3 ms·

The first one I can understand from history (although I do not agree for modern times). But the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought t

by gpvos 26d ago

The first one I can understand from history (although I do not agree for modern times). But the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy, and it should very strongly be and always have been. (Exceptions like "national security" notwithstanding, and those should probably be more narrowly restricted than they are now.)

dgellow 26d ago
Time to stop considering the US a democracy? It feels the country is it’s own weird system now, not sure how to classify it but something I would call Trumpocracy. The democratic processes don’t seem to serve the people, it’s all hacks to try to use the system against itself to entrench the administration ideology (some might draw parallels to history here)
- gpvos 26d ago
  Parts of it still work, but the core is rotten.
  - dgellow 26d ago
    The local democratic processes seem to be in better shape than at the federal level. At least as seen from afar
- markvdb 26d ago
  https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy...
  - dgellow 26d ago
    Now I want to read a version of that report with 2026 events taken in account. It feels like the US is on its way to be an elected autocracy according to that framework
- softwaredoug 26d ago
  The US is returning to its pre WW2 norm. The postwar era was the exception. US democracy has long been tenuous or for the “right people”.
  - cucumber3732842 26d ago
    Pre (like 20+yr) WW2 the scope of the activities that the government laid claim to was infinity smaller so the blast radius was likewise infinitely more limited. This is how you wound up with historically ethnic banks, universities, etc, etc. Black guy, pole, whatever, can't get a loan (well they can, at a "fuck you" price) from the wasp bank so they go to the lending group they know through their church or whatever. After a few years of that the guys who are doing that lending say fuggit, quit their day jobs and start a bank. Wash rinse repeat to varying extents for just about every sector business. They'd never allow that today. The incumbents would get the enforcers to kill that before it becomes a legitimate standalone business. And the enforcers have a lot more ammo today because of past 70yr of (mostly civil) law and jurisprudence. But any modern equivalent isn't done along racial/ethnic lines and so the useful idiots will think it's all fine and dandy and defend it out of one side of their mouth while complaining about a lack of opportunity out of the other.
    - softwaredoug 26d ago
      I’m not as sure. It feels that way. But society was also smaller in its footprint. Keep in mind the US government pre watergate did a lot of spying on political opponents (MLK, Malcolm X, etc). Presidents impounded funds pre Watergate at alarming rates. We put US citizens in camps during WW2 for being of Japanese descent. See also native Americans and the Federal govts enforcement of slavery. You might say the govt has just grown in proportion to the container it’s held in.
  - dgellow 26d ago
    An 80y exception in a 250y timeline?
    - softwaredoug 26d ago
rayiner 26d ago
I implore people to think about separation of powers. Just because something is desirable in the abstract doesn’t mean the judiciary should be doing it. Who decides what information is “accurate?” What are the implications of having the judiciary start policing the other two branches over such a fuzzy concept?
- elcritch 26d ago
  Congress is supposed to be the forum wherein this happens. It's intentionally a broader forum of people's representatives from the entire nation. If congress can't agree to a law then the federal government probably shouldn't be doing it, even if something is desirable.
  - deleted 26d ago
    [deleted]
  - pstuart 23d ago
    Congress has been intentionally neutered to cede power to the republican executive branch. This November will be interesting...
    - elcritch 22d ago
      Be careful of blind partnership. Both parties have been increasingly guilty of this in recent decades. The republican party internal dynamics are just the most recent. Even then Trump has been loosing his grip on the republicans in congress. It's slight but there. IMHO thats for the best.
- icedrift 26d ago
  "Who decides what information is “accurate?”" Previously agencies. Now everything bubbles up to the supreme court.
  - pstuart 23d ago
    Phew, now I feel better. The Roberts court has been a paragon of impartial justice and I know they will make the right call for the people /s
slibhb 26d ago
> But the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy That's a misunderstanding on your part. You can't have a "right to accurate information" because officials might simply be wrong. "Being wrong" can't be against the law. Additionally, people simply disagree about lots of things and often there's no procedure to resolve this. However, you can't lie under oath, or in front of Congress. But lying is not the same as providing inaccurate information. In most other contexts, lying is legal.
ptero 26d ago
> the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy In many countries, both democratic and not, police can lie (e.g. to try to get a suspect make a mistake and expose some information).
- lukan 26d ago
  But even police in interrogation mode may not lie that will result in lead poisening.
  - _DeadFred_ 26d ago
    Sure they can. Jails (run by the local police or sheriff) lie about the safety of the food they serve, the facilities they run, the outcomes of the policies they implement all the time.
    - lukan 26d ago
      Yes police can break the law, but they may not officially do so normally. At least not in my world.
- _DeadFred_ 26d ago
  In the USA the police can lie to you, but you can not lie back to them. To do that is a crime.
  - deleted 26d ago
    [deleted]
hammock 26d ago
Great questions. In saying “accurate information” there is a hidden presumption that not all government information needs to be shared. Forget about whether it’s accurate or not and who decides what’s accurate, just be maximally open The framers discussed this in a few key ways, which resonate ALL TOO WELL with today: Anti federalist Brutus 1 suggested that in a large republic, representatives will be too far removed from their constituents. Because citizens cannot personally observe public officials, the people "cannot be acquainted with their characters, know their motives, nor be informed of their proceedings." A lack of information would prevent citizens from holding officials accountable. Anti federalist Centinel 1 directly warns against the manipulation of information by the wealthy elite, arguing that the public can easily be deceived by "well-born" politicians who mask their pursuit of tyranny behind noble rhetoric. In Federalist 10 and 51 Madison argued alternatively (looks naive today) that a large, diverse republic makes it harder for corrupt politicians or factions to spread misinformation effectively across the entire nation. In Federalist 70 Hamilton explicitly defended a single, powerful President because it provides accountability. With a single executive, the public knows exactly who to blame for bad policy or false statements, preventing officials from shifting blame or hiding behind an anonymous committee But the Sedition Act passed only 10 years after the constitution made it illegal to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government, a restriction it could be argued that the government doesn’t even have in itself Modern law of relevance include the Smith Mundt Act 1948 which prohibited the government from propagandizing its own people (limited to foreigners). The smith mundt “modernization” amendment crammed into NDAA 2012 did away with this restriction and now we have an explosion of govt-payroll influencers , news anchors, talking points memos etc that aren’t exactly…accurate

