5 ms·

Prediction markets need to be banned globally ASAP, but it would've helped the article to bring proof of: - the emails - the whatsapp messages - the discord

Prediction markets need to be banned globally ASAP, but it would've helped the article to bring proof of: - the emails - the whatsapp messages - the discord messages - the X messages Mind you, I'm not stating the journalist is lying or overblowing, in fact I suspect this is all more widespread than we think, but it's odd that the journalist puts emphasis on the sources of his information in the case of the missile, yet it's not about his direct threats, some of those public like X replies.

colesantiago 8mo ago
Why does everything you don't like need to be banned? Downvoters: I really doubt that you actually successfully 100% banned anything in the history of technology.
- dwroberts 8mo ago
  Why is everything you like protected from being banned?
- pjc50 8mo ago
  Prediction markets on death are an assassination market. That's why they're against the rules even on Polymarket and Kalshi. Prediction markets on terrorist attacks and wars are one step back from that, but similar negative side effects are possible. And, regardless of what people are betting on, the corruption incentive appears where it did not previously, resulting in things like this. (I don't think there's literally an Iranian missile operator opening Polymarket, taking out a position for "missile lands on Israel", and then pressing the launch button, but ultimately that's what uncensored markets with uncensored movement of money would enable)
- epolanski 8mo ago
  1. It's not something I don't like, it's something plain illegal in most of the world, including the US under the Dodd-Frank act, which the current executive has decided to not enforce. 2. The reason it is illegal it is beyond obvious: basic economics and game theory explain you how dangerous it is tying real world events with financial incentives.
  - colesantiago 8mo ago
    Illegal or not, trying to ban it won't work. You'll just push it underground and it will get even worse. The cat is out of the bag.
    - mpalmer 8mo ago
      Defeatist nonsense, and wrong. The US was regulating this until Trump. A friendly regulatory environment is the only way paying out these bets at scale is possible. "Pushing it underground" discourages the majority of bettors from using it, and that is a good thing.
      - qsera 8mo ago
        >"Pushing it underground" discourages the majority of bettors from using it, and that is a good thing. But don't you think that will be the "good" majority? And the "bad" minority will continue using the underground version?
        zbentley 8mo ago
        > the "bad" minority will continue using the underground version? …which they already did before this market was made mainstream.
        orwin 8mo ago
        With way, way less money involved. Hence limiting the reach and power of this minority.
        qsera 8mo ago
        Yes, makes sense. But may be there is also an upside. May be it would actually cause the people to take notice of what is going on around them and actually starting to use their brains (to make predictions) instead of simply consuming 24x7 news.
- mpalmer 8mo ago
  Why do you apparently like a system that lets people bet on atrocities and then take steps to make said atrocities more likely?
  - colesantiago 8mo ago
    And you think banning it would 100% work? and where did I say I liked it?
    - mpalmer 8mo ago
      I'm not responding to your gish gallop BS. Why do you (obviously) think betting markets are good?
      - colesantiago 8mo ago
        Are you able to point to where I explicitly said I liked it rather than putting words in my mouth to fit your narrative? Maybe you should calm down re-read the thread before you turn red hot with anger.
        mpalmer 8mo ago
        You are either an unthinking contrarian, or you care deeply about the continued legality of Polymarket specifically, because your responses to the points being made against you are inane. "you're talking about death threats, those have happened before" I am talking about THESE death threats. THESE death threats would not have happened if it wasn't possible for any sociopath to stake a million bucks on an arbitrary event of journalist interest. that is why I am extremely comfortable never replying to you again. good luck on the next bridge burning.
        colesantiago 8mo ago
        And banning prediction markets altogether will make this all go away? You are very very naive. I am still waiting to see whether you can find if I explicitly liked it or not. If you can, see you tomorrow.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- camgunz 8mo ago
  This is an argument against all laws, which probably deserves more than a couple sentences.
- applfanboysbgon 8mo ago
  > I really doubt that you actually successfully 100% banned anything in the history of technology. Outlawing murder has not successfully eliminated 100% of murder. Do you even understand that you are openly advocating that we repeal murder laws, and indeed the concept of law altogether?
pjc50 8mo ago
