5 ms·

There isn't really, or at least the difference is almost always argued/decided post hoc.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> the difference is almost always argued/decided post hoc At the margin, yes. LendEDU's behaviour, here, is far from the margin. One element is in choosing sensible battles. Uber and Airbnb fought municipal governments. Zenefits got creative with states and Theranos with the federal government. They (EDIT: Uber and Airbnb) each also fought their battles in a way that made (a) investors money and (b) consumers happy. In this case, the ones being deceived are the consumers. In the process of being sold lending products. That's stupid, desperate rule breaking.
- cowsandmilk 9y ago
  How did Theranos do either of those? Their faked results gave health scares to many, and didn’t detect health problems in others. That isn’t making consumers happy. And I’m pretty sure Theranos’s investors have not made money.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > How did Theranos do either of those? Pardon me, I mis-spoke. I was using Uber and Airbnb as (limited) examples of productive rule breaking and Zenefits and Theranos as counter-examples of imprudent illegality.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      Uber have a string of other issues, from threatening journalists to writing software to evade law enforcement oversight, which places them in the bad example bucket.
    - xg15 9y ago
      The "productive rule-making" of those two companies contributed to a worldwide rent crisis (Airbnb) and attempted to undermine labor laws (Uber). Local governments and labor organisations are still busy dealing with those consequences. If you "break the rules that don't matter" and leave the resulting mess for others to solve, that's not "naughty", it's just plain amoral.
      - jhall1468 9y ago
        Airbnb provided a platform, so calling it "rule breaking" is a little disingenuous. Saying they contributed to a worldwide rent crisis is just melodramatic. There's certainly data to suggest that Airbnb caused housing prices to increase in some markets, but that's the nature of providing a "new" service that's well sought-after. Uber undermined labor laws only in the sense that they tried to get states to overrule local labor laws that were crowding their ability to keep drivers as contractors. That's just normal business, calling it "undermining" is, again, disingenuous at best.
        Avshalom 9y ago
        While attempting to destroy labor might be business as usual it is wretched enough that it shouldn't be written off, ever, especially when it starts as illegal practices.
        jhall1468 9y ago
        They weren't attempting to destroy anything. They were properly using contractors and some cities felt that it was unfair and introduced new regulations and Uber wanted the states to overrule them. There is plenty to dog on Uber about without having to introduce hyperbole.
- prutschman 9y ago
  I understand what you're getting at with Uber and Airbnb. I'm not especially familiar with Zenefits. I'd thought that Theranos, though, was a major straight-up fraud.
- avip 9y ago
  Calling what Theranos did "being creative" is pretty creative by itself.
Terr_ 9y ago
Treason doth never prosper? What's the Reason? For if it prosper: None dare call it treason. --John Harington

> the difference is almost always argued/decided post hoc At the margin, yes. LendEDU's behaviour, here, is far from the margin. One element is in choosing sensible battles. Uber and Airbnb fought municipal governments. Zenefits got creative with states and Theranos with the federal government. They (EDIT: Uber and Airbnb) each also fought their battles in a way that made (a) investors money and (b) consumers happy. In this case, the ones being deceived are the consumers. In the process of being sold lending products. That's stupid, desperate rule breaking.

cowsandmilk 9y ago
How did Theranos do either of those? Their faked results gave health scares to many, and didn’t detect health problems in others. That isn’t making consumers happy. And I’m pretty sure Theranos’s investors have not made money.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > How did Theranos do either of those? Pardon me, I mis-spoke. I was using Uber and Airbnb as (limited) examples of productive rule breaking and Zenefits and Theranos as counter-examples of imprudent illegality.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Uber have a string of other issues, from threatening journalists to writing software to evade law enforcement oversight, which places them in the bad example bucket.
  - xg15 9y ago
    The "productive rule-making" of those two companies contributed to a worldwide rent crisis (Airbnb) and attempted to undermine labor laws (Uber). Local governments and labor organisations are still busy dealing with those consequences. If you "break the rules that don't matter" and leave the resulting mess for others to solve, that's not "naughty", it's just plain amoral.
    - jhall1468 9y ago
      Airbnb provided a platform, so calling it "rule breaking" is a little disingenuous. Saying they contributed to a worldwide rent crisis is just melodramatic. There's certainly data to suggest that Airbnb caused housing prices to increase in some markets, but that's the nature of providing a "new" service that's well sought-after. Uber undermined labor laws only in the sense that they tried to get states to overrule local labor laws that were crowding their ability to keep drivers as contractors. That's just normal business, calling it "undermining" is, again, disingenuous at best.
      - Avshalom 9y ago
        While attempting to destroy labor might be business as usual it is wretched enough that it shouldn't be written off, ever, especially when it starts as illegal practices.
        jhall1468 9y ago
        They weren't attempting to destroy anything. They were properly using contractors and some cities felt that it was unfair and introduced new regulations and Uber wanted the states to overrule them. There is plenty to dog on Uber about without having to introduce hyperbole.
prutschman 9y ago
I understand what you're getting at with Uber and Airbnb. I'm not especially familiar with Zenefits. I'd thought that Theranos, though, was a major straight-up fraud.
avip 9y ago
Calling what Theranos did "being creative" is pretty creative by itself.

Terr_ 9y ago

Treason doth never prosper? What's the Reason? For if it prosper: None dare call it treason. --John Harington