by gpvos 26d ago

dgellow 26d ago

Time to stop considering the US a democracy? It feels the country is it’s own weird system now, not sure how to classify it but something I would call Trumpocracy. The democratic processes don’t seem to serve the people, it’s all hacks to try to use the system against itself to entrench the administration ideology (some might draw parallels to history here)

gpvos 26d ago
Parts of it still work, but the core is rotten.
- dgellow 26d ago
  The local democratic processes seem to be in better shape than at the federal level. At least as seen from afar
markvdb 26d ago
https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy...
- dgellow 26d ago
  Now I want to read a version of that report with 2026 events taken in account. It feels like the US is on its way to be an elected autocracy according to that framework
softwaredoug 26d ago
The US is returning to its pre WW2 norm. The postwar era was the exception. US democracy has long been tenuous or for the “right people”.
- cucumber3732842 26d ago
  Pre (like 20+yr) WW2 the scope of the activities that the government laid claim to was infinity smaller so the blast radius was likewise infinitely more limited. This is how you wound up with historically ethnic banks, universities, etc, etc. Black guy, pole, whatever, can't get a loan (well they can, at a "fuck you" price) from the wasp bank so they go to the lending group they know through their church or whatever. After a few years of that the guys who are doing that lending say fuggit, quit their day jobs and start a bank. Wash rinse repeat to varying extents for just about every sector business. They'd never allow that today. The incumbents would get the enforcers to kill that before it becomes a legitimate standalone business. And the enforcers have a lot more ammo today because of past 70yr of (mostly civil) law and jurisprudence. But any modern equivalent isn't done along racial/ethnic lines and so the useful idiots will think it's all fine and dandy and defend it out of one side of their mouth while complaining about a lack of opportunity out of the other.
  - softwaredoug 26d ago
    I’m not as sure. It feels that way. But society was also smaller in its footprint. Keep in mind the US government pre watergate did a lot of spying on political opponents (MLK, Malcolm X, etc). Presidents impounded funds pre Watergate at alarming rates. We put US citizens in camps during WW2 for being of Japanese descent. See also native Americans and the Federal govts enforcement of slavery. You might say the govt has just grown in proportion to the container it’s held in.
- dgellow 26d ago
  An 80y exception in a 250y timeline?
  - softwaredoug 26d ago

