5 ms·

New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

262 points by ChrisArchitect 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
monideas 2mo ago
[flagged]
- retr0rocket 2mo ago
  [dead]
- pavel_lishin 2mo ago
  Why would they support a deal with a company doing harm to people?
  - _bent 2mo ago
    it was a joke stemming from the understanding monideas has that the NYT is not an agent of the status quo but actually somehow misandrist turbowoke.
    - sire-vc 2mo ago
      That is what was meant and based on some of what they have published it is barely a joke.
      - _bent 2mo ago
        article from just today that clearly states that killing men is bad https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/well/live/obesity-american-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/well/live/obesity-america... sorry, but some of you are really deranged if you seriously expect the NYT to run "men should die"
    - monideas 2mo ago
      I wouldn’t use the term misandry because they also are interested in damaging women. “Turbowoke”, sure but we’re really just talking about mainstream American elite culture which is progressive. And young men are a particular target because they are generally the main threat to the status quo. Basically the NY Times is precisely an agent of the status quo.
      - newspaper1 2mo ago
        I'm going to go out on a limb and say the institutional paper that lied to get us into the Iraq war isn't "turbowoke". The NYT is a propaganda outlet for the military industrial complex, not some sort of leftist activism.
        monideas 2mo ago
        It’s an outlet for elite American opinion, for the American ruling class. The particular opinions change over time but it’s fundamentally progressive because that is the ideology of the American elite and has been since the founding (the American Revolution was by definition revolutionary/leftist/progressive). The Iraq war was predicated on the idea that you could or should “bring democracy” to Iraqis, this is fundamentally progressive view of the world. An actual conservative approach would be something like 18th and 19th century European colonialism.
        newspaper1 2mo ago
        There is zero progressive representation among the elite. The American Revolution wasn't "progressive", it was one of many steps that led to the genocide of Indigenous Americans. Using the military to murder Muslims isn't "progressive" either. You should talk to actual lefists, they hate neo-liberalism even more than the right.
        monideas 2mo ago
        This is just simply and profoundly wrong. This is a prole leftist take and proles by definition are very ignorant and don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite). A prole leftist is basically just a sad walking disaster that is angry and wants free stuff and wants others to suffer. They’re not engaging with leftism on an intellectual level, they’re not romantically captivated by it. As far as mass murder goes, generally speaking the purpose of the Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and other types of leftist movements isn’t to kill massive amounts of people but that is a very common result of putting progressive ideas into action.
  - santadays 2mo ago
    I read it as the liberal elite hate young men... so damaging them is a good thing.
    - newspaper1 2mo ago
      I think you're misinterpreting a very specific messaging mission the neo-liberals went on. They promoted a particular brand of "feminism" to get Hillary Clinton elected. This is no longer part of their platform, and it's no longer needed as it turns out Islamaphobia, Epstein and AIPAC (and similar endeavours) were better control levers that transcend party lines. Gaza is destroyed and we're at war with Iran, mission accomplished, if not delayed a bit.
- fyredge 2mo ago
  Google was not helpful to me, but what exactly is the deal being discussed? Is NYT going to allow readers to place kalshi bets on their website / app? That would be even more damaging to young men IMO.
  - input_sh 2mo ago
    I'm guessing it'll be something like the CNN deal where basically every story about elections would include "according to predictions on Kalshi..."
  - pibaker 2mo ago
    I'm placing a bet on "at least one NYT editor caught manipulating news stories so he can win Kalshi bets within one year" if a deal like this goes through.
    - bee_rider 2mo ago
      How will that bet be resolved concretely, will you base it on a NYT headline? In some grim way it will be interesting to see the how this evolves. I mean, in a way betting markets are parasitic on news agencies that have a reputation for objective reporting, in the sense that they need something that can be treated as objective to evaluate their bets. How will it shake out if reporting institutions become “part of the game.” If “editor at NYT” or “knows and editor at NYT” become an advantages that can be leveraged (either for advanced outcomes or to manipulate outcomes themselves). Maybe the betting groups will eventually need to built institutions that are known for objective/prudent reporting that can be accessed equally, haha.
- axpy906 2mo ago
  Predatory is probably the correct word. You’ve got better odds at a casino which says a lot.
  - Petersipoi 2mo ago
    How do you have better odds at a casino? Is the cut Kalshi takes so big that it makes the odds bad for both sides?
mikeryan 2mo ago
I really don’t understand how these markets survive a competent DOJ considering the rate they’re having to ban people for “insider trading”. Fully appreciate the Unions position here.
- wbl 2mo ago
  Insider trading is legal in commodities markets. If I am engaged in a hedging transaction I am doing so because I know about risks that I want to offload, and the buyer does also. You don't come to commodities markets without information.
  - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
    Exactly. Pit mine sees who's buying what and is worried copper will go down. Datacenter people see who's inking deals and are worried it's gonna go up. They both need to get big fancy loans from their bankers to execute their upcoming projects. The bankers won't like to see unbounded risk on their balance sheets. A futures contract exists to solve this problem. Not that this excuses some of the absurd stuff that goes on on the online betting platforms...
  - CPLX 2mo ago
    Just for context that’s not quite accurate. There certainly is a distinction in the rule versus securities markets, which I know is what you mean. But it’s more accurate to say participants can trade on lawfully obtained material nonpublic information absent some independent duty not to use it, which is much narrower than saying insider trading is generally legal.
  - gavinsyancey 2mo ago
