Gp is trying to say that nobody is really "sharing a ride" that they would be driving anyway, as in hitchhiking with compensation. It's virtually all professional drivers going where the client goes exclusively because the client goes there. Hence the term "ridesharing" is misleading. A very successful piece of clever viral marketing, or maybe a fossil of an early strategy.
It's a semantic point, but a valid one. Words matter.
We don’t call them taxis in California because in most California cities they’re different because of:
* no access to red lanes
* only app-based payment
* unique pickup/dropoff locations at airports and other such places
If we called them computer-dispatched taxi we’d confuse that with Flywheel-style stuff which can use red lanes, take cash, and use taxi locations. We could call them Taxi Type 2 but that’s super confusing.
“TNCs” is just an awful name so we use something that sounds intuitive “ridesharing”, since we know that pooling is possible on these services. It’s just a name. No one has proposed an alternative simple enough.
In Transport for London terminology they are called "Private Hire" companies. Separately regulated, you can't flag them down on the street, and no access to taxi lanes.
My impression is that by "the driver going to someplace they have no need of going", they meant "drivers going where the client goes exclusively because the client goes there", contrasting with the hitchhiking-like scenario implied by the word "ridesharing". Possibly, you interpreted that as questioning the client's real need of going?
It's a semantic point, but a valid one. Words matter.