Money damages, potential criminal lawsuits, and reputational harm which is real and costly (though I know HN is skeptical of it).

> reputational harm which is real and costly (though I know HN is skeptical of it).

Largely because the world keeps demonstrating that reputational harm just doesn't happen to large companies. Uber included in this particular case.

Here's the Uber trips per quarter (in millions) since Q2 2017 (source https://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics)

Q2 2017 889

Q3 2017 985

Q4 2017 1,088

Q1 2018 1,136

Q2 2018 1,242

Q3 2018 1,348

Q4 2018 1,493

Q1 2019 1,550

Q2 2019 1,677

Q3 2019 1,770

Q4 2019 1,907

Q1 2020 1,658

The probable reason for the Q1 dip was the pandemic. The number of riders just keeps on rising.

You can see the same with Target etc. Large breaches happen, major negative incidents, and at best you might see a blip. The large majority of people just don't give a shit, so companies are given permission to not give a shit either.

Funny that being ethical and prioritizing to not do harm is not on the list.

'Prioritizing to not do harm' is an ethical consideration, and ethics are subjective, so I didn't consider them 'incentives'. If the question had been about 'motives' or 'considerations', I would have included 'potential ethical beliefs'.

The reason why is that presenting facts and concrete logic is more compatible with a greater array of people, whereas ethics and morals are subjective. Using a moral argument is not going to be as persuasive in business (particularly if, generally speaking, leadership is largely comprised of sociopaths, which is just a reality of this world)

Thats pretty much what I meant with "funny".