Uber's side of that story is that the local laws created unjust monopolies with uncompetitive pricing and poor service. For the most part, at least in the US, they weren't wrong.
Airbnb is also based on skirting regulations and has not been the subject of the kinds of complaints of misconduct from users, service providers and employees that Uber has. This suggests to be that the problem is specific to Uber rather than being inherent to companies that use new business models that don't fit into existing regulatory frameworks.
I'm sure gun runners tell themselves they're just helping innocent people protect themselves. If your basing your company on the idea that it's is above the law then I guess you have to ask where's the line. What laws do you follow and which ones do you ignore. to me it seems like a slippery slope.
There are actually terms in law for drawing such a distinction: malum prohibitum and malum in se.
Malum prohibitum means "bad because forbidden". It includes most regulatory law, requirements to have licences to do things, drug prohibition, etc.... Some of these prohibitions are probably necessary to have a society people actually want to live in, but many are more debatable and some actively make society worse. Prohibited conduct varies greatly between jurisdictions.
Malum in se means "bad in itself". It concerns directly causing harm to others. While some edge cases vary, almost every legal jurisdiction has general prohibitions on murder, rape, theft, fraud and such.
I'm not aware of any significant controversies in which Airbnb has been accused of the latter, nor Lyft. I think most people can tell the difference between skirting regulations that many people honestly believe don't serve the public interest and tolerating sexual harassment or deceiving contractors.
If anything, that reinforces my point: a business model based on this type of disruption does not seem to imply bad behavior in other aspects of its operation.