rayiner 26d ago

I implore people to think about separation of powers. Just because something is desirable in the abstract doesn’t mean the judiciary should be doing it. Who decides what information is “accurate?” What are the implications of having the judiciary start policing the other two branches over such a fuzzy concept?

elcritch 26d ago
Congress is supposed to be the forum wherein this happens. It's intentionally a broader forum of people's representatives from the entire nation. If congress can't agree to a law then the federal government probably shouldn't be doing it, even if something is desirable.
- deleted 26d ago
  [deleted]
- pstuart 23d ago
  Congress has been intentionally neutered to cede power to the republican executive branch. This November will be interesting...
  - elcritch 22d ago
    Be careful of blind partnership. Both parties have been increasingly guilty of this in recent decades. The republican party internal dynamics are just the most recent. Even then Trump has been loosing his grip on the republicans in congress. It's slight but there. IMHO thats for the best.
icedrift 26d ago
"Who decides what information is “accurate?”" Previously agencies. Now everything bubbles up to the supreme court.
- pstuart 23d ago
  Phew, now I feel better. The Roberts court has been a paragon of impartial justice and I know they will make the right call for the people /s

slibhb 26d ago

> But the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy That's a misunderstanding on your part. You can't have a "right to accurate information" because officials might simply be wrong. "Being wrong" can't be against the law. Additionally, people simply disagree about lots of things and often there's no procedure to resolve this. However, you can't lie under oath, or in front of Congress. But lying is not the same as providing inaccurate information. In most other contexts, lying is legal.

ptero 26d ago

> the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy In many countries, both democratic and not, police can lie (e.g. to try to get a suspect make a mistake and expose some information).

lukan 26d ago
But even police in interrogation mode may not lie that will result in lead poisening.
- _DeadFred_ 26d ago
  Sure they can. Jails (run by the local police or sheriff) lie about the safety of the food they serve, the facilities they run, the outcomes of the policies they implement all the time.
  - lukan 26d ago
    Yes police can break the law, but they may not officially do so normally. At least not in my world.
_DeadFred_ 26d ago
In the USA the police can lie to you, but you can not lie back to them. To do that is a crime.
- deleted 26d ago
  [deleted]

hammock 26d ago

Great questions. In saying “accurate information” there is a hidden presumption that not all government information needs to be shared. Forget about whether it’s accurate or not and who decides what’s accurate, just be maximally open The framers discussed this in a few key ways, which resonate ALL TOO WELL with today: Anti federalist Brutus 1 suggested that in a large republic, representatives will be too far removed from their constituents. Because citizens cannot personally observe public officials, the people "cannot be acquainted with their characters, know their motives, nor be informed of their proceedings." A lack of information would prevent citizens from holding officials accountable. Anti federalist Centinel 1 directly warns against the manipulation of information by the wealthy elite, arguing that the public can easily be deceived by "well-born" politicians who mask their pursuit of tyranny behind noble rhetoric. In Federalist 10 and 51 Madison argued alternatively (looks naive today) that a large, diverse republic makes it harder for corrupt politicians or factions to spread misinformation effectively across the entire nation. In Federalist 70 Hamilton explicitly defended a single, powerful President because it provides accountability. With a single executive, the public knows exactly who to blame for bad policy or false statements, preventing officials from shifting blame or hiding behind an anonymous committee But the Sedition Act passed only 10 years after the constitution made it illegal to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government, a restriction it could be argued that the government doesn’t even have in itself Modern law of relevance include the Smith Mundt Act 1948 which prohibited the government from propagandizing its own people (limited to foreigners). The smith mundt “modernization” amendment crammed into NDAA 2012 did away with this restriction and now we have an explosion of govt-payroll influencers , news anchors, talking points memos etc that aren’t exactly…accurate