Rules exist because someone decided which ones matter.
Kalshi avoids billions in taxes by insisting it is not a sports betting operator, even as it dominates sports betting. ICE shared Medicaid data it had no legal right to share. The American Diabetes Association blocked publication so authors posted elsewhere. Each is a different flavour of the same move: redefining what something is in order to escape the constraints that would apply if we all agreed on what it actually is. The people making these moves are not stupid. They are expert at seeing the gap between what a rule says and what a rule protects, then stepping through it.
Authority degrades the moment enforcement becomes impossible or inconsistent, and smart actors spend enormous energy finding the precise distance at which a rule stops mattering.
2
Kalshi, ICE, the Diabetes Association each made a calculation that the cost of being wrong about their interpretation was lower than the cost of being constrained by the rule itself.
3
In a world where organizations can redefine themselves faster than regulators can respond, legitimacy becomes less about following rules and more about successfully arguing you are exempt from them.