We should make sure every person on the Internet has their identity confirmed at the device level and then we can punish these people for writing the wrong Iran story.
- Department of War
So what happens to him if he does change the story? Like… The new losers will be PISSED at him. It’s a no-win situation.
The only way to fight this is to make a new bet on polymarket to profit off the odds that this journalist is killed by the gamblers in polymarket.
I was thinking it was just to not use polymarket but dang… I guess I was wrong.
Shame death threats aren’t prosecutable
Hey, in this world even child rape isn’t, so I don’t know what we expect.
US: promotes no gambling to children by suing Valve and their lootboxes mechanics
Also US: has an app where anyone can gamble on real life events.
🤷♂️
Polymarket is (or was, anyway) not operating within the US. These are non US people threatening the journalist.
It was not for a short period of time, but since 2025 it does.
My point that it was originated in US and is US based company that operates in US and globally - the same US of A which recently began fighting gambling in games, specifically Valve games.
Also, just recalled that US has a literal gambling city. Hi-fucking-larious.
no gambling to children
“protect the children” is used to justify all sorts of bad laws but there is absolutely no conflict between stopping something for children and allowing adults.
You: “The US is so stupid, it doesn’t allow marketing cigarettes to children.”
Timing is everything
Holy shit.
Not only this is horrifying cause of the threats, it’s also very unsettling that something with such a recipe for disaster would attract so many rubes to be a working business model.
Yeah, it sort of makes me wonder how many bets have been fixed already.
I’m guessing a lot. Our wealthy like to gamble and are not normally subject to justice.
Distressing is right, there’s a lot of potential there. Especially with all the didling going on indicated by the Epstein files.
There was an article recently about some account called like “magamaster###” creating a bet about Iran, winnining $900,000 and all within the span of about 2 days before just disappearing.
Pretty sure the people that win aren’t doing it by luck anymore.
I feel like if I were trying to manipulate that market I’d be trying to bend reality in a better direction.
“If you decide to go with your ego and not with your head, you are leaving behind dozens of wealthy people from all over the world who will know that you performed market manipulation and stole from them. They know who you are, you don’t know who they are. It took them less than 5 minutes to find out exactly where you live … how often you see your lovely parents … and exactly who your … brothers and sisters are.”
So the guy threatening the journalist to change his story so the gambler can make money isn’t market manipulation, but the journalist not changing his story is…
What scary about this, and it was mentioned in the article, is how future stories by less than ethical “journalist” can be purchased so that one side can become rich. Fuck accuracy it’s all about the money.
Well it’s not like that is already the case with social media, but I would like to think there is at least some aspect of reporting that is based in ethics and truth.
Polymarket is one of many direct evidence of the impending fall of society.
It’s one of those things that would seem excessive in a story.
A place so decadent that everything was to bet for. Even as the world ended around them, they gambled on how.
It’s the real life version of the intro to Cyberpunk 2077, with the radio host talking about bets on the death toll in Night city.
Cyberpunk was supposed to be a dystopia, not a fucking instruction manual!
But seriously, I’ve lost about all enjoyment in cyber-dystopian stories because these days they cut depressingly close to home.
yeah I’ve had so many story ideas just end up being too on-the-nose. and a few that are “if I put this idea out there, someone will use it and make things worse for people I don’t know.” I don’t need that kind of karma.
Really seems like a future dystopian sci-fi, where the main character is going to bring the whole system down.
Oh yeah, it is messed up and doesnt even cover the section where apparently another journalist the writer knows was bribed to try and coerce the flow of information to get that win. It basically confirms that there is already a willing lack of integrity somewhere to think it would work here.
A few hours later, a colleague from another media outlet messaged me. He said that someone he knew asked him to ask me to change the report on the missile impact in Beit Shemesh, and that it would be “negligible” for me if I did make the change.
Going further, the acquaintance even offered the journalist compensation, from his winnings, if he managed to convince me to change my report.
Polymarket is one of the largest prediction markets in the world, where users can wager their money on the likelihood of future events, using cryptocurrency, debit or credit cards, and bank transfers.
So this is a market place where rich people can bet on how gruesome poor people can die in war zones and genocides. Is this any different from the rich hunting the poor for sport? Instead of a trigger, they click a button, but it’s not that different.
