this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
190 points (97.0% liked)

World News

54760 readers
3065 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] otter@lemmy.ca 31 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (4 children)

Ignoring how stupid this whole concept is, why is the payout based on news articles in the first place. Why would someone bet $900,000 again in the future if it's possible for someone to force a bet in their favor through threats.

It's like betting on whether Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead, but you can't open the box and the payout is based on what different journalists say about it.

“The attempt by these gamblers to pressure me to change my reporting so that they would win their bet did not and will not succeed,” Fabian said. “But I do worry that other journalists may not be as ethical if they are promised some of the winnings.”

He said that journalists are in a unique position to “exploit their knowledge for insider trading on the platform.”

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Polymarket allows you to bet on literally anything, not just sports. It's pretty crazy. You can bet how many days you think the Ukraine Russia war is on, you can bet if a certain person will make an appearance at the Oscars, you can bet when you think someone will die.

[–] Slashme@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

So if you bet that someone will die before a certain date, and your winnings would be more than the cost of a hitperson, that's quite an incentive.

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Similar things are already happening in the worst way you can imagine

Edit: one more

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

The internet is a series of journalists

[–] wuffah@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago

Sounds kind of like legalized racketeering.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Why do people play the stock market? Highly manipulative by the rich. Put out some bad news, pull a huge number of shares. People are desperate to make money.

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The difference is that companies are inherently useful and generate revenue. Stock prices can be volatile, but that does not matter as long as dividends are handed out.

Betting is not useful, it's just a game.

[–] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Companies being inherently useful does not track. They can be actively useless and still generate revenue. I guess it matters how we define use and utility here. But if we define it by their capability to generate revenue, then they are exactly as useful as gambling is.

There’s no meaningful difference there in any real framing that corresponds to reality.

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 2 points 9 hours ago

Companies can be useless and generate revenue, a gambling company is a good example. I believe it is possible to define their utility without relying on revenue. Talking about the stock market itself however, the utility of stock is to generate revenue for the owner. That is very much like gambling when relying on stock price volatility or growth and it is unlike gambling when relying on the underlying business to generate revenue.

The main difference being that gambling will not reliably provide returns, while stock will provide a somewhat stable revenue.

I do see differences. Besides, gambling is very often not about making money.