4 ms·

Eric Schmidt echoed similar sentiment in his recent interview. Basically do it, if startup fails then it doesn’t matter. If it succeeds then lawyers can sort it

by Havoc 2y ago

Eric Schmidt echoed similar sentiment in his recent interview. Basically do it, if startup fails then it doesn’t matter. If it succeeds then lawyers can sort it out.

santiagobasulto 2y ago
Which makes total sense for consumers as well. If the startup succeeds is because consumers are finding value in it. Uber is the best example. Uber is ilegal only in countries with deep corruption where taxi unions can make legislators ignore their constituents. Uber (and any other car sharing app) is the best solution for me as a consumer compared to the traditional old school taxi service.
- Havoc 2y ago
  > Which makes total sense for consumers as well. Kinda. Often this casual law breaking isn’t entirely victimless even if it benefits both consumer and the startup. I think Schmidt was talking about using content to train models. So artists getting short end of stick. Or Airbnb causing locals getting prices out or whatever. There is certainly some dodgy protectionism happening of the sort you describe but there are also externalities borne by society for this break laws startup style.
  - warkdarrior 2y ago
    As a user of GenAI, I get to create and save drawings in the style of any artist I like, without having to pay the artist $$$$. This is important to me because I like certain styles, but do not care for an original drawing nor have the money to pay for such. And the externalities introduced here are not borne by all of society, but only by a small number of people (How many important artists are there? 10,000? 100,000?). Just like horse-and-buggy drivers were affected by automobiles, while the vast majority of people benefited from automobiles.
    - Havoc 2y ago
      Right so externalities are fine as long as they don’t hit you and it fucks over less than 100k people… That is…quite a stance. Not quite sure what to even say here.
- talldatethrow 2y ago
  Totally. I propose we start a brothelBnB next door to your home. Home owner wins, customer wins, worker wins, startup wins! Score! Market has spoken! I also recommend HoboSleepinCar Driveway as a service next to your home. The consumer has spoken!
  - santiagobasulto 2y ago
    Really good argument, congrats
- consteval 2y ago
  Uber is objectively worse for every single party involved. Driver makes less, customer pays more, Uber has to coordinate a huge system. Uber "won" because they cheated. They operated at a loss for almost 15 years, on the welfare of investors. Guess what, mom and pop running a taxi can't live on a negative wage.
  - cellis 2y ago
    > Uber is objectively worse for every single party involved. Wrong on at least one count. I've never been refused service while black from Uber. The taxi industry was brought out of the dark ages of discrimination by Uber et al. Taxis (around the world) have tried to rip me off almost half the time I've used them, with no accountability.
  - santiagobasulto 2y ago
    I prefer Uber everywhere I go. Even if I pay more, I know it upfront. I have their safety in place, etc.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Okay. Objectively you're paying easily 2x more and, objectively, you're not safer in developed countries.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Also in these "gig" type companies, the people who are actually breaking the laws are the workers, e.g. the drivers or the homeowners in the case of Uber and AirBnB. The startup is the enabler, yes, but they will try to throw their workers under the bus before they take responsibility themselves. They don't own the cars, they don't own the properties, and they are most likely in a far-away jurisdiction.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
arrosenberg 2y ago
He would know. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297/tech-giants-settle-wage-fixing-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297...
lisnake 2y ago
Didn't work for Elizabeth Holmes
- rodiger 2y ago
  There's a difference between "doing an illegal thing as a product" and "lying to investors about your product"
  - papercrane 2y ago
    This is true, although it's also true that many startups lie to, or mislead, investors about the state of their products. If things work out, then the investors don't care, and if they don't its usually at scale and messy enough the government isn't going to prosecute.
ath3nd 2y ago
SBF and Elizabeth Holmes would like a word. And hopefully everyone else "successful" having the morals of a greedy chimpanzee follows the same fate as those swindlers. Whatever happened to doing good by people and society (or at least pretending to)?
atq2119 2y ago
Should inciting others to commit crimes be in itself a crime? Certainly, if somebody influential enough does it, it has the potential to destabilize our society with catastrophic results.

