Blame the "no regulation" crowd for that. Well functioning regulation and consumer protection is what promotes good things by forcing bad actors to get in line.

In theory, a competitive market could achieve the same goals, but in practice, it seems like marketplaces often need some regulatory nudging to get over the humps.

Completely unregulated free markets lead to extremes like slavery and leaded toys.

Regulatory practices can be abused or coopted (leading to regulatory capture) but that shouldn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing.

Would you frequent a completely unmoderated online forum? We all know how chatroulette turned out...

Every time we say "in theory a competitive market could achieve the same goals," we find that the entrepeneurs don't have the same goals. The problem isn't the mechanism of capitalism, it's the naive belief that consumer goals and seller goals are aligned.

Actually the problem is more that the theoretical concept of a competitive market bears about as much resemblance to any real consumer goods market as a homogenous sphere of bone, meat and skin in a frictionless vacuum bears to a cow.

Agreed.

There's no guarantee that regulation is good regulation.

And there is no guarantee that bad regulation is worse than no regulation.

Very true, which is why a smart merchant won't push their luck by abusing their customers.

Turns out a lot of them, such as the NYT, aren't that smart.