> truth will start to be defined by money

I'm a firm believer in 'there's nothing new under the sun'.

> There's already been tales of journalists being harassed to change stories in order for over-leveraged betters to win polymarket bets.

So the only thing that has changed is who is doing the harassing.

> I'm pretty sure the depths of vitriol (that border on things like death threats) are a consequence of gambling.

People who are "passionate" about sports have always been the most aggressive and vulgar. I grew up around them, this does not surprise me at all.

▲

Quarrelsome 2 days ago | parent [-]

> People who are "passionate" about sports have always been the most aggressive and vulgar.

Sure but I can't help but wonder if many of them have money riding on the games which makes their anger much more understandable. Perhaps those you grew up around were also having a bit of a flutter.

▲

neonstatic 2 days ago | parent [-]

Oh, for sure, I don't doubt that at all! My only point is causality. I do not agree that it's betting companies fault (whether they are on-chain or not). If there weren't ways to bet, these people would invent them.

▲

Quarrelsome 2 days ago | parent [-]

Agreed. I just personally think advertising gambling should be illegal. Obviously there's so much vested money that its hard to shift given that it props up a lot of sports revenue today. However we learned the horrors of tobacco advertising and I can't see why we shouldn't learn the same lessons about gambling. It can never be illegal because the black market would be worse, but we shouldn't encourage it.

	▲	neonstatic 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I agree. I think the advertising ban should be more general - anything that is known to be addictive should not be advertised.