Isn’t humanity awesome? Can we please start jailing these (or at this point, all) psychopaths?
Seriously, 99% of the population consists of awesome people that take care of one another. The problem is that psychopaths, like the ones from the article, have the need to be on top and control everything and we let them.
Seriously, as far as I can tell, humanity could kill a few 10.000s psychopaths and all of the sudden, no more wars, no more hunger, no more conflicts, no more senseless pollution, the world could heal and humanity could enter a phase of sustainable awesomeness.
No. I am not suggesting we kill them, it was just to make the point. However, I do feel we need to start testing people for psychopathy (as far as possible and work in better screening) to ensure we keep these fuckers from positions of power and money. We need to stop psychopaths from gaining any real power.
Hell, if it were up to me, nobody would get great power or money. I’d have a world wide wealth cap, nobody can be worth over, say 1 or 10 million. Anything over that goes to taxes. THAT will stop people.frok amassing great wealth and power and just stop this shit
For the website: I wish people were still masquerading as Anonymous and would just continuously hack this site into the ground where it belongs, next to its disgusting creators.
Fuck I hate this world :(
More like 10 million psychopaths. 4% psychopathy rate.
No. I am not suggesting we kill them
Why not?
Because suggesting outright premeditated killing for people with a given trait, regardless of whether they have actually offended in any way or are an active threat or whether killing them is the only way to stop them being one, is kinda genocidal. We should never advocate killing people for things they cannot control.
Killing someone is, as our technology goes today, final. It robs them of all potential, all freedom, of the most basic human right: life. It is a heartless thing to do to someone, regardless of motivation. Yes, when you’re under attack, killing your attacker is valid, but it should never be taken lightly and inherently devalues their life in favour of your own survival. It is a trade we should accept, but also be aware of.
But reflexively resorting to murder when there is no immediate need for it infringes on fundamental human rights. And doing so indiscriminately for a psychological condition is, quite frankly, no better than killing people for their ethnicity or religion.
Restrict them from seeking power for a fundamental incompatibility with the requirements for empathetic governance, but do not call for their death. Do not forsake your own empathy.
Right. Im also not suggesting to kill everyone with a net worth of 1bn+ regardless of their actions. But there are many people whose greed has killed thousands and keeps ruining the lives of millions, would you not call that “being under attack”, which you brought up as a justification for homicide? Also the countless wars that are being fought for their pleasure where people are quite literally under attack.
But just to be clear, my first comment was meant as a joke.
I hate it all too.
Take me out first, please.
Most cyberpunk read today.
How that shit is not illegal is beyond me. Gambling is already predatory but outside of sports and in fucking armed conflicts is abhorrent.
Because Trump took charge of the SEC. The crypto just handles payments - the market itself is centralized and exists with the permission of the state.
Wake me up when there’s a bet that angers people in power, it gets censored, and someone launches a fully p2p version.
We are in the crime is legal era
Crime is legal… to the degree that you are sufficiently connected.
🔲 - White
🔲 - Male
🔲 - Cis
🔲 - Hetero
🔲 - Christian (preferably conservative evangelical Protestant)
🔲 - Politically conservative
🔲 - Wealthy
The more of these you can check off, the more crimes are legal.
“For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.”
What a stupid world we’ve allowed to be concocted.
Past few years I’ve been reading a shitty sci-fi series. In this series there’s a race of creatures whose entire society is founded on gambling. They bet on everything, and people frequently bankrupt themselves. The moment you look at that world-building with even a little bit of scrutiny it falls apart in its stupidity.
This is even dumber.
Yup.
Time to boost this post. I have received death threats from Zionist, but I have a feeling these poly market people are scarier since they have money on the line
So uh… what are the odds on polymarket for the guy getting killed?
Can you put out a contract on someone just by betting on polymarket that they won’t die by a particular date?
Advanced money laundering skill: 100
Lmao I think technically that would work… but I also don’t know how tightly polymarket polices/moderates wagers like that.
… Will you be the one reporting it? If so, I’m sure we’ll get to know each other very well.
