[borski]

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]

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.

[redanddead]

that's defrauding the customer

this will literally get them in court

[borski]

Yeah, precisely.

[afavour]

> 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]

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]

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.

[jrflowers]

> 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)

[TurdF3rguson]

> 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]

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]

> 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]

I agree; I attempted to clarify that with my “not using words carefully” but that is a fair criticism of what I wrote.

[jrflowers]

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]

I agreed with you; that is why I said I wasn’t being careful with my language.

[jrflowers]

What does that mean

[worik]

> I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk

Not illegal here, but I hope you not complain when caught and fined.

[kaashif]

Jaywalking was illegal in NYC until 2025 but literally every crossing had people doing it constantly. This is not figurative, it actually is literal.

Including people doing it in front of police. Including the police themselves!

The law only existed for police to harass and fine blacks and Latinos. And indeed, that was how it was struck down.

It is critical to a just society that victims of unjust laws or uneven enforcement complain!

[tjwebbnorfolk]

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.