[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.