4 ms·

They should’ve kept their distance from the government as long as they could don’t volunteer to be helpful. Don’t volunteer to go meet with politicians keep as

by Danox 4mo ago

They should’ve kept their distance from the government as long as they could don’t volunteer to be helpful. Don’t volunteer to go meet with politicians keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can. Nothing good comes with associating with them. Have a legal department trained to be the buffer between you and the government any contact any questions goes through them and since you’re paying them a ton of money, they are the only people the politicians should get to know, oh, and again and again do not volunteer anything.

dylan604 4mo ago
> keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can this is the antithesis of a tech company whether it is VC funded or not, but especially if it is. you don't attract new users by laying low. you don't attract investors by laying low. laying low isn't even in a tech company's vocab.
- andrewchambers 4mo ago
  I think they meant keep a low profile from the government, not customers. Anthropic is doing the opposite by loudly asking for regulation.
  - dylan604 4mo ago
    If the company is "hot" attracting a lot of users, then of course the gov't is going to come knocking too. They're going to want access to all of that user data even if it's not a service they could use directly. Sure, you don't have to go courting government contracts, but it's not like government employees are not going to see the same PR civilian users see.
  - roysting 4mo ago
    In a world where the government has been turned into a massive customer of last resort and the game is a kind of first past the post of government capture, that’s simply not a game they can avoid, even if they’ve also been committing unforced errors.
CamperBob2 4mo ago
They should’ve kept their distance from the government as long as they could don’t volunteer to be helpful. Don’t volunteer to go meet with politicians keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can. Nothing good comes with associating with them. That was always Microsoft's modus operandi, and it almost cost them their company. You can ignore politicians, but politicians won't ignore you.
- DANmode 4mo ago
  > it almost cost them their company. Boy, they put on a great show. I wonder if this Google antitrust thing is going to end up a similar nothing-burger due to their deep protection.
  - CamperBob2 4mo ago
    Boy, they put on a great show. If you think that's how it was perceived in Redmond, you don't know anyone there.
    - DANmode 4mo ago
      It was probably a sweat, for most except the highest of leadership. Probably not comfortable for them, either. But did Bill Gates, for example, really fear existentially for MS? I’m sure there’s a lot of nervous, scrambling people at Google right now, getting back to my point.
    - calgoo 4mo ago
      See this is the issue with engineers, they think they are fighting with the government while the C-Suite wine and dine with them instead. Just like all the engineers at Google who actually bought into the whole "Don't do evil" while building the "death star" of destruction of personal information. There is no good corporation, and no matter how much the people inside the company thing they are influencing the corporate decisions, they are just number on a spreadsheet. If they all quit tomorrow, yes it would be troublesome for the company for a bit, but then they would find replacements and thats it. You as an employee only have one power at the corporation: Dont work there. Thats it, everything else is just for show. Sure you can pick the JS framework that the company will use; thats about as much corporate value as the one that picks the toilet paper in the bathrooms.
matheusmoreira 4mo ago
I'm not sure tech companies were ever like that, but even if they were, that world is long gone by now. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/10/14/silicon-valley-the-new-lobbying-monster https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/10/14/silicon-valley...
close04 4mo ago
> They should’ve kept their distance from the government Can they do it if they have anything of value for that government? Eventually the government comes knocking and they have to say "no". Depending on who's in power the response can range from "fine, no lucrative contracts for you" to "you shall pay through your teeth for this". By the time you win a legal battle, which is not guaranteed with a captured justice system, the damage was done and a lesson was learned. It's like saying no to the mob (today the comparison is as apt as it gets). You get your knees bent the wrong way, and someone else gets the payoff.
jongjong 4mo ago
If they had kept their distance, they probably wouldn't exist today. The dependency on government has been critical for any tech company. They'd have been replaced by a different company that is willing to cater to the government's every whim. That said, the founders of these companies could have lobbied the government to ban corporate lobbying. It's like; if there's gov money on the table, then it'd be a mistake to let your competitor take it. However, if you ensure that government money is never on the table for anyone, then that's one less thing for everyone to have to compete over and throw money at. Everyone can save their money for other things. The government should never have allowed political lobbying to become a competitive market. Also, political campaigns should not be allowed to raise private funds. That is insane. The government should fund all candidates' campaigns and allocate equal funding. Candidates shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their own campaign either IMO.
frugalmail 4mo ago
You think their competitors, even without malice, wouldn't have put them in the same predicament if they were quiet? The companies willing to collaborate would have brought light to the issues.

