This article claims that some regulations exist to protect certain industries. The proof is the fact that these regulations are harmful to various new startups

This article claims that some regulations exist to protect certain industries. The proof is the fact that these regulations are harmful to various new startups but not to existing industry. But that's not proof: that's correlation without causation. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that certain regulations were instituted to protect the public or to perform a public good, and the current industries have evolved, like an organism, to coexist with the regulations. Just because an industry has adapted to work within the law does not mean that the law was put in place to protect that industry. For example, NYC regs which are harmful to AirBnB exist to protect other tenants from the insecurities that stem from a revolving door of transients in their buildings. Simliarly, taxi cab medallions restrict supply in order to prevent a tragedy of the commons whereby too many cabs fight for fares in congested city cores, taking up all available road space. In this respect, these startups are not innovative--just stupid enough to operate extra-legally. Just because something can be done more easily with technology does not mean it should be done.