[richbell]

This comment reminds me of when Bird's CEO described their intentional subversion of municipal legislation as "innovating on the regulatory front."

A lot can be accomplished by skirting pesky rules and regulations. It isn't something commendable.

[gkoberger]

This is a fallacy. You can't say "this other CEO did something" if you're trying to make a point about Sam. If you have a problem with Sam doing something illegal, say it.

I'm not saying Sam has never done anything illegal, but most of the outrage seems to be that he doesn't follow social/business norms (not that he doesn't follow rules/regulations/laws).

[CPLX]

The outrage is mostly focused on the fact that he doesn’t seem to tell the truth.

[throwaway2037]

Can you give a concrete, relevant example? As a point of comparison: Musk has a far worse (in my eyes) about lying on social media than Altman.

[hutzlibu]

Yeah, those annoying "social/business norms".

[richbell]

> This is a fallacy. You can't say "this other CEO did something" if you're trying to make a point about Sam. If you have a problem with Sam doing something illegal, say it.

There is nothing fallacious about my comment. Saying I'm not allowed to compare him to other CEOs is ridiculous.

As another commenter said: he isn't unique.

[stale2002]

> Saying I'm not allowed to compare him to other CEOs is ridiculous

You can compare him to other CEO but you have to justify why the comparison is valid.

You didn't do that.

If you want to directly claim that Sam did something illegal you need to show or say that.

Instead, what you did, is just point to someone else who did something illegal, and then criticize that other person, while vaguely implying that the criticism applies to Sam.

But the criticism doesn't apply to Sam, because you didn't demonstrate that Sam did anything illegal.

[blackoil]

Not OP, but adding it is called false equivalence or commonly known as comparing apples and oranges. Just because two people are CEO doesn't relate them any more than a person with mustache to Hitler.

[stale2002]

> A lot can be accomplished by skirting pesky rules and regulations. It isn't something commendable.

Well that depends.

Is the thing that is being accomplished very good and are the regulations bad?

For example, what if there is a law that was passed for the sole purpose of protecting a well connected monopoly, so that consumers have to pay more money, only so that this one monopoly could profit.

I'd say that such a law would be bad and should be under minded.

[MicolashKyoka]

Some rules are stupid and reek of cronyism, enshrining established players at the expense of innovation. Those deserve to be challenged.

[_3u10]

Yes, this is why economists recommend against too many rules and regulations.