121–130 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The standard is (a) whether the act was illegal, (b) the company knew it was illegal and did it anyway. None of what you listed is relevant since it isn’t illegal for example to suppress speech or mislead the public.
Allegedly...
Obviously there are no details yet, but I suspect it's as simple as: - Polymarket is still very illegal in the US - Lol. We all know it's easy to get around that - If the CEO knew or was complicit in US citizens breaking laws, he could be in trouble. And if there was evidence he was encouraging it, he could be in big trouble
Can someone explain to me how this is? It's a company HQ'd in New York, but it's not allowed to do business in the very country it's HQ'd in? What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The standard is (a) whether the act was illegal, (b) the company knew it was illegal and did it anyway. None of what you listed is relevant since it isn’t illegal for example to suppress speech or mislead the public.
The first amendment of the US constitutions says that it's illegal for the government to make a law which abridges people's freedom of speech. There are many cases of government entities working with social media companies to suppress speech as the Twitter Files have proved. As the government created and upholds those federal entities on the basis of laws, the government is responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the reflexive accusations of "witch hunts" and "crooked hit jobs" are a recent development. Their lineage is obvious and ... I guess you can't blame them because they (somehow) play with a significant percentage of the population.
Blaming the incident on “political retribution” (their words) implies that the US government is corrupt. Such a weird thing to blame it on.
I still don't understand the Polymarket business model. Why take the legal risk of $3 billion in volume as an unlicensed commodities exchange if you're not even going to get paid for it? 1% would be $30,000,000!
See Alex Tabarrok's triumphant take from before the raid: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/11/pr...
Here's an interesting question. We know that if a bettor in a prediction market wants to manipulate the market's prediction, it's likely to be extremely costly for them (though Théo's big bet on Polymarket seems to have shifted it a lot, so maybe we should doubt this theory). Does the operator of a prediction market have less-costly ways to manipulate the prediction?
Other than just shutting down the market permanently on Election Day, Mt. Gox style, which is an extremely profitable scam whether you manipulated the predictions or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accepting a presidential pardon requires an admission of guilt. Would being a confirmed criminal aide them in business in any way?
Incorrect. A pardon does require a conviction, however. And it will probably never get that far.
No.
"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment" [1]. Everything after that is, at best, case law.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These imputed opinions tend to do a better job than traditional news. On election night, polymarket was ahead of the news channels every step of the way. Edit: to be clear, I’m referring to polymarket essentially “calling” each swing state well before the networks did. I’m not just referring to the overall outcome.
I am not sure what that has to do with calling elections. The Associated Press calls who wins, not some random person with $5 to throw away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accepting a presidential pardon requires an admission of guilt. Would being a confirmed criminal aide them in business in any way?
Incorrect. A pardon does require a conviction, however. And it will probably never get that far.