381
Some people seems to think that blocking a site sets a bad precedent. It's too late for that, France routinely block illegal download sites. That's the reason openDNS stopped operating in france.
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
381 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
86512 readers
3255 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
While well-meaning this is a terrible idea and not how the Internet should work. Block their payments, make it illegal to operate, but don't start letting any government decide who's allowed on the Internet.
Based, but imo flawed - its setting yet another precedent that governments can block access to sites they deem "incorrect". Take away their ability to make a profit, cut off their payment systems, but dont you dare try to regulate who is allowed on the internet
I hate how they're supporting the fiction that this isn't gambling by calling it a "prediction site". It's gambling, always has been.
This loophole (if we can even call it that because it‘s just stupid marketing) makes it even worse than regular gambling. It‘s unregulated and very easy to exploit even by other participants. Everything about this is illegal in pretty much any country no matter how you word it. It‘s actually insane how slow countries are to do something about those criminals.
This isn't much different than google calling installing software "side loading". All just lawyer speech to be able to bend and break the rules
JAILBREAKING SCUM
Literally just having access to your device you paid for....
Jaywalking scum!
Literally crossing the street as humans have done since the street was invented, ruined by cars taking over in the 1900s
I think the distinction is important. Gambling is random outcome. Prédiction means you could influence the outcome. Think of a terrorist betting on the timing of the next attack
Actually, yeah.
It's also gambling. But the potential for corruption is just on a whole other level; "gambling" is a euphemism for prediction markets.
I think it's silly you're getting downvoted over semantics; gambling has influenced outcomes, yes, technically, but it's generally a self-contained game.
So poker isn't gambling? Ok.
It is and it isn't. The hand you get dealt is random (assuming no funny business) but the people who do consistently well are playing their opponents more than their cards.
If you're influencing the outcome via some private mechanism that's a crime and is in fact illegal (a little thing known as insider trading or cheating depending on how you go about it). So per your definition either you can't influence the outcome in which case it's gambling, or you can in which case it's illegal and you're committing a crime.
All that said I think the definition of gambling being truly random isn't quite right. Gambling has always been about statistical outcomes because if it was truly random nobody would ever make any money off of it so nobody would waste their time. Remember the house always wins because they control the odds. These sites are just bookies in techbro clothing using marketing and legal loopholes to run illegal gambling sites.
Insider trading applies to securities. Polymarket bets are not securities.
Manipulation violates Polymarket's ToS, but that's not criminal.
Now, it might meet the legal criteria for fraud, depending on what one does. But that's a "maybe." I'd say that is far easier to get away with than insider trading. EDIT: Especially when hopping jurisdictions (which is not so easy with securities).
I mean, it is both?
By that logic, all gambling is just prediction
risks were calculated
@
but I am bad at math
how did you come to this conclusion? betting on scenarios that are purely random are just gambling.
Scenarios in gambling are rarely "purely random". I.e. the likelyhood of winning in poker depends on what you already got dealt and what other cards got dealt and so on. What does "purely random" even mean? Like a lottery with equal chance of winning for all participants? Yea that's gambling but just one kind of gambling.
Most forms of casino gambling except card games are purely random: dice, roulette, slot machines. I agree with you that there being an element of skill or knowledge doesnt stop it being gambling however.
Only gambling on thermal noise is the real deal /½s
But that is what the whole discussion is about. Many scenarios aren't just gambling because they have a degree of predictability to it: poker, stock market, betting on the day when the US starts WW3.
Probably only quantum processes are truly random, but for this argument, processes are practically random if the governing variables are not human-knowable. A dice throw, roulette, lottery numbers drawn from a bowl. They are deep down deterministic, but not predictable to any degree.
It isn't gambling because the result is determined by the actions of its users. This is called spot-fixing.
Anyone have the odds on how long it will take for this to be circumvented?
Depends, but immediately for either case.
A) Mostly likely. The ISP blocks DNS resolution for that domain, directing users to a placeholder site instead. User just uses a DNS resolver other than their ISPs such as Google's or Cloudflare's - easy, quick, free.
B) The ISP also has to block routing to IPs associated with the site. Unlikely, but easily circumvented by using a VPN so that your direct routing goes via elsewhere. Easy, quick, free or paid.
These blocks are common for sites a government deems illegal or undesirable. Nothing new here at a technical level.
Accessing the site is one thing but what about transferring money to/from?
Same way. Transfer money in once you're on the website and is not being blocked at bank level. They also take crypto so it's not like the bank can block it either even if France tried to block that.
BTW, I think the site and premis behind Polymarket is shit and nobody should use it, but blocking websites effectively has proven difficult at a technical level. (See PirateBay, still going strong despite everything entire governments and massive lobbying power can throw at it, and 4chan's refusal to be blocked by the UK's OSA) Most governments settle for the political win and blocking people with only a casual interest, which is fair enough. Most serious attempts at blocking specific sites tends just to make lawyers richer.
I agree when it comes to pirate websites and other shady stuff but I think those guys are a "legitimate" business, even if disgusting, and if France bans them from operating on the territory and they knowingly enable french people to use the site, could still be trouble. I have no idea how they function but I'd be surprised if they don't even make you ID yourself on there similar to a trading app?..
Good take that they're a business, but if they have no physical presence in France there is very little else the French Government can do, other than what they've just done.
By users or Polymarket?
If it's the former, zero seconds with VPNs. For the latter, no idea.
That's utterly ridiculous.
It takes at least 5 seconds to turn on a VPN and reload a page.
I see what you did there.
Eh, it's probably more effective to ban payment services from performing transactions. Doesn't stop crypto currencies but it would still be 99% effective.
Polymarket agreed to stop offering its service in France in 2024. There is no non-crypto transaction to block for France.
Should've read the article more closely I guess, it says exactly that very clearly lol
It's a little alarming that crypto payments alone are warranting this.
Bt it's not.
As is should be.