Scott analyzes the Pentagon's threatening tactics against Anthropic for refusing to remove Usage Policy restrictions from their contract, arguing this represents unprecedented authoritarian overreach and supporting Anthropic's stance against mass surveillance. Longer summary

Scott discusses a contract dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon, where the Pentagon is attempting to renegotiate their original agreement to remove Anthropic's Usage Policy restrictions and gain access to AI for 'all lawful purposes.' Anthropic has resisted, requesting guarantees against mass surveillance of American citizens and autonomous killbots, which the Pentagon refused. The Pentagon has threatened various consequences including designating Anthropic a 'supply chain risk'—an unprecedented use of a designation previously only applied to foreign adversaries. Scott argues strongly in support of Anthropic's position, viewing the Pentagon's tactics as authoritarian overreach. He addresses numerous counterarguments in detail, explains why the Pentagon should simply switch to another AI vendor, and praises the widespread support Anthropic has received from across the political spectrum and the tech industry. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines why conservative political victories seem to cause public opinion backlashes while liberal victories don't, presenting several theories but remaining uncertain. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the phenomenon of political backlash following major policy victories, comparing conservative and liberal wins. He notes strong backlashes against conservative victories like Trump's presidency and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but observes little to no backlash against liberal victories such as the legalization of gay marriage or the passage of Obamacare. The post presents several possible explanations for this asymmetry, including media influence, the perceived direction of history, and the visibility of immediate negative consequences. However, Scott remains uncertain about the true cause and the predictability of such backlashes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores how minority views can be silenced through social censorship, using a 'first offender model' to explain the maintenance of taboos despite significant private support. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of social censorship, using a study on public support for eugenics as a starting point. He introduces a 'first offender model' to explain how a minority view can be effectively silenced despite having significant support. The post draws parallels between this model and a hypothetical policing strategy, where focusing on deterring the first offender of a particular crime can prevent others from following suit. Scott applies this concept to explain how taboos and social norms are maintained, even when a significant portion of the population might privately disagree. He reflects on how this insight changes his view on censorship, acknowledging that taboos might represent a 'tenuous coordination advantage' rather than overwhelming opposition. The post concludes by considering the implications of this model for debates about censorship and free speech. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how Trump's presidency has unexpectedly decreased support for his own policies, analyzing polls and proposing several explanations for this counterintuitive trend. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes how Donald Trump's presidency has paradoxically led to a decrease in support for his own political positions. The post presents several polls showing increased support for free trade, immigration, and other non-Trumpist positions since 2016. Scott proposes various explanations for this phenomenon, including disgust with Trump as a person, partisan realignment, conservatives distancing themselves from Trump, increased media focus on negative aspects of Trump's policies, shifting of goalposts, and backlash effects similar to those seen in studies of disruptive protests. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of civility and honesty in politics, warning that being sufficiently repulsive can damage one's own cause. Shorter summary

The post contrasts public reactions to the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Margaret Thatcher, highlighting inconsistent moral standards in celebrating or condemning deaths of public figures. Longer summary

This post compares the public reactions to the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Margaret Thatcher, highlighting the contradictory nature of societal responses. The author notes that after bin Laden's death, many people preached against celebrating anyone's death, regardless of their actions. Conversely, when Thatcher died, many celebrated and defended the right to express negative feelings about public figures' deaths. The post suggests a significant overlap between these contradictory groups, implying a critique of inconsistent moral standards and selective outrage. Shorter summary