‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

U.S. appeals court upholds designation of Anthropic as supply chain risk

499 points · 900 comments · cramer4next

  1. iamdelirium · · focus · HN ↗
    I wonder if this is going start being abused soon.

    If I was Palantir or any other GOP aligned company, I would be completely against this. What's to stop a Democratic president from doing the same thing and destroying them?

    1. doctorwho42 · · focus · HN ↗
      Because the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party. They haven't really had any hard hitting legislation nor legal regulation/rulings on corporations in easily the last 30 years.

      I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. They are a private entity, so they can manage and change their primary system any way they want.

      1. ajross · · focus · HN ↗
        > Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party. They haven't really had any hard hitting legislation nor legal regulation/rulings on corporations in easily the last 30 years.

        Sarbanes-Oxley? Dodd-Frank? ACA? Now I'm sure you (like, every other living human) has a ton of nitpicks and criticism of bills like that. But they're real and they passed and they're largely-to-wholely partisan creations of the Democratic policy apparatus (SOX looked very bipartisan and was passed under Bush, but the actual bill was written mostly by democratic staffers).

        I mean, fine, you'd like different regulation. But they're responsible for basically all the corporate regulation active in the US regime.

        Bothsidesism is a very poor tool for this particular argument. Work with your allies, please.

        1. bushido · · focus · HN ↗
          Seeing Dodd-frank in the list is pretty hilarious, because it was put in place for the issues that arose from repealing Glass-Steagall by Clinton. Which arguably was one of the biggest causes of allowing the activities that lead to the Great financial crisis in 08.
          1. ajross · · focus · HN ↗
            This is why this kind of stuff is so difficult to argue about. G-S was repealed primarily by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act in 1999. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bl...

            And it is true, that it was signed by Clinton. But it was otherwise an entirely partisan bill passed with exclusively republican votes. All 44 democrats voted nay.

            Now, given that, do you really feel that that&#x27;s a supporting argument to the upthread contention that Democrats are a corporate-dominated party and not interested in regulation?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.