The implication seemed to be that it was somehow unreasonable to either see big tech as evil (which imo it often is) and suggested that they were somehow less politically influential or protected than local taxi businesses.
In my opinion the opposite is true. Uber (and big tech generally) is often worse than what it’s replacing, and a hell of a lot more powerful politically. They don’t just take advantage of laws or have laws that favor them, they blatantly ignore laws with little to no consequence. There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it.
I think you're projecting a lot of loaded meaning onto the claim, in the presence of interpretations that don't require making such broad assumptions.
Parent commenter could easily have meant that corruption when it comes from local entities is something that the public doesn't have good antibodies for, because of the classic "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" problem. By contrast, putting an issue under the umbrella of "big tech" unites a lot of people under the same vague banner, as people are mad at big <industry> for any number of reasons, especially an industry as far-reaching as tech. This incentivizes politicians to care about an issue that their pocketbooks would otherwise prefer to ignore. (Note that this analysis is neutral wrt the actual goodness of policy, but that's just a basic feature of democracy)
It's pretty simplistic to interpret comments only through the lens of "big tech good? No, big tech bad" when a narrower point is being made.
>There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it.
/s