I think this piece brings up some good points. Uber and abnb come to mind. They bypass laws in place to regulate industries and in the process force us to think whether these laws need to be amended, rejected, or enforced on the newcomers as well as the established incumbents.

It may be that in some cases a majority can see a moral issue where others see an impediment to progress.

The difficulty is that morals are subjective and change over time but people like to use or refute morals to further their objectives. A startup might say that they stand in the way of progress and better services, someone else might say morals ensure we don't run roughshod over society and take advantage of a certain group.

I think my take is it's better gauged on a case by case basis rather than all good or all bad, but that doesn't sound very appealing for a "narrative"

I can only painfully imagine what pace progress would take if new businesses had to submit the ideas to the startup equivalent to an FDA who regulate new drug impacts, among other things