Spencer Dailey: Average app review times for my Mac app (launched in 2019) have gone up by 3-5x and, it appears others too (tons of posts on Apple’s forums like this one). Mac app reviews now typically take 5 days, and I’m seeing lots of reports of 10+ day waits for some. While iOS app […]

Jesper, writing at Take:

My hope is that Macintosh is not just one of these empires that was at the height of its power and then disintegrated because of warring factions, satiated and uncurious rulers, and droughts for which no one was prepared, ruining crops no one realized were essential for survival.

My hope is that there remains a primordial spark, a glimpse of genius, to rediscover, to reconnect to — to serve not annual trends or constant phonification, but the needs of the user to use the computer as a tool to get something done.

Julien Khaleghy, CEO of SerpApi:

Google thinks it owns the internet. That’s the subtext of its lawsuit against SerpApi, the quiet part that it’s suddenly decided to shout out loud. The problem is, no one owns the internet. And the law makes that clear.

In January, we promised that we would fight this lawsuit to protect our business model and the researchers and innovators who depend on our technology. Today, Friday, February 20, 2026, we’re following through with a motion to dismiss Google’s complaint. While this is just one step in what could be a long and costly legal process, I want to explain why we’re confident in our position.

Is Google hurting itself in its confusion? Google is the largest scraper in the world. Google’s entire business began with a web crawler that visited every publicly accessible page on the internet, copied the content, indexed it, and served it back to users. It did this without distinguishing between copyrighted and non-copyrighted material, and it did this without asking permission. Now Google is in federal court claiming that our scraping is illegal.

I’ve come around on SerpApi in the last few months. My initial take was that it surely must be illegal for a company to scrape Google’s search results and offer access to that data as an API. But I’ve come around to the argument that what SerpApi is doing to obtain Google search results is, well, exactly how Google scrapes the rest of the entire web to build its search index. It’s all just scraping publicly accessible web pages.

This December piece by Mike Masnick at Techdirt is what began to change my mind:

Look, SerpApi’s behavior is sketchy. Spoofing user agents, rotating IPs to look like legitimate users, solving CAPTCHAs programmatically — Google’s complaint paints a picture of a company actively working to evade detection. But the legal theory Google is deploying to stop them threatens something far bigger than one shady scraper.

Google’s entire business is built on scraping as much of the web as possible without first asking permission. The fact that they now want to invoke DMCA 1201 — one of the most consistently abused provisions in copyright law — to stop others from scraping them exposes the underlying problem with these licensing-era arguments: they’re attempts to pull up the ladder after you’ve climbed it.

Just from a straight up perception standpoint, it looks bad.

Ben Thompson, writing at Stratechery:

In fact, Amodei already answered the question: if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company. The reason goes back to the question of international law, North Korea, and the rest:

• International law is ultimately a function of power; might makes right.
• There are some categories of capabilities — like nuclear weapons — that are sufficiently powerful to fundamentally affect the U.S.’s freedom of action; we can bomb Iran, but we can’t North Korea.
• To the extent that AI is on the level of nuclear weapons — or beyond — is the extent that Amodei and Anthropic are building a power base that potentially rivals the U.S. military.

Anthropic talks a lot about alignment; this insistence on controlling the U.S. military, however, is fundamentally misaligned with reality. Current AI models are obviously not yet so powerful that they rival the U.S. military; if that is the trajectory, however — and no one has been more vocal in arguing for that trajectory than Amodei — then it seems to me the choice facing the U.S. is actually quite binary:

• Option 1 is that Anthropic accepts a subservient position relative to the U.S. government, and does not seek to retain ultimate decision-making power about how its models are used, instead leaving that to Congress and the President.
• Option 2 is that the U.S. government either destroys Anthropic or removes Amodei.

It’s Congress that is absent in — looks around — all of this. Right down to the name of the Department of Defense. The whole Trump administration has taken to calling it the Department of War, but only Congress can change the legal name. (Anthropic, despite its very public spat with the administration, refers to it as the “Department of War” as well. But serious publications like the Journal and New York Times continue to call it the Department of Defense.)

Nilay Patel, quoting the same section of Thompson’s column I quoted above, sees it as “Ben Thompson making a full-throated case for fascism”. I see it as the case against corporatocracy. Who sets our defense policies? Our democratically elected leaders, or the CEOs of corporate defense contractors?

Amrith Ramkumar, reporting for The Wall Street Journal (gift link):

Trump’s announcement came shortly before the Pentagon’s Friday afternoon deadline for Anthropic to agree to let the military use its models in all lawful-use cases, a concession the company had refused to make. “We cannot in good conscience accede to their request,” Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei said on Thursday.

The company’s red lines had been domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, areas the Pentagon said Anthropic didn’t need to worry about because the military would never break the law with AI. Defense Department officials said Anthropic needed to fully trust the Pentagon to use the technology responsibly and relinquish control.

OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said the company’s deal with the Defense Department includes those same prohibitions on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, as well as technical safeguards to make sure the models behave as they should. “We have expressed our strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements,” he said, adding that OpenAI asked that all companies be given the chance to accept the same deal. [...]

Shortly after the deadline, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on X that he is designating the company a supply-chain risk, impairing its ability to work with other government contractors.

My short take is that both of these are true:

• It’s not the place of a corporation to dictate terms to the Department of Defense regarding how its product or services are used within the law.
• It’s a preposterous, childish (and almost certainly illegal) overreaction to designate Anthropic a “supply-chain risk to national security” in this way. Grow up.

See also: Anthropic’s official response.