It is normal, expected, and healthy for stakeholders in a regulatory environment to offer proposals about regulations. What's unhealthy is the proposition that the deliberation process is so fragile that a stakeholder needs to cover every angle, lest they corrupt the outcome.

▲

pseudalopex 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is normal, expected, and healthy to offer criticism of self interested proposals. And mock even. What is unhealthy is to imply someone said what they did not.

▲

tptacek 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If that's what this is, a bank-shot snarky criticism of the proposal, fair enough. I read it instead as a criticism of a stakeholder having the temerity to make a proposal in the first place. It's not their job to anticipate and capture all your objections. That's your job!

▲

pseudalopex 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Everyone holds a stake in this discussion. And intellectual honesty is everyone's obligation.

▲

tptacek 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, that is a shorter way of saying what I just said.

▲

pseudalopex 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Amodei did not fail to anticipate and capture all objections. He dishonestly avoided well known objections. This was what you meant?

▲

tptacek 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it is not his job to state all the objections you might have to his proposal! That's your job.

	▲	pseudalopex an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> all the objections you might have My comment before corrected this straw man clearly.

▲

movealongnow 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	tptacek 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, audibly chuckling about the idea of software developers who consider themselves "everyday working class people". Keep it coming, Tom Morello.

▲

ofjcihen 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What you say is true but completely ignores the obvious ways in which what he is proposing benefits his company.

Its like saying it’s normal for a taxi driver to drive people places while he’s got you handcuffed in the trunk.

	▲	movealongnow 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The person you are responding to is the taxi driver in your analogy. Temper expectations in kind.

▲

Spartan-S63 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is the subject of potential regulation considered a stakeholder?

▲

zoogeny 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's a bit like asking how the defendant in a legal case is an interested party.

Even if you think someone is guilty, it does make sense to allow them to at least submit their defense. And if they choose to use that time to advocate for their own promotion, let them.

▲

akerl_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They’re the most obvious stakeholder… the regulation is going to directly affect them.

▲

Spartan-S63 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No, the public at large are the stakeholders. The enterprise is the subject of the regulation.

▲

sdenton4 4 hours ago | parent [-]

"Stakeholder" literally means someone with a stake in the outcome, which is to say, those who will be affected by the decision. That can include a whole range of people+entities, including citizens (as a group) and the companies to be regulated.

▲

shimman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes and the public are the stake holders for regulations, not a private corporation good fucking lord. Are you so neoliberal brained that you can't realize how bad it is, both for society and democratic nations, to have a critical aspect of your government captured by undemocratic private interests?

Regulatory capture is not a good thing. Companies that make money should have zero authoritative say, especially companies that pay for PACs to help sway elections in their favor:

https://www.anthropic.com/news/donate-public-first-action

	▲	tptacek 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Several people on this thread have aliased the terms "stakeholder" and "protagonist".

▲

snsjsnnddj 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]