This is exactly what you are rallying against here in your quote. "This is a toxic attitude. “Don’t worry if you’re breaking the law; they’ll have to change to

This is exactly what you are rallying against here in your quote. "This is a toxic attitude. “Don’t worry if you’re breaking the law; they’ll have to change to stay relevant!”" Uber X enabled a cheaper form of public transport by adding some efficiencies, but also by actively skirting regulation that was in place for Hire Cars and Taxis (that also made them more expensive options) that was designed for public safety. Following this, Governments changed laws to allow for this new class of driver with new regulations that lowered the cost of compliance. This is exactly the same as a new financial instrument designed to allow some other form of innovative public good that breaches current regulations that were designed for safety. With the expectation that regulation will ave to change for them. In both cases the regulations being breached were designed for some kind of public safety. The breakers believed they were delivering some kind of greater good. I'm not saying the method is right or wrong... it appears to get results.