us who worry that Google might be making us stupid, and that, perhaps, technology and education don’t mix well, here’s a new study to confirm that anxiety.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) looked at computer use among 15-year-olds across 31 nations and regions, and found that students who used computers more at school had both lower reading and lower math scores, as measured by PISA or Program for International Student Assessment. The study, published September 15, 2015, was actually conducted back in 2012, when the average student across the world, for example, was using the Internet once a week, doing software drills once a month, and emailing once a month. But the highest-performing students were using computers in the classroom less than that.

“Those that use the Internet every day do the worst,” said Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills, and author of “Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection,” the OECD’s first report to look at the digital skills of students around the world. The study controlled for income and race; between two similar students, the one who used computers more, generally scored worse.*

Home computer use, by contrast, wasn’t as harmful to academic achievement. Many students in many high performing nations reported spending between one to two hours a day on a computer outside of school. Across the 31 nations and regions, the average 15-year-old spent more than two hours a day on the computer. (Compare your country here).

Back in the classroom, however, school systems with more computers tended to be improving less, the study found. Those with fewer computers were seeing larger educational gains, as measured by PISA test score changes between 2009 and 2012.

“That’s pretty sobering for us,” said Schleicher in a press briefing. “We all hope that integrating more and more technology is going to help us enhance learning environments, make learning more interactive, introduce more experiential learning, and give students access to more advanced knowledge. But it doesn’t seem to be working like this.”

Schleicher openly worried that if students end up “cutting and pasting information from Google” into worksheets with “prefabricated” questions, “then they’re not going to learn a lot.”

“There are countless examples of where the appropriate use of technology has had and is having a positive impact on achievement,” said Bruce Friend, the chief operating officer of iNACOL, a U.S.-based advocacy group for increasing the use of technology in education. “We shouldn’t use this report to think that technology doesn’t have a place.”

Friend urges schools in the U.S. and elsewhere to train teachers more in how to use technology, especially in how to analyze real-time performance data from students so that instruction can be modified and tailored to each student.

“Lots of technological investments are not translating into immediate achievement increases. If raising student achievement was as easy as giving every student a device, we would have this solved. It’s not easy,”  Friend added.

In a press briefing on the report, Schleicher noted that many of the the top 10 scoring countries and regions on the PISA test, such as Singapore and Shanghai, China, are cautious about giving computers to students during the school day. But they have sharply increased computer use among teachers. Teachers in Shanghai, Schleicher explained, are expected to upload lesson plans to a database and they are partly evaluated by how much they contribute. In other Asian countries, it is common for teachers to collaborate electronically in writing lessons. And technology is used for video observations of classrooms and feedback. “Maybe that’s something we can learn from,” said Schleicher.

In addition to comparing computer use at schools with academic achievement, the report also released results from a 2012 computerized PISA test that assessed digital skills. U.S. students, it turns out, are much better at “digital reading” than they are at traditional print reading. The U.S. ranked among the group of top performing nations in this category. In math, the U.S. was near the worldwide average on the digital test, whereas it usually ranks below average on the print test.

The digital reading test assesses slightly different skills than the print test. For example, students are presented with a simulated website and asked to answer questions from it. Astonishingly, U.S. students are rather good at remaining on task, clicking strategically and getting back on track after an errant click. By contrast, students in many other nations were more prone to click around aimlessly.

Interestingly, there wasn’t a positive correlation between computer usage at school and performance on the digital tests. Some of the highest scoring nations on the digital tests don’t use computers very much at school.

In the end, 15-year-old students need good comprehension and analysis skills to do well in either the print or the digital worlds. This study leaves me thinking that technology holds a lot of promise, but that it’s hard to implement properly. Yes, maybe there are superstar teachers in Silicon Valley who never get rattled by computer viruses, inspire their students with thrilling lab simulations and connect their classroom with Nobel Prize-winning researchers. But is it realistic to expect the majority of teachers to do that? Is the typical teacher’s attempt to use technology in the classroom so riddled with problems that it’s taking away valuable instructional time that could otherwise be spent teaching how to write a well-structured essay?

Perhaps, it’s best to invest the computer money, into hiring, paying and training good teachers.

