> Instead of producing greater socialization that spreads wealth and decision-making, the sharing economy funnels money and control toward the top.

I don't see any difference compared to other industries that employ unskilled workers / rigid resources. These workers are treated everywhere as commodity and just the matter of time when they are replaced with robots.

Agencies, contractors, army, teachers, doctors, escorts are also part of the sharing economy in a more oldschool way where people don't really care about the social value of the money they pay. The difference is whether one is are part of a commodity service or not.

Since when is a company that shows little regard for the law a "good guy." This isn't about not liking smartphones, it is about not liking a company that appears to be doing evil. Uber is not a"sharing" company, nor are they the future. They are simply a taxi company that appears to exploit their customers and employees and skirt the law every where they can.

The fight against Uber reminds me so much of the early aughts where, helped by the efforts of the ufcw (in the same way thos fight is often supported by another group seeking to restrict labor supply via law, taxi companies), there was a popular fight against wal-mart. It experiences the same problem: the company is a canvas upon which many people find they can draw their gripe with how society works, and in a way which will catch headlines for relevance.

Some of these gripes are legitimate, but all gesture to the rest of the crowd denouncing today's symbol of "libertarian evil" to signify that all these folks, and by extension the informed in general, support their particular cause and gripe.

Lots of people think uber represents some social problem, but I would guess for most of them, "lack of socialism" isn't what they had in mind.