    Hedging is not insider trading. Insider trading is trading based on material non-public information in breach of a duty or obtained through fraud. In that sense, it's more of a principal-agent problem. Also -- hedging is generally not done based on material non-public information, but rather to guard against known risks. Joe the farmer sells a bunch of wheat futures when he plants his wheat, not because he thinks the price will go down, but rather because if it does he goes bankrupt and he'd prefer to accept a known rate-of-return now.
burkaman 2mo ago
This is about stopping a potential deal (https://frontofficesports.com/article/the-athletic-serious-talks-kalshi-sponsorship/ https://frontofficesports.com/article/the-athletic-serious-t...), nothing finalized yet. They have allegedly abandoned the idea and claim that isn't because of the union demands: https://frontofficesports.com/article/new-york-times-union-kalshi-deal/ https://frontofficesports.com/article/new-york-times-union-k....
The_Blade 2mo ago
what happened with Bill Simmons bragging about using his daughter's boyfriend to place proxy bets for him on FanDuel (who Bill is partnered with) is endlessly entertaining Trump Jr. just pumped 300 million into Polymarket and also has a stake in Kalshi so, i'm not sure who thinks the DOJ will really do anything. this is fentanyl on the phone but there will have to be a few examples like some low-levels House members or state senators alongside sports casualites
cm2012 2mo ago
Sports gambling is a cancer for every sports institution and this protest is a step in the right direction.
- Zefiroj 2mo ago
  Sports is fundamentally entertainment. Let people do what they want.
tlogan 2mo ago
The only thing I know is that journalism stopped being independent and unbiased a long, long time ago.
- nozzlegear 2mo ago
  Interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
  - tlogan 2mo ago
    I am trying to say that they cannot claim that this deal will “threaten our journalistic independence”. It is just kinda funny (and sad) that they claim that while only 32% of U.S. adults said they trust The New York Times as a source of news. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/feature/news-media-tracker/the_new_york_times https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/feature/news-media-tr...
- mindslight 2mo ago
  It seems like you should probably spend some effort on trying to learn at least a few more things?
- webdoodle 2mo ago
  Citizen's United was the nail in the coffin for honest journalism, because it sold out to those with the largest wallets. If you truly want truth in journalism support independent journalists financially, and with your attention. Ignore corporate media.
  - dylan604 2mo ago
    How did Citizen's United affect journalism? To me, the rules on how large a media conglomerate could get being changed in favor of allowing the conglomerate to grow even larger did some heavy lifting. Journalism publishers no longer have to compete since their all owned by the same limited number of owners.
basisword 2mo ago
I find it really interesting that online sports betting, which has been a thing in my country for 15+ years and largely a non-issue, is suddenly a total shitshow once it gets legalised in the US. I feel like the US always takes things too far. I watch quite a few US sports and former athletes giving betting suggestions during broadcasts is absolutely insane. How can you go from being so restrictive to having absolutely no limits overnight? To make matters worse I get the feeling the TV companies here are taking pointers from their US colleagues and starting to force us down the same path.
- lotsofpulp 2mo ago
  >How can you go from being so restrictive to having absolutely no limits overnight? In 2018, the US Supreme Court said the federal law preventing it was illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_... It was banned by the federal government in 1992 by an act of Congress (with bipartisan consensus and signed into law by a Republican president). The supreme court vote overturning it was also 7-2, with 2 of those 7 appointed by a Democrat president.
  - orangecat 2mo ago
    It was banned by the federal government Not exactly. The law was weird, and that's why it was overturned. It didn't make sports betting illegal federally, instead it prevented states from "authorizing" it, which the petitioners argued was an unconstitutional intrusion into the lawmaking ability of states in that it prevented them from repealing laws against sports betting that they had previously passed. The full ruling is at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf, and the last paragraph sums it up: "Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own". The SCOTUS ruling didn't legalize sports betting; states chose to do that themselves once they were no longer prevented from doing so. Congress could ban it nationwide today, and probably they should.
mag7269 2mo ago
Got really confused as why my granola bar company was signing a deal with the NYT and The Athletic, and why this was deemed so controversial, then I used Google and learned the difference between Kashi and Kalshi.
cdrnsf 2mo ago
Sports gambling is a cancer, as are prediction markets. None of it should've been legalized and all of it should be banned.
- add-sub-mul-div 2mo ago
  At a minimum, if it was going to be legal why could they not have restricted the advertising like we do with tobacco ads? At this point the sports broadcasts themselves are advertisements.
  - burningChrome 2mo ago
    Its not just the broadcasts are advertisements. Its completely engrained in every professional sports league now. They now all have some kind of multi-year contracts with casino's, betting platforms and prediction markets. This is way beyond advertising now. Our local sports talk show has an hour long show that precedes the pre-game that is 100% all about NFL gambling for Sunday's games. Not only are you seeing the advertisements for these platforms and their betting apps, you're having a coordinated focus on actively pushing it in a myriad of other ways as well.
- palmotea 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - altmanaltman 2mo ago
    How is it unjust? A company is not owed any profits, if it gets rekt by an union then it gets rekt. It cannot say "oh its not fair you guys are fighting me, only I can fight you in a just fight!" Ridiculous logic.
    - fsckboy 2mo ago
      whoosh GP is in favor of unions and thinks they perform beneficial public services. They don't. addendum: people who like unions because they balance the power relationship between employee and employer (i.e. the idiots downvoting me, idiots not because they like unions, but idiots because they are downvoting me) might see that as a public service, but it's not, that is a private relationship between employer and employee. it confers no direct benefit to other parties, that's why I said it does not provide a public service. You can't analyze economic relationships without qui bono
