What is perfectly reasonable and rational is to only respond to clearly written arguments with some evidence of thought and time invested in them, and to consider others to be too low-effort or spammy to invest time in responding to. But guess what? Real humans spam for free, they're mostly not paid to do so by the PRC or George Soros.

Anthropic paid a lot of money for a moat and want to guard it. It is not wrong, in any sense of the word, for them to do so.

Does any of that obviate the need for safe urban design, anti-CSAM and anti-molestation laws, or laws prohibiting the local dive from serving a cold one to my 11 year old? Will simple appeals for "parental responsibility" suffice as an argument for undoing those child safety systems we put in place, or will they be met with derisive dismissal? Why should your "solution" be treated any differently? In fact you offer none. Yours is the non-solution solution, the not-my-problem solution, the go-away solution. Not good enough on its own, sorry.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/ice-agents-arrest-crying-woman-sfo

The other issues are more serious, especially macOS 25, but again, how much of that deeply affects the vast majority of actual paying customers who buy Macbooks? As long as Apple learned their lesson and will do another one of those bugfix OS releases they've done before, no long lasting harm done.

Using credit cards for age verification is certainly dumb, but age verification is coming and most people see the need for it. You can disagree that there is a need for it (entirely different discussion), but you must acknowledge the broad support for it at least.

"Lack of regulation clarity on your part does not constitute a crime on mine". Why is that not a valid defence?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaging_phantom

Having established that, you know the firm upper bound on economic (not cultural or political or podcast-topic-generating) impact that international tourism boycott will have on the US. Same for putting tariffs on US goods. If you ignore this, you'll be surprised by how little this matters in the end, economically. Conversely, if you keep yourself firmly grounded in reality you can still in fact be against these policies on different grounds - on the fact that over time their cumulative economic and non-economic effect will hurt, on the fact that a lot of the reasons for these policies are fanciful nationalist bullshit (no, manufacturing jobs aren't and won't be coming back). But don't expect us staying away from your country, or putting a tariff on your shitty cars or cucumbers or whatever, to make a difference. Why is that controversial?

Sure, if there's potential for using this situation for political gain it'll maybe make a political impact, but there will not be an economic one, not above the SNR of what else is going on.