by Danox 4mo ago

dylan604 4mo ago

> keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can this is the antithesis of a tech company whether it is VC funded or not, but especially if it is. you don't attract new users by laying low. you don't attract investors by laying low. laying low isn't even in a tech company's vocab.

andrewchambers 4mo ago
I think they meant keep a low profile from the government, not customers. Anthropic is doing the opposite by loudly asking for regulation.
- dylan604 4mo ago
  If the company is "hot" attracting a lot of users, then of course the gov't is going to come knocking too. They're going to want access to all of that user data even if it's not a service they could use directly. Sure, you don't have to go courting government contracts, but it's not like government employees are not going to see the same PR civilian users see.
- roysting 4mo ago
  In a world where the government has been turned into a massive customer of last resort and the game is a kind of first past the post of government capture, that’s simply not a game they can avoid, even if they’ve also been committing unforced errors.

CamperBob2 4mo ago

They should’ve kept their distance from the government as long as they could don’t volunteer to be helpful. Don’t volunteer to go meet with politicians keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can. Nothing good comes with associating with them. That was always Microsoft's modus operandi, and it almost cost them their company. You can ignore politicians, but politicians won't ignore you.

DANmode 4mo ago
> it almost cost them their company. Boy, they put on a great show. I wonder if this Google antitrust thing is going to end up a similar nothing-burger due to their deep protection.
- CamperBob2 4mo ago
  Boy, they put on a great show. If you think that's how it was perceived in Redmond, you don't know anyone there.
  - DANmode 4mo ago
    It was probably a sweat, for most except the highest of leadership. Probably not comfortable for them, either. But did Bill Gates, for example, really fear existentially for MS? I’m sure there’s a lot of nervous, scrambling people at Google right now, getting back to my point.
  - calgoo 4mo ago
    See this is the issue with engineers, they think they are fighting with the government while the C-Suite wine and dine with them instead. Just like all the engineers at Google who actually bought into the whole "Don't do evil" while building the "death star" of destruction of personal information. There is no good corporation, and no matter how much the people inside the company thing they are influencing the corporate decisions, they are just number on a spreadsheet. If they all quit tomorrow, yes it would be troublesome for the company for a bit, but then they would find replacements and thats it. You as an employee only have one power at the corporation: Dont work there. Thats it, everything else is just for show. Sure you can pick the JS framework that the company will use; thats about as much corporate value as the one that picks the toilet paper in the bathrooms.

matheusmoreira 4mo ago

I'm not sure tech companies were ever like that, but even if they were, that world is long gone by now. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/10/14/silicon-valley-the-new-lobbying-monster https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/10/14/silicon-valley...

close04 4mo ago

> They should’ve kept their distance from the government Can they do it if they have anything of value for that government? Eventually the government comes knocking and they have to say "no". Depending on who's in power the response can range from "fine, no lucrative contracts for you" to "you shall pay through your teeth for this". By the time you win a legal battle, which is not guaranteed with a captured justice system, the damage was done and a lesson was learned. It's like saying no to the mob (today the comparison is as apt as it gets). You get your knees bent the wrong way, and someone else gets the payoff.

jongjong 4mo ago

If they had kept their distance, they probably wouldn't exist today. The dependency on government has been critical for any tech company. They'd have been replaced by a different company that is willing to cater to the government's every whim. That said, the founders of these companies could have lobbied the government to ban corporate lobbying. It's like; if there's gov money on the table, then it'd be a mistake to let your competitor take it. However, if you ensure that government money is never on the table for anyone, then that's one less thing for everyone to have to compete over and throw money at. Everyone can save their money for other things. The government should never have allowed political lobbying to become a competitive market. Also, political campaigns should not be allowed to raise private funds. That is insane. The government should fund all candidates' campaigns and allocate equal funding. Candidates shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money on their own campaign either IMO.

frugalmail 4mo ago

You think their competitors, even without malice, wouldn't have put them in the same predicament if they were quiet? The companies willing to collaborate would have brought light to the issues.