woah 2mo ago
Unfortunately, this shows how much facts and reality have been turned into nothing more than a loyalty test by both sides of our political debate. > A partnership between The Times (for The Athletic) and Kalshi would also provide validation that their prediction market data should be taken seriously as an indicator of the future. Facts prove otherwise. They could have objected to the partnership on any number of valid grounds, like the fact that predicting the outcome of sporting events provides no valid benefit and can only ever be gambling, or that the integration is probably going to be pretty lame and provide no benefit to the reader. Instead, they felt compelled to make a trivially false claim, the claim that prediction markets do not accurately predict the future. It's trivial to prove that this claim is false, because if it were true, it would be very easy for anyone to make a huge amount of money on prediction markets. It's even more telling why they made this claim, to avoid "providing validation". Not because of any harms caused by sports gambling addiction, but because it could provide a tiny piece of political ammunition to a product that has been slotted into the opposing political tribe. Reading this statement, one gets the impression that they would be completely OK with sports gambling on The Athletic, as long as it was provided by a more traditional casino-style bookie operation. I'm guessing that anyone in the room when this statement was written who even brought up the question of the facts could be safely sidelined and ostracized by the union as being insufficiently loyal to their political position.
- jt2190 2mo ago
  > Instead, they felt compelled to make a trivially false claim, the claim that prediction markets do not accurately predict the future. It's trivial to prove that this claim is false, because if it were true, it would be very easy for anyone to make a huge amount of money on prediction markets. Isn’t that what’s actually happening though? Traders are making real money from bad predictions? “These are the Sharps actually making money on prediction markets” Odd Lots podcast (Bloomberg) 2026 https://youtu.be/MFAnQpdgkZE https://youtu.be/MFAnQpdgkZE
- dbspin 2mo ago
  > the claim that prediction markets do not accurately predict the future. It's trivial to prove that this claim is false, because if it were true, it would be very easy for anyone to make a huge amount of money on prediction markets I'm not intimately familiar with prediction markets (I avoid gambling), but can you explain how this is the case? If the market unpredictably incorrect, then shouldn't it be difficult / impossible to predict precisely which bets will be wrong in a way that would allow you to profit from them? Ultimately isn't it the case that all they're doing (at least from a prediction point of view) is aggregating (better or worse informed) guesses? Excepting outright corruption / insider trading of course. This might tell you a great deal about what the set of users of a given prediction market expect as an outcome for a given prediction, but it doesn't tell you anything about the future itself. Any more than the stock market (fails to) tell us to pull out money out the day before a crash.
astura 2mo ago
Someone tampered with the weather equipment at Charles de Gaulle airport for a Polymarket bet. This sort of thing is going to become so much more common going forward. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/hairdryer-or-lighter-french-police-look-at-claim-of-sensor-tampering-to-win-weather-bets https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/hairdryer-or-l... On another note, I had no idea the athletic was owned by NY Times.
- criddell 2mo ago
  There was also a story about a reporter who wrote a story about a missile strike and people who had bet against a missile strike applied a lot of pressure, including death threats, on the reporter to change his story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/17/israel-journalist-polymarket-iran-strike/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/17/israel-...
- mrguyorama 2mo ago
  We've literally been through this before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal It's always corrosive to society in a way other vices really aren't. Money is a massive influence and incentive, and in gambling you can artificially increase the possible incentive size with long shot bets. The best part of how gambling makes everything shit is that gambling addicts will ruin the sanctity of everything that claims authenticity for just a few actual dollars of "profit", after you ignore all the money they've lost by betting, which addicts tend to do. Assholes who insist betting on things are the best and totally great for the world somehow will harm a sports event that ten thousand people have paid a hundred dollars to enjoy just to earn a hundred bucks themselves.
tantalor 2mo ago
The linked article is pretty interesting: > found a pattern of [Polymarket] sharing false and misleading information https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/technology/polymarket-social-feeds-falsehoods.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/technology/polymarket-soc... They don't have much to say about Kalshi other than "unlike real mainstream journalism, there’s no accountability". Which isn't saying much, because nobody is claiming prediction markets are a type of journalism.
- freejazz 2mo ago
  This website has been full of people that say it's better than journalism, so I don't think you're really capturing the entirety of the dynamic
  - handoflixue 2mo ago
    Journalism is one particular way of trying to learn about the world. Academics are another, the scientific method is a third, and so on. Claiming that something is a better way to learn about the world is NOT the same as claiming it is using a specific method, or part of a specific tradition.
- consensus1 2mo ago
  And I hope nobody is claiming that mainstream journalism has any accountability
  - jmull 2mo ago
    I do. I’m open to being convinced, but if you’re claiming mainstream media has no accountability, I think you need to substantiate that. I realize there are information bubbles on the internet where this is accepted as truth, but unexamined. Nonsense is everywhere on the internet. I’d be curious how you’d substantiate this.
    - stronglikedan 2mo ago
      You can just watch or read the mainstream news for a few days and see for yourself, really. They may not outright lie that much, but they constantly lie by omission - all of them. And when they are called out, it's like screaming into the void since they just ignore it and carry on their merry way. Hence, very little if any accountability, and usually because the people that rely on these sources aren't the ones calling them out, and so refuse to believe they were lied to since it challenges what they think they know.
