One thing you might be missing, and the reason that widely-viewed events are so valuable as ad space, is that one function of ads can be to create common knowledge among the audience of how other people might see the product.
For example, Corona beer has a beach vibe. They don't just want you to know that it has a beach vibe, they want you to know that other people know that it has a beach vibe. That way, if you are going to a party and want to bring something that has a beach vibe, you'll reach for Corona because you want to be seen by others as bringing the beach vibe. This is why ads on widely-viewed broadcasts like sports games disproportionately (tho not exclusively) focus on products that are consumed socially or in public rather than privately.
I often think about iconic comic book characters as essentially today's version of these kind of mythical stories, which cut across people's disagreements about religion. The story of Spider Man has been retold many times but generally contains a classic arc:
I think its essentially an aspirational model of what it means to be a good person living a balanced life as you come of age and gain authority, power, and responsibility over others. And I do think that people absorb these truths from the story.
One other thing has to do with the procedural posture. On a motion to dismiss, Courts are not generally supposed to evaluate facts at all. A motion to dismiss is essentially an argument by the defense that, even if all those accusations are true, they don't amount to a legal claim.
By contrast, a preliminary injunction does look at facts. So one reason for different treatment of the Encode brief vs. the ex-employees brief is that they were submitted in response to different motions.
One of the most common forms of Whataboutism is of the form "You criticize X, but other people vaguely politically aligned with you failed to criticize Y." (assuming for argument that X and Y are different but similar wrongs)
The problem with that is that the only possible sincere answers are necessarily unsatisfying, and it's hard to gauge their sincerity. Here's what I see as the basic possibilities.
The PCC is a lot more valid when its actually the same person taking inconsistent positions on X and Y. Otherwise your actual interlocutor might not be inconsistent at all but has no plausible way of demonstrating that.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores a unique feature of AIs - their copiability. It takes ~20 years and O($300k) to spin up a new human worker. It takes ~20 minutes to spin up a new AI worker.
So in the long run, for a human to economically do a task, they have to not just have some comparative advantage but have a comparative advantage that's large enough to cover the massive cost differential in "producing" a new one.
This actually analogizes more to engines. I would argue that a big factor in the near-total replacement of horses by engines is not so much that engines are exactly 100x better than horses at everything, but that engines can be mass-produced. In fact I think the claim that engines are exactly equally better than horses at every horse-task is obviously false if you think about it for two minutes. But any time there's a niche where engines are even slightly better than horses, we can just increase production of engines more quickly and cheaply than we can increase production of horses.
These economic concepts such as comparative advantage tend to assume, for ease of analysis, a fixed quantity of workers. When you are talking about human workers in the short term, that is a reasonable simplifying assumption. But it leads you astray when you try to use these concepts to think about AIs (or engines).
This idea kind of rhymes with gain-of-function research in a way that makes me uncomfortable. "Let's intentionally create harmful things, but its OK because we are creating harmful things for the purpose of preventing the harm that would be caused by those things."
I'm not sure if I can formalize this into a logically-tight case against doing it, but it seems conceptually similar to X, and X is bad.
Just to make the math easy, let's suppose the gouging tax is 50%.
The air purifiers problem seems like not a big problem? If they are normally "worth" $150 and you value having them at $300, you could post them up for sale at $450. Then, if someone really needs them, you get your $300, they get their air purifier, and $150 goes to disaster relief. This tax only prevents the trade if the buyers would buy them for $300 but not for $450, which limits the amount of deadweight loss here to a maximum of $149, rather than potentially unbounded deadweight loss under current policy.
This is not true, the entire area of Tort law (especially negligence law) is highly developed in English speaking countries, and is a series of elaborations on "take reasonable care to avoid harm to others."