Journalists do not normally work like that. That might be how beefs are fought on social media, but of course screenshots are easy to fake anyway.
- epolanski 8mo ago
  I don't understand what your point is. What is the reader assumed to do about an article that does not bring any proof? The video of the missile exploding is also easy to fake, but it's an important element behind the reporting.
  - pjc50 8mo ago
    I'm assuming you've never read a news article before, because news articles routinely contain reported speech without having to provide extra evidence of that speech having taken place.
    - epolanski 8mo ago
      You're being dismissive and aggressive while dodging the questions. I routinely read the news, and I've been taught in school that critical reading involves doubting and focusing on facts, sources and proofs. No sources and verifiable proofs? No facts. Which is why the journalist put emphasis on his sources behind the missile attack: he knows how much sources and proofs are important. If you can fake screenshots, why not fake them, which is something that can be at least analyzed for tampering? Even more: the author mentions X public replies, where are the links?
      - zbentley 8mo ago
        Narrowly (skipping the question of whether this journalist should have included copies of evidence), GP is right: most journalists with verified source material quote it/assert what it contains, rather than linking or copying it verbatim. That’s how serious journalism has always worked. The reputation of a newsroom is understood to back up a reporter’s assertion about their source. Whether or not it should work that way is a separate question. But claiming that raw sources not being included is cause for suspicion is incorrect.
echoangle 8mo ago
Quoting vs providing screenshots makes exactly 0 difference regarding level of proof. Faking an email or WhatsApp message is about 2 minutes of work.
- epolanski 8mo ago
  1. Fake emails or screenshots can still be analyzed and questioned and they are regularly debunked. 2. The author mentions X replies, those are public, where are they? I'm gonna stand by my opinion: you deliver information, you provide all the evidence that is sensible to share. That's what journalism, especially investigative journalism does, and OSint can go a long way in helping.
  - echoangle 8mo ago
    > Fake emails or screenshots can still be analyzed and questioned and they are regularly debunked. How? If I get two phone numbers and send myself a message and make a screenshot, how are you going to debunk that? It’s a legit screenshot, you have no way of verifying anything. And I can also just import self written emails into thunderbird and take a screenshot. There’s nothing to analyze. I agree that he could have linked the Public stuff though.
Hammershaft 8mo ago
I disagree. Prediction markets have value for people as a source of reliable information because they tend to be very accurate compared to any other human mechanism for creating forecasts. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/prediction-markets-are-very-accurate.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/pr...
- leshenka 8mo ago
  I wouldn't be able to say this with a straight face after reading this article.
  - Hammershaft 8mo ago
    Why? We have years of experimental evidence that these prediction markets are well calibrated (ie accurate).
- epolanski 8mo ago
  There is no evidence that people betting on whether Iran will strike Israel on March 15th has any benefit. Who would be the beneficiary of that? Are you gonna tell me residents in Tel Aviv will be able to hedge their chances of surviving tomorrow? Nor there's evidence that providing information about the fact that US will strike Venezuela does it either. What value any of that has? None, especially considering the perverse incentives on the other side of acting on the outcome probability for financial gain which has already happened. US executive insiders have definitely bet on US attacking Venezuela on Polymarket. You see this as "information discovery", I see it as the fact that I can lobby for dangerous events to happen just for financial gain. Future markets have some value in some scenarios where you can hedge the outcome. E.g. a farmer hedging crop prices can de risk his operations. There is a hedging and the hedge works as insurance. What's exactly the value of betting on elections or military strikes? What's being hedged? How can you not see the financial incentives? We have a long history of regulating both futures, derivatives and betting for very specific reasons. But now we've relabeled it all as information gathering and price discovery. How can you not see how the financial incentives here are speedrunning terrible events to happen? I'm gonna rephrase it like that: would you like for a contract to exist on whether you'll be sent to hospital tomorrow in a crash accident? Are you gonna tell me: "well, it's information discovery and it's valuable that I can wake up knowing the odds have increased!" while ignoring that there are now people out there financially motivated to make this happen?

