If your points are true, then all that really means is that there is a structural, economic incentive to not be structured as a platform and that the old model, of having cab companies with drivers who are employed by that company, is the most naturally efficient structure. That's fine, except for the part where they claim their employees are independent contractors, which would be tax fraud if they didn't try to structure in plausible deniability as best they could. That was the criticism I started with: they want to treat their workers as independent contractors when and to the extent that it benefits to do so, and they want to treat them like employees when it doesn't. "the relationship between driver and platform is structured to ensure a consistent driver and rider experience" - yes, that relationship has a specific name and that name is "employer." Uber and Lyft want to employ drivers to work for them, but want to avoid paying taxes on it. This is a dangerous game they're playing.