| ▲ | borski 2 hours ago |
| Ignoring 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. |
|
| ▲ | bilalq 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
|
| ▲ | afavour 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | borski 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure. Technically and legally, you’re right. In reality, it makes quite a difference if public opinion is on your side or not. “We decided to commit fraud by providing fake compliance reports” reads very differently from “we let homeowners make money by renting a room” | |
| ▲ | bpodgursky an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The difference is that Airbnb customers used Airbnb because they thought hotel regulations were dumb and overbearing (or at least, they didn't care about the laws). Delve customers were literally trying to obey the law and Delve (allegedly) lied to them about it. |
|
|
| ▲ | TurdF3rguson 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | borski 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk. Technically, you’re right that that is also breaking the law. I wasn’t being careful with my words. How and why matters, though. | | |
| ▲ | TurdF3rguson an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > How and why matters, though. How and why you break a law matters (to a judge / jury). Whether you frame it as "ignoring" vs "breaking" in your legal defense, not so much. | | |
| ▲ | borski an hour ago | parent [-] | | I agree; I attempted to clarify that with my “not using words carefully” but that is a fair criticism of what I wrote. |
| |
| ▲ | worik 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk Not illegal here, but I hope you not complain when caught and fined. | |
| ▲ | jrflowers an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s not how words work. This sentence > I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk. Means the exact same thing as “I intentionally break jaywalking laws every day”. They are equivalent sentences. | | |
| ▲ | borski an hour ago | parent [-] | | I agreed with you; that is why I said I wasn’t being careful with my language. |
| |
| ▲ | tjwebbnorfolk 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a difference between "fake it till you make it" and "blatant widespread fraud", but the line is blurrier than many startups would like to admit. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jrflowers an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > 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) |
