This is a quick read and an interesting argument. Uber arrived in D.C. to some initial resistance, but that resistance quickly dissipated. The authors argue that the company was successfully able to shift the "common sense" of D.C. That shift was both in the sense of "plain wisdom" and everyday habits (taking an Uber and not a taxi or a train became the sensible, practical thing to do) and in the sense of a significant shift in the political terrain - Uber was able to shape what people expected from cities and government. Or, better, it was able to radical reduce those expectations, to convince everyone (politicians, citizens, everyone) that cities are bad at providing basic services and we should just "let Uber do it."

One interesting idea that emerges from the authors' analysis is that Uber succeeds in reducing complicated problems to a simple solution that doesn't actually address the problem, ostensibly solving that more minor/misleading problem, and then considering it all done and dusted. It's not surprising if you follow Silicon Valley discourse. Reduce a problem to one that a computer can solve (even if that computable solution doesn't actually solve the problem), write software, profit.

A solid analysis of the gig economy that goes beyond "mere" critique and gets at some of the bigger complexities. The strong parts of the book are where they interview drivers and find out about how drivers try to resist Uber or game the system. There's also really good stuff about how Uber's model prevents labor organizing by preventing spaces of gathering (spaces for workers to commiserate, organize, plan). A section on the D.C. Airport is especially interesting.