3 ms·
> how fast free speech has been destroyed This doesn't really have anything to do with constitutional "free speech". This is a government agency, not the pers
by petcat 10mo ago
> how fast free speech has been destroyed
This doesn't really have anything to do with constitutional "free speech". This is a government agency, not the personal research blog of a private citizen.
Government agencies don't have "free speech".
That said, it's a shame this is happening. Maybe a future administration will reopen it.
- treadump 10mo ago> Maybe a future administration will reopen it Future administration?
- torstenvl 10mo agoCan you explain what you mean by this comment?
- sonar_un 10mo agoI think that anyone paying attention knows exactly what he meant by that comment.
- mc32 10mo agoIt seems the poster is of the low probability belief that at some point before Nov 2028 elections will be suspended and we will move to some kind of imperial system instead. You can take them up on polymarket.
- lmeyerov 10mo agoDeleted, I'm not sure what's the point of talking with people about for/against Trump at this point
- mc32 10mo agoPolymarkets are a place to put a dollar bet on one’s beliefs and the likelihood that belief will come true.
- selectodude 10mo agoThe issue is that even if I win that bet, they’re paying me my winnings in USD, which is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, which has been irreparably destroyed. If I can buy, say, low probability insurance that that will give me a squad of mercenaries and a jet to a bunker somewhere safe, I’d be far more apt to put my money where my mouth is. It’s not a bad bet. It’s just a dumb bet. The payout doesn’t match the risk.
- belorn 10mo agoHow big would the risk be in your view that you would loose the bet? In any risk-benefit situation, the first step is to define the probability of the risk.
- phantasmish 10mo agoThe usual way for this to happen doesn’t involve suspending elections. And I’d not bet on a guy that old and infirm winning again in 2028 even if he could legally run. We’ll see how ICE at select polling places and iffy federal-run voter role purges go in 2026. Should set the tone for how far they try to go in 2028.
- mc32 10mo agoPolling places closing early, terrible weather, computers off-line, etc., will of course drive people from voting. Seeing an ICE agent isn't going to deter a citizen from voting any more than deter people taking vacations overseas. I'd be more than happy to show ID to vote as the rest of the world does. India can do it. They had a caste system and yet conduct fair and honest. We can do it too.
- 3eb7988a1663 10mo agoAh to be white.
- SpicyLemonZest 10mo agoI think that's a reasonable worry, but I'd encourage you to make sure you do remember this prediction, and update accordingly if they don't suppress votes or the voter suppression doesn't work. I was worried about Elon Musk's efforts to buy off a Wisconsin judicial election earlier this year and became a lot more confident in democracy when it didn't work at all.
- phantasmish 10mo agoOne of the two things I mentioned is already happening, and it’ll be pretty surprising if the Republican army isn’t used for voter intimidation. Why even have it, if not for that kind of thing? It’s not like they didn’t already use both covert and overt means to try to overturn an election, and get caught red-handed on both (I mean, one was televised live, so…) Much cleaner to put in the effort on Election Day itself.
- thiht 10mo agoTrump tried to overturn an election and failed, he’s a moron but he won’t make the same mistake again. The next US elections will be rigged, if there are even elections.
- Griffinsauce 10mo agoPeople sailing on as if this flip will have another standard flop is wild to me. I guess it may be self protection.
- websiteapi 10mo ago[flagged]
- guiand 10mo agoLong horizon events like this on Polymarket stabilize around a % odds corresponding to time value of money. You can get 4% buying risk free CDs for that horizon.
- websiteapi 10mo agothis is not true - if you know for certaint that trump will be president through winning an election in 2028 you can make over 20X your money. at the end of the day people don't actually believe it, which is why trump is valued little. people who aren't willing to bet with their money on things they say so absolutely aren't serious people.
- enraged_camel 10mo ago>> people who aren't willing to bet with their money on things they say so absolutely aren't serious people. Either that, or they don’t have money to throw at dumb bets.
- tbrownaw 10mo ago> people who aren't willing to bet with their money on things they say so absolutely aren't serious people. There are in fact people who avoid gambling on general principle, unrelated to any one particular thing they're being pressured to bet on.
- tomrod 10mo agoI am not sure that is a useful principle. I tend to keep an umbrella around in the car regardless whether the forecast calls for rain. Do these people similarly avoid stock markets, insurance, and similar products in the risk space?
- deleted 10mo ago
- wk_end 10mo ago> Government agencies don't have "free speech". My understanding is that, in many ways, government agencies are more constitutionally protected speech-wise than private entities, precisely because any hierarchical attempt to punish them for their speech would be coming from the government rather than private entities. IANAL (or even American) though so grain of salt. In any case, a lot of the right-wing hypocrisy around free speech that was being called out by OP didn't have much to do with constitutionally protected freedom of speech either - it was complaining about things like private companies (e.g. Twitter) shadowbanning people.
- crooked-v 10mo agoIn theory, sure. In practice the Supreme Court's rulings mean President can now just fire anyone he wants whenever for any reason.
- wk_end 10mo agoAny discussion about the constitution and jurisprudence and rights should probably be assumed to be referring to the Before Times, when those things still mattered. Sigh.
- torstenvl 10mo agoThis is incorrect. Government agencies have exactly zero free speech rights. They are part of the Executive Branch and as such are instrumentalities of the President. Full stop. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 1. (There are so-called independent agencies, but the constitutionality of true independence is in question in the Trump v. Slaughter case. You can read about it at https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25-332 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25-332 or https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/court-seems-likely-to-side-with-trump-on-presidents-power-to-fire-ftc-commissioner/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/court-seems-likely-to-sid... or https://reason.com/volokh/2025/12/17/trump-v-slaughter-was-trump-v-united-states-redux/ https://reason.com/volokh/2025/12/17/trump-v-slaughter-was-t... or https://reason.com/volokh/2025/12/09/some-answers-to-justice-barretts-questions-in-trump-v-slaughter/ https://reason.com/volokh/2025/12/09/some-answers-to-justice... )
- matthewdgreen 10mo agoThe complaints about “free speech” I heard from conservatives over the past five years often had nothing to do with constitutional free speech, either. They were almost always directed at private companies and organizations moderating content; from time to time someone would try to claim a government nexus, but it was rare and always something like a request to take down some content (that often got rejected.) Given that we’ve spent years having a broad conversation about the principle of free speech, to suddenly demand that we restrict the conversation to one about pure First Amendment requirements seems a bit disingenuous. Speech is important. Scientific speech more important. A government right now is using its power to selectively defund and wipe out big chunks of scientific research and communications that ultimately exist to protect your future. You should be livid and working to inform people how dangerous this is, not making poor excuses.
- petcat 10mo ago[flagged]
- Ar-Curunir 10mo agoYou’re responding to is Matthew Green, who has done more for deployed cryptography and internet privacy than most people alive. He has absolutely “hit the pavement”