criddell 2mo ago
CNN also has a Kalshi deal. https://news.kalshi.com/p/kalshi-cnn-prediction-market-partnership https://news.kalshi.com/p/kalshi-cnn-prediction-market-partn...
imagetic 2mo ago
Agreed. They should not be tied or linked or it.
caycep 2mo ago
Another reason to question the judgement of Meredith Kopit Levien / the younger Sulzberger...
jceg 2mo ago
Most of the top level comments support scrapping the deal, most of them on the basis that "sports gambling is a cancer." A cancer for whom? I want to take the opposite position: let people do whatever they want, as long as they bear the consequences of their decisions instead of socializing the risk. You don't like betting or gambling? Great, then don't do it. But forcing your preferences on others is not the way.
- hectdev 2mo ago
  How do you protect the risk from falling on society? I think that is the crux of it, it is not something you can cleanly separate which is where regulation steps in. The question is, how much money and influence can these companies shore up before that regulation hits?
- c-linkage 2mo ago
  What happens when a husband decides to risk the mortgage payment on a sports bet and loses? Now the wife and kids are evicted. Or maybe he lives alone and is now homeless. But now we have a man living out of his car, or worse, homeless and begging on the corner. The problem with allowing people to do whatever they want is that risks are often socialized.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dylan604 2mo ago
    How does this happen with an online app? I understand how it happens when you place a bet with the local bookie.
  - Ylpertnodi 2mo ago
    > or worse, homeless and begging on the corner. Nah, worse is they get some of your hard-earned money. Or a part of it. Do you account for every penny your taxes go to? Why should I pay for someone else's bus route?
- orangecat 2mo ago
1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago
Ken Paxton went after gambling in Texas but stays hands off on Kalshi | https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/03/ken-paxton-kalshi-texas-prediction-markets-01062638 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/03/ken-paxton-kalshi-t... "Paxton didn’t sign on to attempts to regulate Kalshi after the prediction market platform and its CEO donated to him and his PAC."
nomilk 2mo ago
A great irony here is that Kalshi and media generally are competitors. When I make important decisions (e.g. understanding politics, where to travel and setup companies), I always value betting markets over hearsay (aka media). The former has real money at stake, whereas the latter often has no skin in the game (as well as a other issues; like herd mentality, sensationalism, incentive to tell people what they want to hear rather than what's true).
- cft 2mo ago
  Prediction markets as a news source are politically unbiased and nonpartisan , and this is what the establishment people here don't like.
  - freejazz 2mo ago
    They are partisan. It's just whoever decides to make the bets. Like the 2022 election situation was just one big whale. There's just nothing about it that makes it inherently non-partisan.
    - nomilk 2mo ago
      A partisan bet makes the opposite position slightly more profitable, attracting bets which equilibrate the market back at fair prices (i.e. realistic probabilities)
      - freejazz 2mo ago
        Yeah but they markets don't equilibrate. Again, the 2022 election pool just reflected the thought of a big whale.
        nomilk 2mo ago
        A whale just means the market gets more mis-priced, creating greater incentive for correction, which typically occurs. Let's for a moment say you're right, and prediction markets do have a flaw (that if someone wants to spend a lot of money making an outcome look more/less likely), that's an imperfection vs the many biases in other information sources. tl;dr prediction markets financially penalise providing misleading information, whereas traditional media profit from misleading information
BIGFOOT_EXISTS 2mo ago
LETS GO MAKE SOME $$$
yipinwong 2mo ago
This is where stupid unions rubs me the wrong way. Unions are for improving worker conditions such as getting the right pay, and right working environment. They want to "run" the company themselves. Some might argue they are for keeping their current working env without Kalshi. They are not the ones who has to bear the financial responsibilities of the company. They can shove it and just move on.
- subdude 2mo ago
  >They are not the ones who has to bear the financial responsibilities of the company. When the company does poorly, who ends up hurting more? Is it the workers that get laid off, the executives that get another bonus, or the owner that remains a billionaire?
  - yipinwong 2mo ago
    The company loses $, not workers. Workers get paid regardless whether the company loses money or not. Union workers rarely ever get fired over this especially.
    - Ylpertnodi 2mo ago
      Last year, the federal org i belong to laid off 20% of our workforce. The difference in personnel is noticeable, especially when the kpi's are trying to keep up with this year's targets. Next year, we are expecting more people to 'leave'.
brcmthrowaway 2mo ago
I feel some sports only exist because of gambling.
- morkalork 2mo ago
  Horse racing?
_spduchamp 2mo ago
This future in illustration... https://bsky.app/profile/beanytuesday.bsky.social/post/3mllqvpmsos2q https://bsky.app/profile/beanytuesday.bsky.social/post/3mllq...
xyzelement 2mo ago
I hate prediction markets but simultaneously find this a little rich. I think most people have experienced what Michael Chrichton called Gel Mann Amnesia - the idea that newspapers feel accurate except about topics you know about. Whenever I read about topics I know about: such as my employer, a political topic I am particular familiar with, etc - the reporting is usually off in what MC called a "wet streets cause rain" kind of way. I haven't seen any accountability for this kind of reporting. If a newspaper wrote that someone was born in 1980 but it was actually 1985 they may correct that but the broader theme of articles being inherently misleading to reality is rampant and I suspect significantly worse than when MC conceptualized this problem. That's to say I am not sure there's a practical standard to which a random times writer is held that kalshi isn't to. If anything I think kalshi is more clearly presented as "a bet" vs "the truth" so I don't understand the meat of the grievance.
josefritzishere 1mo ago
Kalshi is illegal gambling and gambling is not news. You can find illegal gambling in all five boroughs of New York in person.

