[runarberg]

I don’t think the logic is this simple. Tools and technology might not be inherently bad, but they may still be dangerous. Proponents of some dangerous technology often want said technology to become public policy, which increases the risk significantly for everybody. Think guns, nuclear weapons, lottery, and even the stock market. These all have varying levels of risk and utility. When the risk outweighs the utility perhaps there should be a public policy which warns against their use, outright bans them when the risk is severe and the utility minuscule. Especially so if the industry is growing bigger and bigger.

Here there is no public policy, and there is unlikely to be any for most countries in the near future. This is why OP voices their concerns that we should step in and advocate for people’s safety. Not because the technology it self is inherently evil, but because it is dangerous and—as the linked video argues—had little utility outside of harmful activity.

Ps. There are indeed some of us that do think the stock market is a scam and the world would be better of without one. In the mean time at least it is highly regulated and financially literate folks do talk loudly about fishy stuff that happens there.