Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make reference to protecting mass transit as well as to the cost to consumers. These arguments make sense if there are zero externalities, but unfortunately there are: carbon footprint, both directly as well as second order effects from increased congestion, commercial exploitation of subsidized infrastructure, increased collision risk to cyclists and vulnerable road users, abuse of contract law by preventing ind…
Regulation is what made taxis so terrible. We don't need the government to control everything. Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars. If ridesharing is so bad then govt should invest in proper public transport to create more choice, not try and crush a valuable service used by millions.
no, this isn't correct and on its face looks like a straw man, so i'm pretty sure you're arguing in bad faith, but i'll try to give someone of the "market" mindset a market argument.
market zealots tell us that as things become cheaper, people do more of them. subsidizing ride sharing, evading regulations, etc. generally made ride sharing become a cheaper alternative to taxis. as a result, it suddenly became generally affordable for well off people to "ride share" around everywhere as a manner of commuting. this very likely led to more congestion than a world without ride sharing would have.
that some of these well off individuals could have done the same in private cars is not really relevant. ride sharing became so economical that bus riders, pedestrians and cyclists changed their behavior to make use of it. this isn't controversial - there's at least one study from SF that found this; i'm guessing other municipalities have found the same.