4 ms·

The thing is with mob tactics none of this matters. Who cares if it’s illegal what they did? They just go to another company and say hey if you want this govern

The thing is with mob tactics none of this matters. Who cares if it’s illegal what they did? They just go to another company and say hey if you want this government contract, you can’t work with them. I’m sure they might sue but after a year or two of the case going, who knows what other damage has been done when you don’t follow the rule of law or are bound to it having a judgment against you is meaningless.

treesknees 7mo ago
It’s not all about the government contract itself. By being labeled a supply chain risk, other companies cannot use Anthropic products if they want to work with the government. So it’s worth having that distinction by a judge, even if it takes some time to get it.
- conception 7mo ago
  Cannot use Anthropic products when doing work for the government- not in general. But yes, otherwise you’re correct.
CobrastanJorji 7mo ago
The weird thing about that is that those sort of mob tactics work by being indirect. You hint that you're not a big fan of Company X, you waggle your eyebrows at the guy who approves contracts, he denies the contract for some made up bullshit, and everybody understands the message. Here, the administration sucks at pulling this off. They say the quiet part out loud. The law is frequently "the administration can do whatever it wants with whatever made up process it wants, you just can't say that you're going after them because you don't like their speech," and then the President tweets "I am hereby banning company X because, and only because, I don't care for their speech."
- CamperBob2 7mo ago
  I don't see how they "suck at pulling this off." They dunk, and they dunk, and they dunk, and... Nobody who cares to stop them has any power, and nobody who has any power cares.
  - CobrastanJorji 7mo ago
    That's not really the case. Things often fail to work out for them after everyone gets bored and wanders off. Like when he tried to dunk of the law firms. Sure, lots of them capitulated immediately, but the ones who stuck it out and sued had slam dunk cases that they easily won. This may be fine for Trump and co, after all their goal is usually headline and spur-of-the-moment decision, and they don't face any penalties when it falls apart later, but it does mean that folks often do beat them just by sticking with it for long enough.
    - CamperBob2 7mo ago
      You don't understand. He's a narcissist. He 'wins' when his name appears in a headline. When he loses a case, the worst thing that ever happens is that we, the taxpayers, pick up the tab. It doesn't affect him at all, or discourage him from trying again. Because as you say yourself, it is seldom actually about winning and losing in court; instead, it is about rolling rocks downhill at his enemy and garnering publicity in the process. When he wins, well, he wins, and the newspapers have to say so. As for your last point, you cannot win a war of endurance against a guy who gets to use US DOJ as his own personal law firm, and whose cases are often tried by judges he appointed himself. You might not lose, but you aren't going to win.

treesknees 7mo ago

It’s not all about the government contract itself. By being labeled a supply chain risk, other companies cannot use Anthropic products if they want to work with the government. So it’s worth having that distinction by a judge, even if it takes some time to get it.

conception 7mo ago
Cannot use Anthropic products when doing work for the government- not in general. But yes, otherwise you’re correct.

CobrastanJorji 7mo ago

The weird thing about that is that those sort of mob tactics work by being indirect. You hint that you're not a big fan of Company X, you waggle your eyebrows at the guy who approves contracts, he denies the contract for some made up bullshit, and everybody understands the message. Here, the administration sucks at pulling this off. They say the quiet part out loud. The law is frequently "the administration can do whatever it wants with whatever made up process it wants, you just can't say that you're going after them because you don't like their speech," and then the President tweets "I am hereby banning company X because, and only because, I don't care for their speech."

CamperBob2 7mo ago
I don't see how they "suck at pulling this off." They dunk, and they dunk, and they dunk, and... Nobody who cares to stop them has any power, and nobody who has any power cares.
- CobrastanJorji 7mo ago
  That's not really the case. Things often fail to work out for them after everyone gets bored and wanders off. Like when he tried to dunk of the law firms. Sure, lots of them capitulated immediately, but the ones who stuck it out and sued had slam dunk cases that they easily won. This may be fine for Trump and co, after all their goal is usually headline and spur-of-the-moment decision, and they don't face any penalties when it falls apart later, but it does mean that folks often do beat them just by sticking with it for long enough.
  - CamperBob2 7mo ago
    You don't understand. He's a narcissist. He 'wins' when his name appears in a headline. When he loses a case, the worst thing that ever happens is that we, the taxpayers, pick up the tab. It doesn't affect him at all, or discourage him from trying again. Because as you say yourself, it is seldom actually about winning and losing in court; instead, it is about rolling rocks downhill at his enemy and garnering publicity in the process. When he wins, well, he wins, and the newspapers have to say so. As for your last point, you cannot win a war of endurance against a guy who gets to use US DOJ as his own personal law firm, and whose cases are often tried by judges he appointed himself. You might not lose, but you aren't going to win.