Gambling needs to simply be made illegal
I don’t care what your arguments are gambling needs to be made illegal
Making something illegal doesn’t make it magically go away. Look at the war on drugs…
I think it’s fair for it to be legal, but only in specific locations and contexts. I think small scale gambling between friends and coworkers is fine. I think well regulated casinos are bad but serve as a deterrent to underground criminal gambling. I think having legal gambling through the internet and on your phone, advertised everywhere is a serious problem.
Nah this needs to be illegal period. Not taking questions
Find something else to do
Prohibition of vices doesn’t work, it just pushes it into organized crime. I want harm reduction more than purity
You’re interested in solutions. The person you’re replying to is only interested in hearing his own voice.
Yeah I never assume I can convince someone I’m arguing with on the internet. My goal is to convince the readers. Or entertain myself while bored at work
I agree completely. I always assume there are younger folks in the room who haven’t formed an opinion on everything yet.
It’s the young and the ignorant who have formed opinions on subjects they don’t understand.
At least a few people learn nuance as they age and gain life experience. It’s far from inevitable, but it does happen.
It’s not just that, even us old and opinionated people can be swayed when we aren’t in the fight, given we have the wisdom to let ourselves listen to arguments. Especially if we keep seeing similar ideas from those we see as peers. It’s just that when we feel confronted most people (myself included) dig in rather than reevaluate.
Im cool with the state owning things. Its the oversize marketing budgets and no concern for harm that comes with private ownership that bugs me.
I’ve heard plenty of stories of destitute people burning all their money on state-run scratchers. It’s not a panacea.
Me too, but at least it pays for a school or something vs some rich assholes pocket. I have never seen a better acceptable solution.
It pushes them into organized crime because the state fails to provide for people’s needs not because the vice is prohibited
Next
And then there are those of us for whom gambling is not a need. And I think it’s problematic to regard any unnecessary activity, especially one that’s a known focus for self-destructively compulsive behavior, as a need.
Heroin’s a pressing need too, when you’re addicted.
“provide for their needs”…? What do you mean? Sure, many gamblers don’t have a very stable economic situation, but you’re implying that something like UBI would suddenly stop people from gambling or what?
I bet you one hundred dollars that you cannot enforce this.
Yes prohibition of alcohol worked so well in America, the 18th amendment, in the 1919 that 14 years later they repealed it, the 21st amendment.
Arguably prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption during that time period.
That does not mean that it “worked” in any practical sense, considering all else that was associated with it.
They should adopt the same approach they use in Sweden to fight alcoholism: tax the hell out of it. You won a million by doing “insider trading” on the most recent dumb government decision? Congratulations, you owe the IRS half a mil.
Not talking about alcohol try again
Well what is the difference? A vice is a vice. Both are used to distracte us from the daily life of contant reminder that we are just a flesh bag being controlled by a mass of fat that will decay and die at some point. While we circle around a massive black hole. So why is this one vice so different that you think that prohibition would work?
different things being vices doesn’t make them magically interchangeable
Sorry
So what makes it so different that you think that prohibition would work in this one instance?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
itt: 100 billion lemmings see the phrase “i’m not going to debate you” and immediately take up arms and move to debate positions, so as to maximize the insufferability of the platform writ large
Itt: the person saying “I’m not going to debate you” continues to respond.
Also: “I’m not going to debate you” is not some magic phrase that prevents your statement from being challenged.
In closing: I’m not going to debate you. So if you respond to this you’re a hypocrite.
i don’t know how i could have possibly been clearer that i don’t want the disjointed ramblings of debatecreatures in my inbox, but i know things like “consent” might be a foreign concept to such folk
“When I make statements on public forums that does not mean I consent to people responding to me!”
I don’t think you understand how any of this works.
for you in particular, let’s permanently rectify that situation
Thinking you can say something and avoid it being challenged by adding shit like “anything you can argue against it doesn’t matter” is the insufferable thing on display here. Almost as insufferable as another person chiming in about how insufferable those who won’t just take that at face value are.
“avoid it being challenged” dear lord. if only internet forum threads had some kind of button that would allow you to insert whatever half-baked disguised-as-a-policy-suggestion reaction one has directly into the thread. maybe then those that suffer the worst from Jubileebrain could utilize that to spew forth all their intellectual capabilities’ worth without doing themselves the disgrace of demanding dissidents put up their dukes
but then it wouldn’t be lemmy now would it
Prohibition on vices never works, it just sends the money to criminal organizations that kill people instead of capitalist companies that kill less people.
