alt Hacker NewsIgnoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law, especially when that law is actual intentional fraud.
Also, there was no “endgame.” They weren’t trying to change the law; they were exclusively breaking it for profit.
Replies
> Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law
This is something Airbnb has facilitated for a very long time, no? And Uber, back when it started.
From a legal perspective I don’t see that it matters whether you’re trying to change the law or not. You’re either following it or breaking it.
> Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law
Huh? In a legal sense I'm pretty sure they're the same thing.
> Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law
This is like a line from a Naked Gun movie. The only way that this sentence could be true linguistically is if the party doesn’t break the law that they’re ignoring (e.g. I could ignore the rule against perpetuities while drunk driving through a zoo)
Let me more clearly instead say that many successful startups knowingly and intentionally broke the law.
But I agree that Delve is a special case and should naturally be held to a higher standard here because their whole business is around being compliant with the law. When most other startups break the law, they do it to get an advantage over competition. Delve did it in a way that sacrificed their core value towards customers.