262 points by ChrisArchitect 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

monideas 2mo ago

[flagged]

retr0rocket 2mo ago
[dead]
pavel_lishin 2mo ago
Why would they support a deal with a company doing harm to people?
- _bent 2mo ago
  it was a joke stemming from the understanding monideas has that the NYT is not an agent of the status quo but actually somehow misandrist turbowoke.
  - sire-vc 2mo ago
    That is what was meant and based on some of what they have published it is barely a joke.
    - _bent 2mo ago
      article from just today that clearly states that killing men is bad https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/well/live/obesity-american-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/well/live/obesity-america... sorry, but some of you are really deranged if you seriously expect the NYT to run "men should die"
  - monideas 2mo ago
    I wouldn’t use the term misandry because they also are interested in damaging women. “Turbowoke”, sure but we’re really just talking about mainstream American elite culture which is progressive. And young men are a particular target because they are generally the main threat to the status quo. Basically the NY Times is precisely an agent of the status quo.
    - newspaper1 2mo ago
      I'm going to go out on a limb and say the institutional paper that lied to get us into the Iraq war isn't "turbowoke". The NYT is a propaganda outlet for the military industrial complex, not some sort of leftist activism.
      - monideas 2mo ago
        It’s an outlet for elite American opinion, for the American ruling class. The particular opinions change over time but it’s fundamentally progressive because that is the ideology of the American elite and has been since the founding (the American Revolution was by definition revolutionary/leftist/progressive). The Iraq war was predicated on the idea that you could or should “bring democracy” to Iraqis, this is fundamentally progressive view of the world. An actual conservative approach would be something like 18th and 19th century European colonialism.
        newspaper1 2mo ago
        There is zero progressive representation among the elite. The American Revolution wasn't "progressive", it was one of many steps that led to the genocide of Indigenous Americans. Using the military to murder Muslims isn't "progressive" either. You should talk to actual lefists, they hate neo-liberalism even more than the right.
        monideas 2mo ago
        This is just simply and profoundly wrong. This is a prole leftist take and proles by definition are very ignorant and don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite). A prole leftist is basically just a sad walking disaster that is angry and wants free stuff and wants others to suffer. They’re not engaging with leftism on an intellectual level, they’re not romantically captivated by it. As far as mass murder goes, generally speaking the purpose of the Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and other types of leftist movements isn’t to kill massive amounts of people but that is a very common result of putting progressive ideas into action.
- santadays 2mo ago
  I read it as the liberal elite hate young men... so damaging them is a good thing.
  - newspaper1 2mo ago
    I think you're misinterpreting a very specific messaging mission the neo-liberals went on. They promoted a particular brand of "feminism" to get Hillary Clinton elected. This is no longer part of their platform, and it's no longer needed as it turns out Islamaphobia, Epstein and AIPAC (and similar endeavours) were better control levers that transcend party lines. Gaza is destroyed and we're at war with Iran, mission accomplished, if not delayed a bit.
fyredge 2mo ago
Google was not helpful to me, but what exactly is the deal being discussed? Is NYT going to allow readers to place kalshi bets on their website / app? That would be even more damaging to young men IMO.
- input_sh 2mo ago
  I'm guessing it'll be something like the CNN deal where basically every story about elections would include "according to predictions on Kalshi..."
- pibaker 2mo ago
  I'm placing a bet on "at least one NYT editor caught manipulating news stories so he can win Kalshi bets within one year" if a deal like this goes through.
  - bee_rider 2mo ago
    How will that bet be resolved concretely, will you base it on a NYT headline? In some grim way it will be interesting to see the how this evolves. I mean, in a way betting markets are parasitic on news agencies that have a reputation for objective reporting, in the sense that they need something that can be treated as objective to evaluate their bets. How will it shake out if reporting institutions become “part of the game.” If “editor at NYT” or “knows and editor at NYT” become an advantages that can be leveraged (either for advanced outcomes or to manipulate outcomes themselves). Maybe the betting groups will eventually need to built institutions that are known for objective/prudent reporting that can be accessed equally, haha.
axpy906 2mo ago
Predatory is probably the correct word. You’ve got better odds at a casino which says a lot.
- Petersipoi 2mo ago
  How do you have better odds at a casino? Is the cut Kalshi takes so big that it makes the odds bad for both sides?

mikeryan 2mo ago

I really don’t understand how these markets survive a competent DOJ considering the rate they’re having to ban people for “insider trading”. Fully appreciate the Unions position here.

wbl 2mo ago
Insider trading is legal in commodities markets. If I am engaged in a hedging transaction I am doing so because I know about risks that I want to offload, and the buyer does also. You don't come to commodities markets without information.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago
  Exactly. Pit mine sees who's buying what and is worried copper will go down. Datacenter people see who's inking deals and are worried it's gonna go up. They both need to get big fancy loans from their bankers to execute their upcoming projects. The bankers won't like to see unbounded risk on their balance sheets. A futures contract exists to solve this problem. Not that this excuses some of the absurd stuff that goes on on the online betting platforms...
- CPLX 2mo ago
  Just for context that’s not quite accurate. There certainly is a distinction in the rule versus securities markets, which I know is what you mean. But it’s more accurate to say participants can trade on lawfully obtained material nonpublic information absent some independent duty not to use it, which is much narrower than saying insider trading is generally legal.
- gavinsyancey 2mo ago
  Hedging is not insider trading. Insider trading is trading based on material non-public information in breach of a duty or obtained through fraud. In that sense, it's more of a principal-agent problem. Also -- hedging is generally not done based on material non-public information, but rather to guard against known risks. Joe the farmer sells a bunch of wheat futures when he plants his wheat, not because he thinks the price will go down, but rather because if it does he goes bankrupt and he'd prefer to accept a known rate-of-return now.

burkaman 2mo ago

This is about stopping a potential deal (https://frontofficesports.com/article/the-athletic-serious-talks-kalshi-sponsorship/ https://frontofficesports.com/article/the-athletic-serious-t...), nothing finalized yet. They have allegedly abandoned the idea and claim that isn't because of the union demands: https://frontofficesports.com/article/new-york-times-union-kalshi-deal/ https://frontofficesports.com/article/new-york-times-union-k....

