You seem to be implying the bias is unreasonable, by claiming the conclusions it leads to are faulty. I think that framing is uncharitable at best. What you call bias, might be better described as contextual understanding, or awareness of other highly relevant information. Given the wealth of (prominent on HN) discourse around "ride-sharing companies acting in bad faith", there's little reason to immediately frame this argument in terms of "pre-existing bias" that must be exorcised before rational discourse can begin.

Of course, reasonable people can disagree with the accusations of bad faith, but for a knowledgeable person to claim it as "bias" instead of "reasoned opinion" is extremely uncharitable, verging on sophistry.