So what if it’s illegal, what can be done about it, the corruption is so extreme there will be no recourse.
I hope I’m wrong…
Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
31–40 of 475 posts
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s possible this could go before multiple judges who won’t all agree with this particular one.
It's also possible the Trump admin has people commenting online.
They don't need to be part of the administration.
More than 50% of voters voted for Trump. Even today >30% (of everyone) think he's doing a good job. (Ie about equal to the voters in absolute number terms). Lots of people believe eat he is doing is legal simply because he is doing it.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#33The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Just that if a tweet can cause damage in seconds, the law shouldn't be too far behind.
I thought I hated Web 2.0/3.0, but "age of twitter" made me actually feel ill.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#34The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Just that if a tweet can cause damage in seconds, the law shouldn't be too far behind.
> Why can't they expedite for special cases? To a certain extent this exists, but given that SCOTUS has been stacked with GOPers… > The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. In contrast, merits cases take months, include extensive brief…
[flagged]
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#35There was a guy in the comments of the first article on this topic, who claimed to be an expert on this law and was adamant that the decision by the Trump admin was perfectly legal. Not just for accountability sake, but if that gentleman could come back in here and outline what he thinks is going on that would be quite interesting.
You can hear the Department of War's pov on this controversy from the All-In Podcast here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzwRflcLPAA&t=2479s
Super interesting pov from the person who recommended the supply risk designation.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#36At this point, does precedent even matter? Based on recent rulings, I feel like this exact scenario could play out again and the result would be the exact same.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#37No fine imposed on the Trump Administration corporation (doing business as the federal government of the US of A)? Does the current legal system allow Anthropic to sue for loss of revenue, reputational damage, etc.?
Even if they are stuck with a fine, who enforces the fine? What's stopping them from just... Not paying it?
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#38So can they now sue the government and recoup their inflated theoretical losses to be paid out of tax revenue? It feels like any outcome here will have no negative effect on the major players actually involved.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#39Most of what Trump does is illegal.
A lot of what the President does is ineffectual. And this is speaking with generality, including Presidents Obama, Biden, Clinton, et. al. The modern method of "ruling by Executive Order/Action" is a clever political ruse. It garners a lot of attention to decree an EO on some wedge issue, doesn't it? It stirs the pot quite effectively, even if the EO isn't, in fact, effective to do anything at all. Ruling by EO is a…
Interesting. I wonder how those who were laid off by the Government feel about this. Or those who are harmed by ICE Agents. Maybe those who are stuck in limbo because their visas aren’t going to be renewed.
You’re point about /effective/ governance makes sense. To that I agree, often the EOs are overturned or have little affect.
However, the damage EOs cause is very real, lasting, and can be disastrous. For example Trumps tariffs, while ineffective at their (stated) goal, were eventually overturned. But the damage they caused will be very long lasting. Supply chains are organic, they respond to outside forces, when those forces cause them to shift and change. Rarely do they on their own shift back.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#40I don't agree. When anthropic contractually stopped the US government from using the platform for certain purposes that they could not prevent the average user from pursuing they created a de facto national security risk. Prevent everyone from doing it or don't prevent anyone. You can't single out and cripple only one country. I don't imagine that this was Anthropic's intent anyway. They were just trying to say that…
> When anthropic contractually stopped the US government from using the platform for certain purposes that they could not prevent the average user from pursuing they created a de facto national security risk.
Anthropic had two red lines: 1) no lethal autonomous warfare without a human in the loop, and 2) no mass surveillance of Americans. How is that something the average user is capable of? How are those red lines creating a national security risk?
These were not special terms for the U.S. government, they were a part of the usage policy since 2024. Governments are not in the same class as the average user, their capability and potential for misuse of the service is not comparable. There is no reason why the U.S. government should dispute those terms, and their reaction was dystopian.