The_Blade 2mo ago

what happened with Bill Simmons bragging about using his daughter's boyfriend to place proxy bets for him on FanDuel (who Bill is partnered with) is endlessly entertaining Trump Jr. just pumped 300 million into Polymarket and also has a stake in Kalshi so, i'm not sure who thinks the DOJ will really do anything. this is fentanyl on the phone but there will have to be a few examples like some low-levels House members or state senators alongside sports casualites

cm2012 2mo ago

Sports gambling is a cancer for every sports institution and this protest is a step in the right direction.

Zefiroj 2mo ago
Sports is fundamentally entertainment. Let people do what they want.

tlogan 2mo ago

The only thing I know is that journalism stopped being independent and unbiased a long, long time ago.

nozzlegear 2mo ago
Interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
- tlogan 2mo ago
  I am trying to say that they cannot claim that this deal will “threaten our journalistic independence”. It is just kinda funny (and sad) that they claim that while only 32% of U.S. adults said they trust The New York Times as a source of news. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/feature/news-media-tracker/the_new_york_times https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/feature/news-media-tr...
mindslight 2mo ago
It seems like you should probably spend some effort on trying to learn at least a few more things?
webdoodle 2mo ago
Citizen's United was the nail in the coffin for honest journalism, because it sold out to those with the largest wallets. If you truly want truth in journalism support independent journalists financially, and with your attention. Ignore corporate media.
- dylan604 2mo ago
  How did Citizen's United affect journalism? To me, the rules on how large a media conglomerate could get being changed in favor of allowing the conglomerate to grow even larger did some heavy lifting. Journalism publishers no longer have to compete since their all owned by the same limited number of owners.

basisword 2mo ago

I find it really interesting that online sports betting, which has been a thing in my country for 15+ years and largely a non-issue, is suddenly a total shitshow once it gets legalised in the US. I feel like the US always takes things too far. I watch quite a few US sports and former athletes giving betting suggestions during broadcasts is absolutely insane. How can you go from being so restrictive to having absolutely no limits overnight? To make matters worse I get the feeling the TV companies here are taking pointers from their US colleagues and starting to force us down the same path.

lotsofpulp 2mo ago
>How can you go from being so restrictive to having absolutely no limits overnight? In 2018, the US Supreme Court said the federal law preventing it was illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_... It was banned by the federal government in 1992 by an act of Congress (with bipartisan consensus and signed into law by a Republican president). The supreme court vote overturning it was also 7-2, with 2 of those 7 appointed by a Democrat president.
- orangecat 2mo ago
  It was banned by the federal government Not exactly. The law was weird, and that's why it was overturned. It didn't make sports betting illegal federally, instead it prevented states from "authorizing" it, which the petitioners argued was an unconstitutional intrusion into the lawmaking ability of states in that it prevented them from repealing laws against sports betting that they had previously passed. The full ruling is at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf, and the last paragraph sums it up: "Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own". The SCOTUS ruling didn't legalize sports betting; states chose to do that themselves once they were no longer prevented from doing so. Congress could ban it nationwide today, and probably they should.

mag7269 2mo ago

Got really confused as why my granola bar company was signing a deal with the NYT and The Athletic, and why this was deemed so controversial, then I used Google and learned the difference between Kashi and Kalshi.

cdrnsf 2mo ago

Sports gambling is a cancer, as are prediction markets. None of it should've been legalized and all of it should be banned.

add-sub-mul-div 2mo ago
At a minimum, if it was going to be legal why could they not have restricted the advertising like we do with tobacco ads? At this point the sports broadcasts themselves are advertisements.
- burningChrome 2mo ago
  Its not just the broadcasts are advertisements. Its completely engrained in every professional sports league now. They now all have some kind of multi-year contracts with casino's, betting platforms and prediction markets. This is way beyond advertising now. Our local sports talk show has an hour long show that precedes the pre-game that is 100% all about NFL gambling for Sunday's games. Not only are you seeing the advertisements for these platforms and their betting apps, you're having a coordinated focus on actively pushing it in a myriad of other ways as well.
palmotea 2mo ago
[flagged]
- altmanaltman 2mo ago
  How is it unjust? A company is not owed any profits, if it gets rekt by an union then it gets rekt. It cannot say "oh its not fair you guys are fighting me, only I can fight you in a just fight!" Ridiculous logic.
  - fsckboy 2mo ago
    whoosh GP is in favor of unions and thinks they perform beneficial public services. They don't. addendum: people who like unions because they balance the power relationship between employee and employer (i.e. the idiots downvoting me, idiots not because they like unions, but idiots because they are downvoting me) might see that as a public service, but it's not, that is a private relationship between employer and employee. it confers no direct benefit to other parties, that's why I said it does not provide a public service. You can't analyze economic relationships without qui bono

