You're not the only one in this comment thread to present this line of thinking, but I think you have explained it most explicitly, so I'll respond here. I thi

You're not the only one in this comment thread to present this line of thinking, but I think you have explained it most explicitly, so I'll respond here. I think that this is a very charitable interpretation of what Theil said in this interview. He doesn't talk about morality or mention it at all, except in a passing use of the term "ethically challenged." That term, and the others like it that he uses ("push the envelope," "disrupt") are all corporatespeak/Silicon Valleyspeak and euphemism. The statement is well-tailored to be against Uber's actions without speaking specifically to cause, and that raises alarm bells to me. The thing is, Uber is taking just as much risk doing something both morally and legally wrong as they are doing something morally right and legally wrong. It's the same discussion and the same innuendos from the business end. It's the morality end that gets the short.