The solution is to have it be state run, remove the profit motive, and send any money gained from it to education and social services.
Not sure if you read the article but it looks like organized crime is threatening to kill people on the “above board” platforms as well.
I also am against turning the state into the purveyor of gambling as it creates perverse incentive for the state to prioritize predating on problem gamblers and poor people in order to raise tax revenues. Money is fungible and as soon as the lottery becomes a funding vehicle for education it becomes the funding vehicle and you shift more of the burden off of the rich paying taxes and more on the poor to fund it.
I’m all for the state staying out of regulating vices but also the state shouldn’t be the one providing it to the populace.
Gambling is a moral issue, the prevalence of which is showing the degradation of the values of our society due to late stage capitalism. Unregulated capitalism places no value on values and only value in capital.
I don’t care about the gambling, my issue is with the advertising. They are enticing people, mostly young men, with visions of excitement and LOTS of money. They don’t show any ads of a guy losing the rent money, and having to break the news to his wife.
I don’t mind vices being legal, but I strongly object to them being marketed. Cigarettes are banned in most media, and liquor is heavily controlled. I wouldn’t mind if all marketing for all vices were prohibited.
Oohh yeah, let the state run the “gambling on genocide” and “gambling on child murder”, that sounds awesome!
Not saying it’s the best situation but if the choice is between the mob running it, capitalist corporations running it, and the state running it, I’d pick the state.
The state has an incentive to decrease problem gambling. Even if you ignore any democratic pressures from the people who don’t like gambling being pushed, the state also has to bear the cost of addicts with social services so it’s monetarily incentivized to reduce problem gambling.
Gambling addiction has one of the highest suicide rates out of any addiction, so I’m pretty sure the capitalist gambling companies right now cause more death than illegal organizations could.
most are actually struggling tmk, as the stock market (the largest casino around) is more accessible than ever.
Removing the profit motive of gambling is exactly prohibition, what???
Remove the profit motive from “the house” side. The house is taking a cut of every bet as profit, which encourages them to advertise and increase their market and market share to get more money. Which in the end means them trying to push gambling on those with a problem because they make them the most money.
If it’s run by the state it’s not beholden to share holders who want as much profit as possible, social costs be damned. The state is at least nominally beholden to the people in a democratic system and the people generally don’t want gambling advertising to be pushed on gambling addicts.
…just make the advertising illegal
No it can work just fine if the state doesn’t become captured by those criminal profit seeking elements and we properly provide for people along the way
Not buying it
House always wins. It’s literally just a way to steal people’s money.
And in the city I live now, they passed a law for those stupid slot machines like 10 years ago.
Now they are everywhere.
You know who sits at slot machines?
Old people. Retired people.
People living off social security.It’s literally a way to steal money from people who need it most. And specifically, it was tax payers money.
So whenever I hear ,“but it creates revenue” I think. “Yeah by stealing it from the state and our seniors. Wtf. That’s not real revenue.”
And this whole idea of autonomy. Like people have to choose for themselves if they want to gamble.
We all know it’s addictive. And it’s designed to trick and manipulate people.
There is less autonomy there than you think.
I dunno, I find it hard to respect laws intending to protect people from their own choices, especially when the majority of people can enjoy the thing (or just ignore it on their own) without any problems.
Try to idiot-proof the world and the world just comes up with a better idiot.
Yeah unfortunately gamblers read that and just go…so what?
I’m ok with this simply being a religious principle
I think the “argument” is that it’s massively gray.
So much stuff can be considered gambling.
It needs to be handled. Idk how. But the term is too encompassing to just outright make illegal.
I can see why you’d want the state to regulate it. Gambling addicts have it really bad.
There will always be gambling since people can gamble points and fries
I’d vote for you to be dictator for a day to enact your policy.
If I were dictator for a day, I’d outlaw all overly loud personal vehicles. You’d be sentenced to 10 minutes strapped behind your vehicle while it’s blaring full blast, and then anyone who wants can be given guns to just go nuts on your vehicle.
