Mining data is already too "sketch" for most people that are walking through your store, and you do not inform any of them that you are doing this to them.
Don't come to a public forum to run PR. Your username makes it obvious that you're already trying to play as if you're subverting something, but you are merely fulfilling a trope.
Don't resurrect a 14 year-old article simply to hijack any subsequent discussion for yourself.
Quit your job and join something positive for once.
That has nothing to do with "evolution." It also has very little to do with the tragedy of the commons.
It is poor form to try to map popular buzzphrases to every article you read; it removes the nuance from your learning process, and instead just reinforces foolish habits (as demonstrated exactly by your comment).
So you read the title, made an assumption, and then after your assumption was proven wrong, you still thought your off-topic opinion was special and important enough to post it anyway?
Comments full of woo should be outlawed first. The next time you want to comment, consider your argument critically. Yes, there are plenty of reasons for them to exist. No, saying "well, it's probably, like, dumb and stuff, regardless," is not a valid argument.
Simply because you think it, you believe your opinion is worth typing out.
Honestly, what innovation has Uber provided? More congestion than ever[1]? More ways to skirt the law[2]?
We already had an app to order a taxi: The phone app. We already had infrastructure to vet drivers: The registration systems in local governance. Taxi drivers were already taking credit cards.
"You don't have to worry about paying" isn't innovation; as a cab driver, I witness nightly Uber-in-middle-of-road-unloading-and-loading violations, while no taxi would ever dream of that where I am from. In the winter, people push their Uber up the street--and still pay for the ride.
"Deservedly busted by innovation" was their marketing ploy before it was so heavily debunked; they have pivoted, since.