- No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents
   - Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public
   - Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity?
   - This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents. 
   - Government officials *should* be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
   - Their objective was to prevent *legally permitted* public recording of these operations
   - Here you are delving into a fraught space. Given that many people in that status are guilty of *civil* infractions and the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate, many people are understandably upset. There's a ton to discuss in just this one line item.

This is an inversion of the problem. The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area.

Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers?

This is not a valid comparison.

Is there no concern for what would happen in case of mistaken identity?

What does this mean? Why do you think the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict drone operations?

Knowing that a vehicle contains ICE agents, is there a reason that someone should be able to pursue it with a drone? Does this accomplish a legitimate purpose other than tracking the vehicle's position (again, presumably to disseminate the information "this is an ICE vehicle")? Is there a reason why this would not reasonably be seen as harassment from the agents' perspective?

Again, this is an inversion of the problem. If the general public is allowed to operate drones in certain areas, that use should not be subject to widespread, unjustified restrictions.

re ICE agents American citizens, entitled to the same rights as other American citizens?

Most of them probably are citizens.

Do people here believe that the purpose of enacting such no-fly zones is something other than preventing drones from following the vehicles for surveillance and information-sharing purposes? Especially given the idea that the zone moves with the vehicle?

The motivation isn't the problem, the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.

Is there a reason why the government of the USA should not be permitted to enforce its own immigration law? In particular, is there a reason why people who have illegally entered the country per that law, and who have what I'm told is called a "final order of removal", should be permitted to remain within the country?

People opposing the current immigration enforcement regime are not protesting the existence of law, they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws. Is it your position that questioning the formulation or implementation of a law should not be allowed?

Normal citizens can't get full no fly zones and are subject to even more invasive tactics. The comparison to normal citizens highlights that what was done here was far in excess of what is done for normal citizens and seems counter to their overall argument.

If a stranger told you your baby was ugly, you would think the stranger was an asshole even if everyone in your family agreed that the baby is hideous.

Enjoy living in your country.

Well, no; in this world you pressed red too. Therefore, what you "know" is that nobody alive would be so foolish as to risk their own life for a mere chance at saving you when you're suicidal, given no clear incentive and no consequences for staying alive beyond... what they've already chosen.

For that matter, one can argue that only in the world where blues get the slimmest possible 50%+1 majority can anyone feel like a "hero". Whenever the blue majority is greater than that, any individual blue can say "okay, but I could have pushed red and the result would have been the same".

Do you also think that any male opposed to sexism is a white knight expecting to get sex out of it? And that anyone who doesn't agree with your logic is being politically correct?

My point is what I said, no more, no less.

> That I don't realize that a bunch of assholes who don't care about the people who aren't clever enough to figure out Prisoner Dilemma style puzzzles have no problem knowing the rest of the world are assholes just like them? And that the only opposite to "asshole" is "hero"?

None of this even vaguely resembles what I wrote, nor any reasonable conclusion therefrom. Also, this is not a "prisoner dilemma style puzzle". The game theory involved isn't remotely as interesting; we're only talking about it because people impute moral consequences to the choice.

> Do you also think that any male opposed to sexism is a white knight expecting to get sex out of it? And that anyone who doesn't agree with your logic is being politically correct?

... I legitimately have no idea how it even occurred to you to ask these questions, especially on a site like Hacker News, and am not interested in attempting to answer them.

I will say, however, that "opposed to sexism" objectively does not mean the same thing as "feminist"; because my only vague remote wild guesses as to how you could come up with these questions, entail falsely believing in such an equivalence. I hope I could educate you today.

Please keep in mind that the association of colour to political wing is radically different, even the exact opposite, in other countries.

> It’s telling that some folks think 100% voting one way is just as attainable as more than 50% voting a certain way.

I don't see anybody arguing this. The entire point of the red strategy is that it is not dependent on how many press red. There are people who predict that everyone will independently come to the same conclusion (it's wrong to assume the entire population will be rational). That is not the same thing.

The argument, as far as I can tell, is that in the world where blue pressers failed to get a majority, red pressers are not responsible for those deaths. They were free to choose red, and had no real incentive not to choose red beyond sympathy for other blue pressers.

But also, in the world where blue pressers do get a majority, red pressers don't suffer any consequences for the "betrayal", as described. It would have to literally be a fate worse than death for choosing blue to make any sense. (In the limit, if we imagine that blue pressers will, if successful, enact their revenge and kill all the reds, then the game merely becomes symmetric and the goal is just to be in the majority.)

Yes, but depending on the specifics of the actual implementation of this problem there are extended consequences. What is missed by the red POV is, in some implementations of this, you are losing collaboration/collaborative populations. Society works because of both competition and collaboration. Some people can’t see anything but one side of that.

> Please keep in mind that the association of colour to political wing is radically different, even the exact opposite, in other countries.

Yup, that’s why I worded it the specific way I did. It doesn’t stop people from having a strong opinion on which color they would choose in this scenario. My point is that red vs blue is pre-charged.

I don't follow. This would only make sense if we infer that pushing red demonstrates that a person is somehow incapable of cooperating on ordinary societal endeavours. I think that's laughably untrue. I disagree that a society without blue-pushers falls apart, because the button test is not an accurate or even reasonable proxy for whether someone is "collaborative". I parse it as more like a proxy of whether someone is "suicidal".

The idea behind claiming you'd choose the blue button is to appear noble and altruistic, I suppose; but I struggle to even understand that instinct. Risking one's own life to possibly save the lives of others who are demonstrably completely capable of saving themselves doesn't strike me as particularly noble.

People are irrational. I guarantee it’s likely that a lot of people would actually do it.

> The idea behind claiming you’d choose the blue button is to appear noble and altruistic.

Not at all. If the majority of people can’t be bothered to press the button that says “nobody dies as long as half of the other people say nobody dies” rather than “you don’t die,” I’m happier not being around. It’s purely selfish and blue is a win-win.

It is not a matter of "can't be bothered". This is blatantly dishonest framing.

> It’s purely selfish

It costs nobody else anything. Literally all they have to do is also push red.

I said the idea is to appear noble and altruistic. Writing off alternative options as "selfish" is, inherently, doing exactly that.

For me, blue is the purely selfish choice. Because I have no interest in living in a world where red wins a majority on this one. It’s not even a tough call.