colesantiago 8mo ago

Why does everything you don't like need to be banned? Downvoters: I really doubt that you actually successfully 100% banned anything in the history of technology.

dwroberts 8mo ago
Why is everything you like protected from being banned?
pjc50 8mo ago
Prediction markets on death are an assassination market. That's why they're against the rules even on Polymarket and Kalshi. Prediction markets on terrorist attacks and wars are one step back from that, but similar negative side effects are possible. And, regardless of what people are betting on, the corruption incentive appears where it did not previously, resulting in things like this. (I don't think there's literally an Iranian missile operator opening Polymarket, taking out a position for "missile lands on Israel", and then pressing the launch button, but ultimately that's what uncensored markets with uncensored movement of money would enable)
epolanski 8mo ago
1. It's not something I don't like, it's something plain illegal in most of the world, including the US under the Dodd-Frank act, which the current executive has decided to not enforce. 2. The reason it is illegal it is beyond obvious: basic economics and game theory explain you how dangerous it is tying real world events with financial incentives.
- colesantiago 8mo ago
  Illegal or not, trying to ban it won't work. You'll just push it underground and it will get even worse. The cat is out of the bag.
  - mpalmer 8mo ago
    Defeatist nonsense, and wrong. The US was regulating this until Trump. A friendly regulatory environment is the only way paying out these bets at scale is possible. "Pushing it underground" discourages the majority of bettors from using it, and that is a good thing.
    - qsera 8mo ago
      >"Pushing it underground" discourages the majority of bettors from using it, and that is a good thing. But don't you think that will be the "good" majority? And the "bad" minority will continue using the underground version?
      - zbentley 8mo ago
        > the "bad" minority will continue using the underground version? …which they already did before this market was made mainstream.
      - orwin 8mo ago
        With way, way less money involved. Hence limiting the reach and power of this minority.
        qsera 8mo ago
        Yes, makes sense. But may be there is also an upside. May be it would actually cause the people to take notice of what is going on around them and actually starting to use their brains (to make predictions) instead of simply consuming 24x7 news.
mpalmer 8mo ago
Why do you apparently like a system that lets people bet on atrocities and then take steps to make said atrocities more likely?
- colesantiago 8mo ago
  And you think banning it would 100% work? and where did I say I liked it?
  - mpalmer 8mo ago
    I'm not responding to your gish gallop BS. Why do you (obviously) think betting markets are good?
    - colesantiago 8mo ago
      Are you able to point to where I explicitly said I liked it rather than putting words in my mouth to fit your narrative? Maybe you should calm down re-read the thread before you turn red hot with anger.
      - mpalmer 8mo ago
        You are either an unthinking contrarian, or you care deeply about the continued legality of Polymarket specifically, because your responses to the points being made against you are inane. "you're talking about death threats, those have happened before" I am talking about THESE death threats. THESE death threats would not have happened if it wasn't possible for any sociopath to stake a million bucks on an arbitrary event of journalist interest. that is why I am extremely comfortable never replying to you again. good luck on the next bridge burning.
        colesantiago 8mo ago
        And banning prediction markets altogether will make this all go away? You are very very naive. I am still waiting to see whether you can find if I explicitly liked it or not. If you can, see you tomorrow.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
camgunz 8mo ago
This is an argument against all laws, which probably deserves more than a couple sentences.
applfanboysbgon 8mo ago
> I really doubt that you actually successfully 100% banned anything in the history of technology. Outlawing murder has not successfully eliminated 100% of murder. Do you even understand that you are openly advocating that we repeal murder laws, and indeed the concept of law altogether?

pjc50 8mo ago

Journalists do not normally work like that. That might be how beefs are fought on social media, but of course screenshots are easy to fake anyway.

