I think you would be right if their post was substantive in relation to the topic, but it's not. It's a list of grievances almost all of which are unrelated. Despite this, it was at the top of the replies to the topic.

> threatens every use of cc in oss community.

well that ones obviously patently false

The deeper issue is that the comment isn't adding anything to the conversation. It's simply a list of criticisms about Anthropic. If it were an analysis of why this acquisition is so bad, I'd agree with your stance. But the only thing the comment appears to do is try to make them look bad.

In the age of AI you can't "undo the claims" for randos on the internet. I mean it was hard enough before, but at this point it's now a direct money -> speech pipeline. Reputation will matter more than ever before.

> Does it matter?

It sure does, readers should be informed of who says what. The speaker and their history is part of full communication, not just the words.

Bullshit spreads around the word before the truth can even get its shoes on. So on and so forth.

Naive credentialism is obviously bad, but reputation does matter.