> But what Shkreli did is common practice How does this justify anything? Lots of sleazy things are common practice. Some are legal, some are illegal. Commonal

> But what Shkreli did is common practice How does this justify anything? Lots of sleazy things are common practice. Some are legal, some are illegal. Commonality and legality aren't really strong justifications for anything. Shkreli may have been singled out in the court of public opinion, but that doesn't make what he did any less contemptible. > It's just as easy to make the tech industry look like a piece of shit... but nobody on here wants to state that fact and say how sleazy tech is. Really? Because I literally haven't seen a single self-driving thread on HN in the past several years that doesn't contain a highly-voted and somewhat lengthy comment thread about this. See also literally every HN UBI thread for the past several years. And that's just comment threads. Yesterday alone there were two stories on the front page for most of the day about social consequences of self-driving. So it seems like people -- especially self-driving people -- are thinking about this, have a wide variety of opinions on the trade-offs. And when they believe as you do, often actively advocate for policies that would help the people whose jobs they might displace. There's also the fact that technology (both self-driving and drugs) brings good along with the bad. Perhaps if Shkreli had created a new drug and then price gouged that drug, the situation might be a bit more comparable. But that's not what happened. > Now is more important than ever to be truthful with ourselves and how the world works and not get hyped up over shit Or, in Shkreli's case, understand how the world works and also get hyped up over shit. His business model should be illegal.