3 ms·
You'd miss out on the handful of really good real journalism articles per month that Buzzfeed publishes in that case, which would be kind of a shame. Maybe that
by potatoyogurt 10y ago
You'd miss out on the handful of really good real journalism articles per month that Buzzfeed publishes in that case, which would be kind of a shame. Maybe that's how they justify the expense of doing real journalism -- it makes it harder for other sites to ban their domain.
- paulgb 10y agoHN bans buzzfeed submissions outright, but I would have loved to see the community's comments on this article, for example: https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewrice/the-fall-of-intrade-and-the-business-of-betting-on-real-life https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewrice/the-fall-of-intrade-and-...
- quotemstr 10y agoThanks. That was an interesting article. "Roman bookies ran numbers on the election of Renaissance popes until Gregory XIV banned the practice on penalty of excommunication. Around the turn of the 20th century, Wall Street brokers openly traded election futures and newspapers quoted their prices like modern opinion polls. Strumpf estimates that at the peak of this practice, in the election of 1916, around $10 million was bet on these markets — more than $200 million in today’s dollars. By the end of the New Deal era, though, the electoral markets had all but disappeared, due to both competition — modern polling pushed the betting lines out of the newspapers — and legal crackdowns."
- cooper12 10y agoFWIW, some buzzfeed articles are supposedly of a higher calibre and have been shared and successful on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=buzzfeed.com&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=buzzfeed.com&sort=byPopularity...