epolanski 8mo ago
I don't understand what your point is. What is the reader assumed to do about an article that does not bring any proof? The video of the missile exploding is also easy to fake, but it's an important element behind the reporting.
- pjc50 8mo ago
  I'm assuming you've never read a news article before, because news articles routinely contain reported speech without having to provide extra evidence of that speech having taken place.
  - epolanski 8mo ago
    You're being dismissive and aggressive while dodging the questions. I routinely read the news, and I've been taught in school that critical reading involves doubting and focusing on facts, sources and proofs. No sources and verifiable proofs? No facts. Which is why the journalist put emphasis on his sources behind the missile attack: he knows how much sources and proofs are important. If you can fake screenshots, why not fake them, which is something that can be at least analyzed for tampering? Even more: the author mentions X public replies, where are the links?
    - zbentley 8mo ago
      Narrowly (skipping the question of whether this journalist should have included copies of evidence), GP is right: most journalists with verified source material quote it/assert what it contains, rather than linking or copying it verbatim. That’s how serious journalism has always worked. The reputation of a newsroom is understood to back up a reporter’s assertion about their source. Whether or not it should work that way is a separate question. But claiming that raw sources not being included is cause for suspicion is incorrect.

echoangle 8mo ago

Quoting vs providing screenshots makes exactly 0 difference regarding level of proof. Faking an email or WhatsApp message is about 2 minutes of work.

epolanski 8mo ago
1. Fake emails or screenshots can still be analyzed and questioned and they are regularly debunked. 2. The author mentions X replies, those are public, where are they? I'm gonna stand by my opinion: you deliver information, you provide all the evidence that is sensible to share. That's what journalism, especially investigative journalism does, and OSint can go a long way in helping.
- echoangle 8mo ago
  > Fake emails or screenshots can still be analyzed and questioned and they are regularly debunked. How? If I get two phone numbers and send myself a message and make a screenshot, how are you going to debunk that? It’s a legit screenshot, you have no way of verifying anything. And I can also just import self written emails into thunderbird and take a screenshot. There’s nothing to analyze. I agree that he could have linked the Public stuff though.

Hammershaft 8mo ago

I disagree. Prediction markets have value for people as a source of reliable information because they tend to be very accurate compared to any other human mechanism for creating forecasts. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/prediction-markets-are-very-accurate.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/pr...

leshenka 8mo ago
I wouldn't be able to say this with a straight face after reading this article.
- Hammershaft 8mo ago
  Why? We have years of experimental evidence that these prediction markets are well calibrated (ie accurate).
epolanski 8mo ago
There is no evidence that people betting on whether Iran will strike Israel on March 15th has any benefit. Who would be the beneficiary of that? Are you gonna tell me residents in Tel Aviv will be able to hedge their chances of surviving tomorrow? Nor there's evidence that providing information about the fact that US will strike Venezuela does it either. What value any of that has? None, especially considering the perverse incentives on the other side of acting on the outcome probability for financial gain which has already happened. US executive insiders have definitely bet on US attacking Venezuela on Polymarket. You see this as "information discovery", I see it as the fact that I can lobby for dangerous events to happen just for financial gain. Future markets have some value in some scenarios where you can hedge the outcome. E.g. a farmer hedging crop prices can de risk his operations. There is a hedging and the hedge works as insurance. What's exactly the value of betting on elections or military strikes? What's being hedged? How can you not see the financial incentives? We have a long history of regulating both futures, derivatives and betting for very specific reasons. But now we've relabeled it all as information gathering and price discovery. How can you not see how the financial incentives here are speedrunning terrible events to happen? I'm gonna rephrase it like that: would you like for a contract to exist on whether you'll be sent to hospital tomorrow in a crash accident? Are you gonna tell me: "well, it's information discovery and it's valuable that I can wake up knowing the odds have increased!" while ignoring that there are now people out there financially motivated to make this happen?