woah 2mo ago

Unfortunately, this shows how much facts and reality have been turned into nothing more than a loyalty test by both sides of our political debate. > A partnership between The Times (for The Athletic) and Kalshi would also provide validation that their prediction market data should be taken seriously as an indicator of the future. Facts prove otherwise. They could have objected to the partnership on any number of valid grounds, like the fact that predicting the outcome of sporting events provides no valid benefit and can only ever be gambling, or that the integration is probably going to be pretty lame and provide no benefit to the reader. Instead, they felt compelled to make a trivially false claim, the claim that prediction markets do not accurately predict the future. It's trivial to prove that this claim is false, because if it were true, it would be very easy for anyone to make a huge amount of money on prediction markets. It's even more telling why they made this claim, to avoid "providing validation". Not because of any harms caused by sports gambling addiction, but because it could provide a tiny piece of political ammunition to a product that has been slotted into the opposing political tribe. Reading this statement, one gets the impression that they would be completely OK with sports gambling on The Athletic, as long as it was provided by a more traditional casino-style bookie operation. I'm guessing that anyone in the room when this statement was written who even brought up the question of the facts could be safely sidelined and ostracized by the union as being insufficiently loyal to their political position.

jt2190 2mo ago
> Instead, they felt compelled to make a trivially false claim, the claim that prediction markets do not accurately predict the future. It's trivial to prove that this claim is false, because if it were true, it would be very easy for anyone to make a huge amount of money on prediction markets. Isn’t that what’s actually happening though? Traders are making real money from bad predictions? “These are the Sharps actually making money on prediction markets” Odd Lots podcast (Bloomberg) 2026 https://youtu.be/MFAnQpdgkZE https://youtu.be/MFAnQpdgkZE
dbspin 2mo ago
> the claim that prediction markets do not accurately predict the future. It's trivial to prove that this claim is false, because if it were true, it would be very easy for anyone to make a huge amount of money on prediction markets I'm not intimately familiar with prediction markets (I avoid gambling), but can you explain how this is the case? If the market unpredictably incorrect, then shouldn't it be difficult / impossible to predict precisely which bets will be wrong in a way that would allow you to profit from them? Ultimately isn't it the case that all they're doing (at least from a prediction point of view) is aggregating (better or worse informed) guesses? Excepting outright corruption / insider trading of course. This might tell you a great deal about what the set of users of a given prediction market expect as an outcome for a given prediction, but it doesn't tell you anything about the future itself. Any more than the stock market (fails to) tell us to pull out money out the day before a crash.

astura 2mo ago

Someone tampered with the weather equipment at Charles de Gaulle airport for a Polymarket bet. This sort of thing is going to become so much more common going forward. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/hairdryer-or-lighter-french-police-look-at-claim-of-sensor-tampering-to-win-weather-bets https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/hairdryer-or-l... On another note, I had no idea the athletic was owned by NY Times.

criddell 2mo ago
There was also a story about a reporter who wrote a story about a missile strike and people who had bet against a missile strike applied a lot of pressure, including death threats, on the reporter to change his story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/17/israel-journalist-polymarket-iran-strike/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/17/israel-...
mrguyorama 2mo ago
We've literally been through this before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal It's always corrosive to society in a way other vices really aren't. Money is a massive influence and incentive, and in gambling you can artificially increase the possible incentive size with long shot bets. The best part of how gambling makes everything shit is that gambling addicts will ruin the sanctity of everything that claims authenticity for just a few actual dollars of "profit", after you ignore all the money they've lost by betting, which addicts tend to do. Assholes who insist betting on things are the best and totally great for the world somehow will harm a sports event that ten thousand people have paid a hundred dollars to enjoy just to earn a hundred bucks themselves.

tantalor 2mo ago

The linked article is pretty interesting: > found a pattern of [Polymarket] sharing false and misleading information https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/technology/polymarket-social-feeds-falsehoods.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/technology/polymarket-soc... They don't have much to say about Kalshi other than "unlike real mainstream journalism, there’s no accountability". Which isn't saying much, because nobody is claiming prediction markets are a type of journalism.

freejazz 2mo ago
This website has been full of people that say it's better than journalism, so I don't think you're really capturing the entirety of the dynamic
- handoflixue 2mo ago
  Journalism is one particular way of trying to learn about the world. Academics are another, the scientific method is a third, and so on. Claiming that something is a better way to learn about the world is NOT the same as claiming it is using a specific method, or part of a specific tradition.
consensus1 2mo ago
And I hope nobody is claiming that mainstream journalism has any accountability
- jmull 2mo ago
  I do. I’m open to being convinced, but if you’re claiming mainstream media has no accountability, I think you need to substantiate that. I realize there are information bubbles on the internet where this is accepted as truth, but unexamined. Nonsense is everywhere on the internet. I’d be curious how you’d substantiate this.
  - stronglikedan 2mo ago
    You can just watch or read the mainstream news for a few days and see for yourself, really. They may not outright lie that much, but they constantly lie by omission - all of them. And when they are called out, it's like screaming into the void since they just ignore it and carry on their merry way. Hence, very little if any accountability, and usually because the people that rely on these sources aren't the ones calling them out, and so refuse to believe they were lied to since it challenges what they think they know.

criddell 2mo ago

CNN also has a Kalshi deal. https://news.kalshi.com/p/kalshi-cnn-prediction-market-partnership https://news.kalshi.com/p/kalshi-cnn-prediction-market-partn...

