The government is forcing them to change their policy, by definition that is regulation and oversight.

Let's say that the government was forcing a company to change their overall right-to-repair or return policy in order to avoid being on a blacklist, would that not be seen as oversight and regulation?

Whether the regulation is legitimate or of benefit is a different argument.

▲

isodev 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You misunderstand - a government normally represents the people, we appoint them to well, govern, in our name. I understand how this is confusing in a place like the US, where the government often seems to represent the business (or lately a small group of poor examples of humanity), not the people.

	▲	peterfirefly 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Normally? All governments are in the egg-breaking business some of the time. Most of them are most of the time. Some of them all of the time. Very few are good at making omelettes.

▲

GrinningFool an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I think GP was referred to lack of regulation and oversight over the government.

▲

lupire an hour ago | parent [-]

Of course, but that is incoherent. Regulation and oversight is government.

	▲	toss1 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, it is a famously coherent concept over millenia. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? "Who will guard the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?" >>A Latin phrase found in the Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–348), a work of the 1st–2nd century Roman poet Juvenal. It may be translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?". ... The phrase, as it is normally quoted in Latin, comes from the Satires of Juvenal, the 1st–2nd century Roman satirist. ...Its modern usage the phrase has wide-reaching applications to concepts such as tyrannical governments, uncontrollably oppressive dictatorships, and police or judicial corruption and overreach... [0] The point is a government that is not overseen by the people devolves into tyranny. So yes, the point is to regulate the regulators and oversee the oversight committee. Anthropic was happy to have it's AI used for military purposes, with two exceptions: 1) no automated killing, there had to be a human in the "kill chain" of command, and 2) no use for mass surveillance. This govt "Dept of War" is demanding Anthropic drop those two safety requirements or it threatens to make Anthropic a pariah. These demands by the govt are both immoral and insane. The "regulator and overseer" needs to be regulated and overseen. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...