all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The prohibition extends to services supporting prediction markets, like virtual private networks, that could allow consumers to disguise their location and get around the ban.

This is bad

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    No, it isn't. The wording of the law is very narrow, going after VPNs that are being advertised to get around the prediction market ban.

    The section in question states that it's a felony for anyone who "provides supportive services to a prediction market or consumer knowing that the services will be used to identify a consumer's location, transfer funds, or make or process payments for the purpose of allowing consumers to make wagers or to settle wagers made by consumers in violation of this section."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    All of this neatly ignores the real problem with prediction markets, which is that they've already become a dependable way for scumbag politicians and bureaucrats and their relatives and cronies to turn their inside knowledge into piles of money.

    As if there aren't already enough ways for those scumbags to steal from the rest of us ...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    For the life of me I can never understand how people would "bet" on something that any other person can control to make money.

    Like there was one about people betting on train delays but if you were financially motivated it's possible to be an asshole and delay a train.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 92 comments in c/politics@sh.itjust.works view that post
    2 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    1 comment in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post