* In reading, students who used the computer a little bit did score better than those who never used a computer. But then as computer use increased beyond that little bit, reading performance declined. In math, the highest performing students didn’t use computers at all.

Jill Barshay, a contributing editor, is the founding editor and writer of Education By The Numbers, The Hechinger Report’s blog about education data. Previously she was the New York bureau chief for Marketplace, a national business show on public radio stations.

Disaster capitalism is a permanent state of life for too many Americans

According to the Department of Homeless Services, the number of homeless people in New York City has risen by more than 20,000 over the past five years. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

In the United States, disaster has become our most common mode of life. Proof that our daily existence was something other than a simmering, smoldering disaster has been historically held somewhat at bay by the myth that hard work equals some kind of subsistence living. For the more deluded amongst us, this ‘American dream’ even got us to believe we could be something called ‘middle class’. We were deceived.

For those not yet woke, I don’t see how y’all can stay asleep when story after story proves how screwed we are.

The New York Post, no bastion of bleeding heart liberalism, reported on Monday that “Hundreds of full-time city workers are homeless”. These are people who clean our trash and make our city, the heart of American capitalism, safe and livable, including for those who plunder the globe from Wall Street. These are men and women, living in shelters and out of their cars, who have government jobs – the kind of workers conservatives love to paint as greedy, gluttonous pigs.

When a full time government worker can’t “find four walls and a roof to call his own” in the city he serves, we are living in a perpetual state of disaster capitalism.

Across the country, the San Francisco Chronicle told the tale of the “Tech bus drivers forced to live in cars to make ends meet”. It’s arguable whether living in your car can really be considered “making ends meet”, but what can you expect of a newspaper serving a city where tech is supposed to answer all of our needs. Where housing is even more stupidly expensive than in New York City.

This, too, is perpetual disaster capitalism, creating havoc and inflicting disaster upon individual souls for corporate greed without even needing the pretense of a crisis for an excuse.

In her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein defined “disaster capitalism” as “orchestrated raids on the public sphere in the wake of catastrophic events, combined with the treatment of disasters as exciting marketing opportunities”. She was riffing on neoconservatives using Hurricane Katrina as an excuse for a New Orleans land grab. She witnessed the same phenomenon in the 2004 Asian Tsunami and in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq.

The concept of public plunder after disaster has been embraced in similar linguistic terms by Democrats and Republicans alike. Condoleezza Rice famouslycalled 9/11 an “enormous opportunity”, and indeed it was a profitable one, for war contractors anyway. Similarly, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”. Emanuel was good to his word. While American workers lost their jobs, lost their homes and even took their own lives as a result of the 2008 financial meltdown, the Obama White House instituted financial “reforms” that arrested no Wall Street executives, and left even Forbes predicting “ten reasons why there will be another systematic financial crisis”.

When our daily life is one of a state of chaos – and with hundreds slaughtered by police annually, and folks who work full time unable to stave off homelessness, and white anchors shot on live TV, and black worshippers shot up in church, and incarcerated victims behind bars “taking their own lives” daily, it’s hard to say that it’s not – the continuous state of disaster justifies disaster capitalism continuously, and we’re barely able to notice it, and powerless to stop it.

We live in such an interminable state of disaster, we barely see the locusts for the plague. Take the other major sad story this week: that Silicon Valley investor Martin Shkrelli has bought the drug Daraprim, raising its price 5,000%. No crisis necessitated this increase. The drug is 62 years old, and its initial costs had long ago been absorbed.

It’s easy to be angry at Shkrelli, his smug smile and his greedy choices that may well equal the deaths of those priced out from the malaria, Aids and cancer medicine they need. But Shkrelli is just a tool. He lives in a world where disaster capitalism will reward him. He now says he will make the drug “more affordable,” but the richest nation on earth can’t stop him from deciding what “affordable” will mean. He may repulse us, but he represents our American way of disastrous living. Disaster capitalism no longer just reacts to chaos for profit, or even creates chaos for profit. It creates the conditions by which the spectre of social, spiritual and biological death hang over our heads on a daily basis so oppressively, the crises become seamless.

