[Karunamon]

Uber and the like has basically proven that case. Theranos didn't fail because they ignored regulation, they failed because their tech sucked.

The difference is in outcome: Uber's ignoring regulation has led to a better outcome for the average person. Theranos.. hasn't. Careful not to conflate "following the rules" with anything but obedience.. the outcome is more important.

[vonmoltke]

> Uber and the like has basically proven that case.

No they haven't. Not all regulations are equal. Most of the regulations Uber has ignored are probably examples of regulatory capture and shouldn't exist in their current form. The regulations Theranos ignored are important, even critical, for patient safety and the integrity of medical testing.

[JamilD]

I agree with you completely, but is it really Silicon Valley's place to decide which regulations to abide by, and which to ignore?

[Bartweiss]

At a certain point, I think its completely reasonable to base that decision on conscience, or on what you can trivially defend to a neutral observer.

Some of Uber's regulatory battles are complex, but many are laughably transparent. France's 15-minute mandatory delay before you can be picked up by hire cars? They didn't even pretend it was about anything other than protecting a monopoly.

If a regulation has a decent purpose that you feel it's not fulfilling (especially safety), you should probably lobby against it. If the regulation's entire purpose is to manipulate a market, it becomes pretty easy to defend ignoring it.

[Karunamon]

Every single person or group of people decide which regulations to abide by every single day (download music? exceed the speed limit? hail a ride that the local taxi people don't like?).

The idea that it's not the person's job to decide which regs to abide by implies that all laws are equal. As GP mentioned, that isn't the case.

[vertex-four]

> they failed because their tech sucked

And in the process likely led to harm to their clients. Healthcare is one of those things that you don't fuck with, because the failure mode of bad tech isn't just that you go out of business and inconvenience a bunch of people, it's that you actually cause potentially irreparable damage to people (in Theranos's case, by providing incorrect information about people's health which they depended on).

[jonwachob91]

A lot of biotech entrepreneurs would argue that Theranos ignored Gold Standard Testing, essentially ignoring regulations.

[DanBC]

...and yet Uber drivers are being fined in the UK for not taking guide dogs[1]. Another example of Uber the company fucking over Uber drivers and passengers at the same time.

[1] Drivers with eg allergies can get medical certificates to exempt them from having to carry assistance dogs.

[rfrank]

Careful, not everyone agrees that the ends justify the means