by Havoc 2y ago

Eric Schmidt echoed similar sentiment in his recent interview. Basically do it, if startup fails then it doesn’t matter. If it succeeds then lawyers can sort it out.

santiagobasulto 2y ago

Which makes total sense for consumers as well. If the startup succeeds is because consumers are finding value in it. Uber is the best example. Uber is ilegal only in countries with deep corruption where taxi unions can make legislators ignore their constituents. Uber (and any other car sharing app) is the best solution for me as a consumer compared to the traditional old school taxi service.

Havoc 2y ago
> Which makes total sense for consumers as well. Kinda. Often this casual law breaking isn’t entirely victimless even if it benefits both consumer and the startup. I think Schmidt was talking about using content to train models. So artists getting short end of stick. Or Airbnb causing locals getting prices out or whatever. There is certainly some dodgy protectionism happening of the sort you describe but there are also externalities borne by society for this break laws startup style.
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  As a user of GenAI, I get to create and save drawings in the style of any artist I like, without having to pay the artist $$$$. This is important to me because I like certain styles, but do not care for an original drawing nor have the money to pay for such. And the externalities introduced here are not borne by all of society, but only by a small number of people (How many important artists are there? 10,000? 100,000?). Just like horse-and-buggy drivers were affected by automobiles, while the vast majority of people benefited from automobiles.
  - Havoc 2y ago
    Right so externalities are fine as long as they don’t hit you and it fucks over less than 100k people… That is…quite a stance. Not quite sure what to even say here.
talldatethrow 2y ago
Totally. I propose we start a brothelBnB next door to your home. Home owner wins, customer wins, worker wins, startup wins! Score! Market has spoken! I also recommend HoboSleepinCar Driveway as a service next to your home. The consumer has spoken!
- santiagobasulto 2y ago
  Really good argument, congrats
consteval 2y ago
Uber is objectively worse for every single party involved. Driver makes less, customer pays more, Uber has to coordinate a huge system. Uber "won" because they cheated. They operated at a loss for almost 15 years, on the welfare of investors. Guess what, mom and pop running a taxi can't live on a negative wage.
- cellis 2y ago
  > Uber is objectively worse for every single party involved. Wrong on at least one count. I've never been refused service while black from Uber. The taxi industry was brought out of the dark ages of discrimination by Uber et al. Taxis (around the world) have tried to rip me off almost half the time I've used them, with no accountability.
- santiagobasulto 2y ago
  I prefer Uber everywhere I go. Even if I pay more, I know it upfront. I have their safety in place, etc.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Okay. Objectively you're paying easily 2x more and, objectively, you're not safer in developed countries.

SoftTalker 2y ago

Also in these "gig" type companies, the people who are actually breaking the laws are the workers, e.g. the drivers or the homeowners in the case of Uber and AirBnB. The startup is the enabler, yes, but they will try to throw their workers under the bus before they take responsibility themselves. They don't own the cars, they don't own the properties, and they are most likely in a far-away jurisdiction.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

arrosenberg 2y ago

He would know. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297/tech-giants-settle-wage-fixing-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297...

lisnake 2y ago

Didn't work for Elizabeth Holmes

rodiger 2y ago
There's a difference between "doing an illegal thing as a product" and "lying to investors about your product"
- papercrane 2y ago
  This is true, although it's also true that many startups lie to, or mislead, investors about the state of their products. If things work out, then the investors don't care, and if they don't its usually at scale and messy enough the government isn't going to prosecute.

ath3nd 2y ago

SBF and Elizabeth Holmes would like a word. And hopefully everyone else "successful" having the morals of a greedy chimpanzee follows the same fate as those swindlers. Whatever happened to doing good by people and society (or at least pretending to)?

atq2119 2y ago

Should inciting others to commit crimes be in itself a crime? Certainly, if somebody influential enough does it, it has the potential to destabilize our society with catastrophic results.