Wait. Isn't the "Sharing Economy" a commons?

Not by a long shot. First of all, the major players are all controlled by venture capital, and as far as I can tell, capital is used to gain a return which may or may not align itself with a true peer-to-peer collaborative movement.

An example: Uber drivers must answer to a central authority, do they not? They can be "deactivated," have deductions made from their pay, and may be directed as to their routes. The drivers are responsible for taxes, maintenance, and insurance as mandated by Uber.

Uber spends a lot of money on lobbying at the local, state, and national level, and with a current valuation north of $40 billion, I don't see how this resembles a cooperative venture.

They also seem to throw their weight around in ethically challenged ways. Uber's Abuses

On November 25, 2015, three bankers from Goldman-Sachs left to join Uber. Did they suddenly see the light of the commons, of the cooperating, of the "sharing" economy. Something like that, as in, they can make a lot of money.

Now please note that I am not disputing their service benefit to customers, nor the supplementary or even primary income drivers might earn. I'm only gagging on this "sharing economy" terminology, used to make us feel good about a particular business model as if it should conjure up dancing to the Grateful Dead while tripping on free acid.

Meanwhile, in California, about 15,000 Uber drivers are pushing a class-action lawsuit to force Uber to classify them as employees rather than independent contractors (O’Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 13-cv-03826, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). Uber maintains that it is not a company but a platform. And now I've exhausted my legal knowledge. Curious to see where this will go.