imagetic 2mo ago

Agreed. They should not be tied or linked or it.

caycep 2mo ago

Another reason to question the judgement of Meredith Kopit Levien / the younger Sulzberger...

jceg 2mo ago

Most of the top level comments support scrapping the deal, most of them on the basis that "sports gambling is a cancer." A cancer for whom? I want to take the opposite position: let people do whatever they want, as long as they bear the consequences of their decisions instead of socializing the risk. You don't like betting or gambling? Great, then don't do it. But forcing your preferences on others is not the way.

hectdev 2mo ago
How do you protect the risk from falling on society? I think that is the crux of it, it is not something you can cleanly separate which is where regulation steps in. The question is, how much money and influence can these companies shore up before that regulation hits?
c-linkage 2mo ago
What happens when a husband decides to risk the mortgage payment on a sports bet and loses? Now the wife and kids are evicted. Or maybe he lives alone and is now homeless. But now we have a man living out of his car, or worse, homeless and begging on the corner. The problem with allowing people to do whatever they want is that risks are often socialized.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- dylan604 2mo ago
  How does this happen with an online app? I understand how it happens when you place a bet with the local bookie.
- Ylpertnodi 2mo ago
  > or worse, homeless and begging on the corner. Nah, worse is they get some of your hard-earned money. Or a part of it. Do you account for every penny your taxes go to? Why should I pay for someone else's bus route?
orangecat 2mo ago

1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago

Ken Paxton went after gambling in Texas but stays hands off on Kalshi | https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/03/ken-paxton-kalshi-texas-prediction-markets-01062638 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/03/ken-paxton-kalshi-t... "Paxton didn’t sign on to attempts to regulate Kalshi after the prediction market platform and its CEO donated to him and his PAC."

nomilk 2mo ago

A great irony here is that Kalshi and media generally are competitors. When I make important decisions (e.g. understanding politics, where to travel and setup companies), I always value betting markets over hearsay (aka media). The former has real money at stake, whereas the latter often has no skin in the game (as well as a other issues; like herd mentality, sensationalism, incentive to tell people what they want to hear rather than what's true).

cft 2mo ago
Prediction markets as a news source are politically unbiased and nonpartisan , and this is what the establishment people here don't like.
- freejazz 2mo ago
  They are partisan. It's just whoever decides to make the bets. Like the 2022 election situation was just one big whale. There's just nothing about it that makes it inherently non-partisan.
  - nomilk 2mo ago
    A partisan bet makes the opposite position slightly more profitable, attracting bets which equilibrate the market back at fair prices (i.e. realistic probabilities)
    - freejazz 2mo ago
      Yeah but they markets don't equilibrate. Again, the 2022 election pool just reflected the thought of a big whale.
      - nomilk 2mo ago
        A whale just means the market gets more mis-priced, creating greater incentive for correction, which typically occurs. Let's for a moment say you're right, and prediction markets do have a flaw (that if someone wants to spend a lot of money making an outcome look more/less likely), that's an imperfection vs the many biases in other information sources. tl;dr prediction markets financially penalise providing misleading information, whereas traditional media profit from misleading information

BIGFOOT_EXISTS 2mo ago

LETS GO MAKE SOME $$$

yipinwong 2mo ago

This is where stupid unions rubs me the wrong way. Unions are for improving worker conditions such as getting the right pay, and right working environment. They want to "run" the company themselves. Some might argue they are for keeping their current working env without Kalshi. They are not the ones who has to bear the financial responsibilities of the company. They can shove it and just move on.

subdude 2mo ago
>They are not the ones who has to bear the financial responsibilities of the company. When the company does poorly, who ends up hurting more? Is it the workers that get laid off, the executives that get another bonus, or the owner that remains a billionaire?
- yipinwong 2mo ago
  The company loses $, not workers. Workers get paid regardless whether the company loses money or not. Union workers rarely ever get fired over this especially.
  - Ylpertnodi 2mo ago
    Last year, the federal org i belong to laid off 20% of our workforce. The difference in personnel is noticeable, especially when the kpi's are trying to keep up with this year's targets. Next year, we are expecting more people to 'leave'.

brcmthrowaway 2mo ago

I feel some sports only exist because of gambling.

morkalork 2mo ago
Horse racing?

_spduchamp 2mo ago

This future in illustration... https://bsky.app/profile/beanytuesday.bsky.social/post/3mllqvpmsos2q https://bsky.app/profile/beanytuesday.bsky.social/post/3mllq...

xyzelement 2mo ago

I hate prediction markets but simultaneously find this a little rich. I think most people have experienced what Michael Chrichton called Gel Mann Amnesia - the idea that newspapers feel accurate except about topics you know about. Whenever I read about topics I know about: such as my employer, a political topic I am particular familiar with, etc - the reporting is usually off in what MC called a "wet streets cause rain" kind of way. I haven't seen any accountability for this kind of reporting. If a newspaper wrote that someone was born in 1980 but it was actually 1985 they may correct that but the broader theme of articles being inherently misleading to reality is rampant and I suspect significantly worse than when MC conceptualized this problem. That's to say I am not sure there's a practical standard to which a random times writer is held that kalshi isn't to. If anything I think kalshi is more clearly presented as "a bet" vs "the truth" so I don't understand the meat of the grievance.

josefritzishere 1mo ago

Kalshi is illegal gambling and gambling is not news. You can find illegal gambling in all five boroughs of New York in person.