And it asks us to accept that when you work full time driving workers to the richest corporation in the history of the human race and must live in your car, you should be grateful that you’re “making ends meet”, keep calm and carry on.


Robert Reich: How Silicon Valley Giants Are Destroying U.S. Capitalism

‘Saving Capitalism,’ Reich’s new book calls for sweeping anti-trust actions.

Photo Credit:

Throughout American history, whatever industries have dominated the economy have also had outsized control of the political system—until something shifted and their monopoly power was broken.

“Two centuries ago slaves were among the nation’s most valuable assets, and after the Civil War, perhaps land was,” wrote former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in an excerptin the New York Times from his forthcoming book, Saving Capitalism. “Then factories, machines, railroads and oil transformed America. By the 1920s most working Americans were employees, and the most contested property issue was their freedom to organize into unions.”

Reich’s knows that government and the private sector are not separate entities, but deeply related. He notes the federal government has intervened over the decades to restrain and rebalance capitalism’s excesses. And he says that America is again at one of those moments when the economy is overrun by monopolies—with Silicon Valley’s giants as the top example.

Today, the most valuable asset in America is digitized information pulsing through the portals that Americans tap when sitting at a computer or using a phone, and the underlying infrastructure created by the Internet’s giants: Google, Apple, Facebook, telecoms, cable TV, etc.

“Now information and ideas are the most valuable forms of property,” Reich writes. “The most valuable intellectual properties are platforms so widely used that everyone else has to use them, too. Think of standard operating systems like Microsoft’s Windows or Google’s Android; Google’s search engine; Amazon’s shopping system; and Facebook’s communication network.”

Reich points out that Silicon Valley has a concentration of well-known monopolies. Google runs two-thirds of all Internet searches in the U.S., he notes. Amazon now sells almost half of all new books. Facebook has nearly 1.5 billion global monthly users. This, he said, is “where the money is.”

And just as the biggest slave owners found many ways to keep slavery growing in colonial America and a young nation, so too have high-tech giants convinced the government to keep its regulatory hands off.

“Antitrust laws used to fight this sort of market power,” Reich writes. “In the 1990s, the federal government accused Microsoft of illegally bundling its popular Windows operating system with its Internet Explorer browser to create an industry standard that stifled competition. Microsoft settled the case by agreeing to share its programming interfaces with other companies. But since then Big Tech has been almost immune to serious antitrust scrutiny, even though the largest tech companies have more market power than ever. Maybe that’s because they’ve accumulated so much political power.”

Reich believes the time has already come for the historic regulatory pendulum to start swinging the other way—that is, for the federal government to reign in monopolistic excess.

“As has happened before with other forms of property, the most politically influential owners of the new property are doing their utmost to increase their profits by creating monopolies that must eventually be broken up,” he writes. “Whenever markets become concentrated, consumers end up paying more than they otherwise would, and innovations are squelched. Sure, big platforms let creators showcase and introduce new apps, songs, books, videos and other content. But almost all of the profits go to the platforms’ owners, who have all of the bargaining power.”

Reich points to numerous economic statistics that show that since the late 1970s, “the rate at which new businesses have formed in the United States has slowed markedly.” This is especially true in Silicon Valley, he said, as “Big Tech’s sweeping patents, standard platforms, fleets of lawyers to litigate against potential rivals and armies of lobbyists have created formidable barriers to new entrants.”

Arcane areas of the federal government—such as U.S. Patent Office—helped make this so by assisting giants like Google and Apple acquire near-monopoly control over their respective profit centers. His prescription, of course, is for federal policymakers to reverse course and stand up for the little guy or gal.

“The underlying issue has little to do with whether one prefers the “free market” or government,” he writes, seeking to debunk the notion that these companies exist in a sphere immune from public accountability.

“The real question is how government organizes the market, and who has the most influence over its decisions,” Reich said. “We are now in a new gilded age similar to the first Gilded Age, when the nation’s antitrust laws were enacted. As then, those with great power and resources are making the “free market” function on their behalf. Big Tech — along with the drug, insurance, agriculture and financial giants — dominates both our economy and our politics.”

