This is a valid argument for an entrenched monopoly, but DoorDash already has lots of big, powerful competitors (e.g. Uber). Are you suggesting they’re all involved in a price-fixing racket?
That’s possible, of course, but I don’t think it’s the most plausible hypothesis without more evidence.
This presumes that "as long as technically legal, what they're doing is fine" and I don't subscribe to that necessarily -- I think they can, and are, screwing people legally -- in fact, we've heard all the weird stories about price frontrunning, etc. I'd add Uber to the list of bad guys too. Screw 'em all.
I don't care about legality, I care about fairness and obvious first principle things. Namely: everyone here knows it would be extremely cheap and easy to build a local uber/doordash whatever competitor. Lots of off the shelf software to do so.
I don't believe those companies deserve that money for doing relatively little work, especially today. This is generally in tune even with the principles of intellectual property, namely a temporary advantage.
No need anymore. Like a lot of services, local would be better.
That’s possible, of course, but I don’t think it’s the most plausible hypothesis without more evidence.