3 ms·
breaking the law[0]--and not only expecting not to have any consequences for that but going so far as to be furious when there are consequences. I don't think
by Zak 13y ago
breaking the law[0]--and not only expecting not to have any consequences for that but going so far as to be furious when there are consequences.
I don't think UberX and airbnb are operating under any illusions that there won't be consequences. I think that they're hoping members of the public will grow to like their services faster than regulators can stamp them out, and that public fury over attempts to stamp out the services will prompt changes in the law.
I see this as objectionable if the companies mislead their users who provide services about the legal risks they may incur, but not otherwise. People who feel strongly about a moral duty to obey the law may disagree on this point.
- rexf 13y agoCorrect, the article says the same: Kevin Laws of AngelList, a site that unites start-ups and investors, explained that “the approach almost all start-ups take is to see if they can be successful fast enough so they can have enough money to work with the regulators.”
- Zak 13y agoHaving money isn't quite the same as having passionate users and therefore public support. Both are important for getting regulations changed.