> In the marketplace, only results matter and companies that deliver them displace those that don’t. In this case, result mean profit or at least conversions.
Were this the unalterable truth, mom and pop shops wouldn't exist. Companies who invest profits back into themselves would not exist. Public companies who pay living wages wouldn't exist.
But they all do.
Which means there's more to the formula; and that formula can include things like respecting their users.
All 3 structures you've noted participate in immoral behaviors, some of them far more grave in impact than psychological trickery.
Do you believe businesses/people out there have the intention to disrespect their users? Most often, that's not the case. Hence, we need regulations to combat good intentions gone awry (and most certainly bad intentions).
Yes: the market isn't 100% instant and efficient, so here and there, the kind of companies you describe can survive, for a while. Some are in the process of being outcompeted. Others survive in the cracks, not worth even considering to compete with, the same way you're not competing for food with ants. And some just pretend to be nice.
Point being, GP's statement is true in general - it's the overall behavior dictated by the economic system. "Reality has surprising amount of detail", so there are always exceptions to any rule or pattern, but they don't invalidate the rule: those exceptions survive because they're rare - they won't grow in amount to replace the regular case.
Were this the unalterable truth, mom and pop shops wouldn't exist. Companies who invest profits back into themselves would not exist. Public companies who pay living wages wouldn't exist.
But they all do.
Which means there's more to the formula; and that formula can include things like respecting their users.