4 ms·

Regarding ethics referenced, it seems “ask forgiveness” has been the legal strategy of the biggest startups of the last 10 years. These were not so much innovat

by jl2718 7y ago

Regarding ethics referenced, it seems “ask forgiveness” has been the legal strategy of the biggest startups of the last 10 years. These were not so much innovation as much as exploitation of an obvious market that was restricted to preserve a public good (residential neighborhoods and streets). I suppose that the ethical way to get around such laws may be open marketplace platforms, such that the profits can only come from choice of technology, and not market control over scarce resources.

scarface74 7y ago
What was the ethical reason for the taxi medallion system? All it did was create an artificial shortage and a few people got rich buying medallions and the actual taxi drivers were just as shortchanged by the owners of the medallion as they are by Uber and it was a worse customer experience.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The ethical reason was to reduce congestion. Whether that's the real intention and, if it was, whether it was accomplishing that goal is arguable, of course.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Increasing the price of using a vehicle in the congested region would have been the ethical way to reduce congestion, not making a market controlled by government officials that they could collect rent on.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  I think it mainly served the purpose of making cabs in demand, so private owners of cabs could make a living wage.
  - niij 7y ago
    It reduced supply, not increase demand.
- jl2718 7y ago
  Well there are certainly other motivations for, or effects of laws, and by that measure they may be unjust, and it may even be ethical to break them. However, to create a monopoly on breaking a law seems similar to creating a law to create a monopoly, so it shouldn't be surprising that we've observed both by the same actors. Case-in-point: there were many other rideshare companies shut down before the duopoly emerged, and many afterward that will never get started because of regulations that they sponsored.
icebraining 7y ago
> exploitation of an obvious market that was restricted to preserve a public good That's where I think the post is weakest. That statement is an obviously immoral thing, but apart from a few people who genuinely don't care, most don't join a company that they see as doing obviously immoral things. They join them because they view the activity differently (such as, "breaking a monopoly that was harming the public to enrich a few"). So I think the whole idea of "don't use Grace Hopper's advice as an excuse to be an asshole" falls flat, because nobody thinks they are doing that. In my opinion, of course.
- jl2718 7y ago
  Part of the quandary is that the individual employee is often acting ethically by getting paid only for their contribution to the technical advantage of the product, while the corporate profits may be driven by something less scrupulous.
fargle 7y ago
So... since the lawmakers who are all always 100% ethical and moral people that would never do anything except protecting the common good, it's certainly safe to assume that the laws that result are equally moral and have no other negative effects. And those who think otherwise are not really innovators, but rather more or less traitors who wish to destroy the public good? Like that pesky Grace Hopper. And Uber (and every other startup in the last 10 years). Got it! Thx.
- jl2718 7y ago
  I understand why you got this from my comment, and I tried to address it with the last sentence. I do not think that all laws are just or all lawmakers are ethical. I do not think that breaking laws is inherently unethical, but I do think that breaking laws as a source of competitive advantage, either by willingness, brazenness, or being first to do so, is ethically questionable. This is just as making laws as a source of competitive advantage is also ethically questionable. Thank you for the challenge to clarify my thoughts.
  - fargle 7y ago
    Well, breaking or bending laws for any reason isn't "ethically questionable", it is clearly unethical. What it isn't is necessarily wrong, nor is it necessarily immoral, nor bad for society. Especially when we live in a world that is over-regulated and ungovernable and is led by record-settingly amoral and unethical "leaders". And this is true at local, state, federal government levels. But is also true of many large corporations which control more and more of our daily life. Asking permission is not an effective strategy in these cases. Do what is right. And be brazzen. Show people how to take back their freedom. Screw the DCMA and hack your roomba, etc.! Sadly to assume that morality and legality or ethics are tightly linked is becoming less and less often true. If the system wasn't broken they would be.

by jl2718 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

What was the ethical reason for the taxi medallion system? All it did was create an artificial shortage and a few people got rich buying medallions and the actual taxi drivers were just as shortchanged by the owners of the medallion as they are by Uber and it was a worse customer experience.

icebraining 7y ago
The ethical reason was to reduce congestion. Whether that's the real intention and, if it was, whether it was accomplishing that goal is arguable, of course.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Increasing the price of using a vehicle in the congested region would have been the ethical way to reduce congestion, not making a market controlled by government officials that they could collect rent on.
akvadrako 7y ago
I think it mainly served the purpose of making cabs in demand, so private owners of cabs could make a living wage.
- niij 7y ago
  It reduced supply, not increase demand.
jl2718 7y ago
Well there are certainly other motivations for, or effects of laws, and by that measure they may be unjust, and it may even be ethical to break them. However, to create a monopoly on breaking a law seems similar to creating a law to create a monopoly, so it shouldn't be surprising that we've observed both by the same actors. Case-in-point: there were many other rideshare companies shut down before the duopoly emerged, and many afterward that will never get started because of regulations that they sponsored.

icebraining 7y ago

> exploitation of an obvious market that was restricted to preserve a public good That's where I think the post is weakest. That statement is an obviously immoral thing, but apart from a few people who genuinely don't care, most don't join a company that they see as doing obviously immoral things. They join them because they view the activity differently (such as, "breaking a monopoly that was harming the public to enrich a few"). So I think the whole idea of "don't use Grace Hopper's advice as an excuse to be an asshole" falls flat, because nobody thinks they are doing that. In my opinion, of course.

jl2718 7y ago
Part of the quandary is that the individual employee is often acting ethically by getting paid only for their contribution to the technical advantage of the product, while the corporate profits may be driven by something less scrupulous.

fargle 7y ago

So... since the lawmakers who are all always 100% ethical and moral people that would never do anything except protecting the common good, it's certainly safe to assume that the laws that result are equally moral and have no other negative effects. And those who think otherwise are not really innovators, but rather more or less traitors who wish to destroy the public good? Like that pesky Grace Hopper. And Uber (and every other startup in the last 10 years). Got it! Thx.

jl2718 7y ago
I understand why you got this from my comment, and I tried to address it with the last sentence. I do not think that all laws are just or all lawmakers are ethical. I do not think that breaking laws is inherently unethical, but I do think that breaking laws as a source of competitive advantage, either by willingness, brazenness, or being first to do so, is ethically questionable. This is just as making laws as a source of competitive advantage is also ethically questionable. Thank you for the challenge to clarify my thoughts.
- fargle 7y ago
  Well, breaking or bending laws for any reason isn't "ethically questionable", it is clearly unethical. What it isn't is necessarily wrong, nor is it necessarily immoral, nor bad for society. Especially when we live in a world that is over-regulated and ungovernable and is led by record-settingly amoral and unethical "leaders". And this is true at local, state, federal government levels. But is also true of many large corporations which control more and more of our daily life. Asking permission is not an effective strategy in these cases. Do what is right. And be brazzen. Show people how to take back their freedom. Screw the DCMA and hack your roomba, etc.! Sadly to assume that morality and legality or ethics are tightly linked is becoming less and less often true. If the system wasn't broken they would be.