This seems like a really strange argument to double down on. There is an overlap of people who discount harrassment based on salary, and people who discount fatal brutality by citing an unimportant crime. Instead it's the same outlook on how society should work that opposes both abuses. While people can choose to work harder on one problem, ranking them and deciding one should be ignored is a good tactic for insuring there isn't a critical mass of people fighting any injustice.

Furthermore, the type of people that want to invest in companies that decrease systemic racism and harassment experienced by their riders should also be concerned about similar problems at places closer to home. Framing these abuses as though they are not all different manifestations of failing to recognize other people's humanity on some level really undermines any progress.

I'm not making an argument, I'm merely questioning a philosophical claim I think is probably wrong.

Specifically, if you think (1) "There are things in the world that are really bad, and no amount of greater good justifies them. Harassment is one of them." but you also favor cigarette regulation, then you must implicitly think the inevitable shooting/strangling people/other violence is NOT one of those things that are "really bad and no amount of greater good justifies them".

Or alternatively, the stated principle (1) is not your real justification and merely a post-hoc rationalization.

I suspected the latter. But I was wrong - as it turns out geofft is internally consistent and also opposes cigarette regulation, firearm regulation, and all the other rules who's enforcement involves doing things that are "really bad and no amount of greater good justifies them". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13725372