> These men aren’t beholden to shareholders, per se. They’re doing their duty to institutions they’ve devoted their lives to.

But what about doing their duty to the nation?

All kinds of things could be said about the second order effects of them booting an app, and most of them do ultimately involve the threat aspect of state actors or other rich VC class people and what they do.

I think we tend to forget, that their legals will be telling them they simply don't HAVE to do this. Not, what they should think, or do, but providing the cash focussed getout: you have no obligation here.

That passivity brings them advantages. Not having to act, means choosing to "wait and see" is a low bar justifiable decision inside their role and obligations. Not what you and I might think, what they feel obligated to do.

Remember that when Apple did voluntarily explore CSAM scanning logic, the community pushed back hard. So they have recent experience to drive wanting not to act. It hurt last time.

It's another sign that -by some measure- "America has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism". There was this opinion piece some months ago in the New York Times by Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way and Daniel Ziblatt which I recalled when I read this. [https://archive.is/WZMpM]