Reich says the time has come for federal power to break up the 21st centuries newest monopolies for the benefit of the rest of the economy. But it will take clear thinking to see the American economy for what its biggest actors have largely become—modern monopolies.

“Yet as long as we remain obsessed by the debate over the relative merits of the “free market” and “government,” we have little hope of seeing what’s occurring and taking the action that’s needed to make our economy work for the many, not the few.”


Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of “Count My Vote: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting” (AlterNet Books, 2008).

Airbnb And Uber Are Terrible For The Economy

Travis Kalanick Uber Cover Illustration_03

The “sharing economy” – typified by companies like Airbnb or Uber, both of which now have market capitalizations in the billions – is the latest fashion craze among business writers. But in their exuberance over the next big thing, many boosters have overlooked the reality that this new business model is largely based on evading regulations and breaking the law.

For the uninitiated, Airbnb is an internet-based service that allows people to rent out spare rooms to strangers for short stays. Uber is an internet taxi service that allows tens of thousands of people to answer ride requests with their own cars. There are hundreds of other such services that involve the renting or selling of everything from power tools to used suits and wedding dresses.

The good thing about the sharing economy is that it facilitates the use of underutilized resources. There are millions of people with houses or apartments that have rooms sitting empty, and Airbnb allows them to profit from these empty rooms while allowing guests a place to stay at prices that are often far less than those charged by hotels. Uber offers prices that are competitive with standard taxi prices and their drivers are often much quicker and more reliable – and its drivers can drive as much or as little as they like, without making a commitment to standard shifts. Other services allow for items to be used productively that would otherwise be gathering dust.

But the downside of the sharing economy has gotten much less attention. Most cities and states both tax and regulate hotels, and the tourists who stay in hotels are usually an important source of tax revenue (since governments have long recognized that a modest hotel tax is not likely to discourage most visitors nor provoke the ire of constituents). But many of Airbnb’s customers are not paying the taxes required under the law.

Airbnb can also raise issues of safety for its customers and nuisance for hosts’ neighbors. Hotels are regularly inspected to ensure that they are not fire traps and that they don’t pose other risks for visitors. Airbnb hosts face no such inspections – and their neighbors in condo, co-ops or apartment buildings may think they have the right not to be living next door to a hotel (which is one reason that cities have zoning restrictions).

Insofar as Airbnb is allowing people to evade taxes and regulations, the company is not a net plus to the economy and society – it is simply facilitating a bunch of rip-offs. Others in the economy will lose by bearing an additional tax burden or being forced to live next to an apartment unit with a never-ending parade of noisy visitors, just to cite two examples.

The same story may apply with Uber. Uber is currently in disputes with regulators over whether its cars meet the safety and insurance requirements imposed on standard taxis. Also, many cities impose some restrictions on the number of cabs in the hopes of ensuring a minimum level of earnings for drivers, but if Uber and related services (like Lyft) flood the market, they could harm all drivers’ ability to earn even minimum wage.

This downside of the sharing needs to be taken seriously, but that doesn’t mean the current tax and regulatory structure is perfect. Many existing regulations should be changed, as they were originally designed to serve narrow interests and/or have outlived their usefulness. But it doesn’t make sense to essentially exempt entire classes of business from safety regulations or taxes just because they provide their services over the Internet.

Going forward, we need to ensure that the regulatory structure allows for real innovation, but doesn’t make scam-facilitators into billionaires. For example, rooms rented under Airbnb should be subject to the same taxes as hotels and motels pay. Uber drivers and cars should have to meet the same standards and carry the same level of insurance as commercial taxi fleets.

If these services are still viable when operating on a level playing field they will be providing real value to the economy. As it stands, they are hugely rewarding a small number of people for finding a creative way to cheat the system.

This article originally appeared on







By Staff SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

The annual festival Burning Man is over and, as always, it was pretty insane. It’s hard to imagine everything the festival has to offer if you’ve never been, but try to imagine what would happen if the characters from The Maze Runner were dropped off in the middle of it. Well, Quiznos did and in addition to a hilarious video, it created one of the best critiques of Burning Man we’ve ever seen.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,700 other followers