Hacker News Reader

Additionally that kind of public trust only works if you have a government operating under the constraints of a legal framework, and to a lesser extent, an ethical framework. When a government serves the whims of an individual and instead of the function of their office, shirking agreed upon laws, etc, then you no longer have a government serving the people.

View on HN

Sure, that’s why I said "on its face." This administration is obviously very different than most.

I don’t think Anthropic is wrong to include that clause with this particular administration, and I doubt the administration is internally framing the issue the way I did rather than defaulting to simple authoritarian instincts.

But a more reasonable administration could raise the same concern, and I think I would agree with them.

I don't think it's reasonable to take something the government is supposed to be protecting (right to contract) and turn them into its biggest threat. That's not security, it's letting the night guard raid the museum.

Sure, I said as such:

> Of course, the reaction is wildly out of proportion. A normal response would just be to stop doing business with the company and move on. Labeling them a supply chain risk is an extreme response.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com