←back to thread

FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

(www.axios.com)
249 points jaboutboul | 9 comments | 13 Nov 24 21:29 UTC | HN request time: 1.404s | source | bottom
Show context
legitster ◴[13 Nov 24 21:35 UTC] No.42130253[source]▶
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

replies(6): >>42130959 #>>42131193 #>>42131218 #>>42131520 #>>42140122 #>>42145248 #
cryptica[dead post] ◴[13 Nov 24 23:48 UTC] No.42131520[source]▶
[flagged]
1. threeseed ◴[13 Nov 24 23:53 UTC] No.42131567[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>42131709 #>>42131957 #
2. cryptica ◴[14 Nov 24 00:12 UTC] No.42131709[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>42131768 #>>42131941 #>>42131970 #
3. threeseed ◴[14 Nov 24 00:22 UTC] No.42131768[source]▶
No the first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

4. mikeyouse ◴[14 Nov 24 00:49 UTC] No.42131941[source]▶
If you’ll humor me - what specifically did the Twitter files show in that regard?
replies(1): >>42135160 #
5. briantakita ◴[14 Nov 24 00:52 UTC] No.42131957[source]▶
> The standard is (a) whether the act was illegal, (b) the company knew it was illegal and did it anyway.

Allegedly...

6. lokar ◴[14 Nov 24 00:54 UTC] No.42131970[source]▶
The constitution does not make anything a crime
replies(1): >>42132168 #
7. tastyfreeze ◴[14 Nov 24 01:23 UTC] No.42132168{3}[source]▶
Except treason.
replies(1): >>42148361 #
8. cryptica ◴[14 Nov 24 11:23 UTC] No.42135160{3}[source]▶
The part where Elon's mum said she was shocked by the contents of the Twitter files and that's why she stopped being a democrat. That's all the info I needed.

Haha. How leftist/neoliberal of me to outsource my opinion! Well, in my defence, Elon's mum is more trustworthy than CNN. She hasn't lied yet.

Unlike your typical leftist, I actually keep score of such things.

9. lokar ◴[15 Nov 24 16:26 UTC] No.42148361{4}[source]▶
Sort of. It’s more of a limit on what the crime of treason can be.