> I know a ton of bay area "startups" than engage in these sort of tricks to maximize the brand damage. (...) Half the companies with "explosive" growth were using mass mailing techniques than involved spamming. Many used foreign companies to skirt US law related to spamming.
Yes, I think we all know some. And it's true, skirting the law and abusing the commons gives one a competitive advantage. But that doesn't make it OK. The market isn't the arbiter of ethics. It only means that not enough is done to stop that behavior, that the border between legal and illegal is too low, or too misaligned with what's actually happening. That people still underestimate the extent to which money trumps ethics in everyday decision making.
> skirting the law and abusing the commons gives one a competitive advantage. But that doesn't make it OK. The market isn't the arbiter of ethics.
Sadly, this is a bit naive, market have become the arbiters of ethics, namely: if it successful, it's good.
This isn't a traditional moral code from, e.g., Kant, Bentham, or Locke. Rather, it's an ethics based on capitalism.
Sure, wonky economics professors justify capitalism by saying it's the most efficient or provides the most utility, arguably grounded in traditional Bentham morality.
But capitalism has never simply been an economic policy, there has always been an ideological component to it (see for example, Ayn Rand). Maximizing returns on investment isn't just "efficient", it's "right".
Yes, I think we all know some. And it's true, skirting the law and abusing the commons gives one a competitive advantage. But that doesn't make it OK. The market isn't the arbiter of ethics. It only means that not enough is done to stop that behavior, that the border between legal and illegal is too low, or too misaligned with what's actually happening. That people still underestimate the extent to which money trumps ethics in everyday decision making.