3 ms·

Not a new phenomenon! It happened during the War on Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-on-it-playing-the-odds-on-war.html https:/

by nunez 7mo ago

Not a new phenomenon! It happened during the War on Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-on-it-playing-the-odds-on-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-... People will bet on absolutely anything; gambling is as old as time itself. > Wagering was generally legal under British common law, so long as it did not to lead to immortality or impolity.13 Bets about the outcome of events in war, over the death of political leaders, over court cases, or between voters over election results were illegal on these grounds.14 In the Victorian and Edwardian periods, the British government increasingly attempted to limit gambling, especially among the working classes. The Gaming Act of 1845 made gambling contracts and debts unenforceable in court (but otherwise liberalized what amounts could be wagered); the Betting Houses Act of 1853 outlawed the operation of betting establishments other than private clubs; the Betting Houses Act of 1874 cracked down of the advertisement of wagering; and the Street Betting Act of 1906 made acceptance of wagers in streets and public places illegal.15 Despite the legal uncertainty in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Fleet Street press reported on election wagering at the London Stock Exchange and at Lloyd’s in markets for Parliamentary “majorities.” [^0] [^0] Rhode, Paul W. “The Long History of Political Betting Markets.” KU School of Business, 2012 March. https://users.wfu.edu/strumpks/papers/Int_Election_Betting_Formatted_FINAL_NoComments.pdf https://users.wfu.edu/strumpks/papers/Int_Election_Betting_F...

elicash 7mo ago
Your comment is a great addition to the conversation. I do just want to add the scale point, though. That source is less than a million was bet, and now there are hundreds of millions bet on the ceasefire, and millions more on other Iran bets, and then even more bet on Russia/Ukraine. So I think it's a bit overstated to frame it as nothing is new. But your historical context is helpful.
- rayiner 7mo ago
  > That source is less than a million was bet, and now there are hundreds of millions bet on the ceasefire, and millions more on other Iran bets, and then even more bet on Russia/Ukraine. I'd imagine those numbers are typical for any transaction facilitated by the Internet comparing 2003 to 2026.
  - elicash 7mo ago
    It seems to me there's an explosion in just the last few years that's noteworthy -- that gambling on war did not simply grow hand-in-hand with all web purchases. Am happy to be wrong, but that's my experience seeing this play out.
miltonlost 7mo ago
Still isn't something we should allow legally at scale on a public website. IS != OUGHT Murder is also old as time itself! Guess we just gotta let it happen!
bobwaycott 7mo ago
I’m sure that immortality was meant to be immorality, but the idea of British law prohibiting some Faustian bargain struck with eternal life on the line if the wager works in your favor gave me a good chuckle.
1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
"Not a new phenomenon!" True, but I cannot find anything in the article that suggests such betting is a "new" phenomenon Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN reply when the submission makes no explicit or implicit claims that the subject matter is "new", or that being "new" is significant IMHO, the "this is not new" replies need further elaboration to clarify the point being made
- potsandpans 7mo ago
  > Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN... Because articles like this tend to come with a implicit or explicit moral outrage. So these comments are the equivalent of "yes... and?"
  - datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
    This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? “yes…and?” is a weak response to journalism intended to shine a light on something that causes moral outrage, especially given that “moral outrage” is justified on a highly subjective basis.
    - potsandpans 7mo ago
      > This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? Is that a question or a statement?
      - datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
        Using a question mark in such a statement is a rhetorical device to indicate an implicit question, such as “did you intend to write a comment that sounded like an argument, yet only strengthened the argument of the comment you were responding to.” Conversationally, humans usually inflect the end of the sentence to indicate such uncertainty. Have you had a conversation with a human before?
- 7mo ago
casey2 7mo ago
There was a small period, yes, where the internet was less regulated because the government didn't want to stomp out a new technology and let another country get an advantage. Now that the US has the advantage they are only harming their citizens by leaving it unregulated. Less people engage in a behavior if it's illegal and uniformly enforced. Wagering was commonly legal, but generally illegal since 1541 Henry VIII banned for laborers & servants.

by nunez 7mo ago

elicash 7mo ago

Your comment is a great addition to the conversation. I do just want to add the scale point, though. That source is less than a million was bet, and now there are hundreds of millions bet on the ceasefire, and millions more on other Iran bets, and then even more bet on Russia/Ukraine. So I think it's a bit overstated to frame it as nothing is new. But your historical context is helpful.

rayiner 7mo ago
> That source is less than a million was bet, and now there are hundreds of millions bet on the ceasefire, and millions more on other Iran bets, and then even more bet on Russia/Ukraine. I'd imagine those numbers are typical for any transaction facilitated by the Internet comparing 2003 to 2026.
- elicash 7mo ago
  It seems to me there's an explosion in just the last few years that's noteworthy -- that gambling on war did not simply grow hand-in-hand with all web purchases. Am happy to be wrong, but that's my experience seeing this play out.

miltonlost 7mo ago

Still isn't something we should allow legally at scale on a public website. IS != OUGHT Murder is also old as time itself! Guess we just gotta let it happen!

bobwaycott 7mo ago

I’m sure that immortality was meant to be immorality, but the idea of British law prohibiting some Faustian bargain struck with eternal life on the line if the wager works in your favor gave me a good chuckle.

1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago

"Not a new phenomenon!" True, but I cannot find anything in the article that suggests such betting is a "new" phenomenon Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN reply when the submission makes no explicit or implicit claims that the subject matter is "new", or that being "new" is significant IMHO, the "this is not new" replies need further elaboration to clarify the point being made

potsandpans 7mo ago
> Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN... Because articles like this tend to come with a implicit or explicit moral outrage. So these comments are the equivalent of "yes... and?"
- datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
  This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? “yes…and?” is a weak response to journalism intended to shine a light on something that causes moral outrage, especially given that “moral outrage” is justified on a highly subjective basis.
  - potsandpans 7mo ago
    > This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? Is that a question or a statement?
    - datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
      Using a question mark in such a statement is a rhetorical device to indicate an implicit question, such as “did you intend to write a comment that sounded like an argument, yet only strengthened the argument of the comment you were responding to.” Conversationally, humans usually inflect the end of the sentence to indicate such uncertainty. Have you had a conversation with a human before?
7mo ago

casey2 7mo ago

There was a small period, yes, where the internet was less regulated because the government didn't want to stomp out a new technology and let another country get an advantage. Now that the US has the advantage they are only harming their citizens by leaving it unregulated. Less people engage in a behavior if it's illegal and uniformly enforced. Wagering was commonly legal, but generally illegal since 1541 Henry VIII banned for laborers & servants.