The only one I can think of is, having a better idea of which way the presidential election goes might've been useful for some people, or some other large election. There's a lot of egg on the faces of all these mainstream media polls, which still continues to trigger some people.

▲

dozerly an hour ago | parent [-]

So what happens when someone like musk spends a few hundred million to skew what the probability looks like? Suddenly people see that a politician has a 90% chance of winning, and they feel silly voting for the operation?

These are not polling places, they are places for capital to influence odds.

▲

mahboi an hour ago | parent [-]

Eh, sounds like the excuse I kept hearing as to why Trump had favorable odds in the last election. Supposedly a foreigner trying to influence our elections, totally not the Democrats kinda not having a candidate. It would be a very expensive (on average) way to probably not make a difference. Cheaper to just buy up some media companies, which do the same thing, saying their preferred candidate is going to win.

Small elections are susceptible to corruption this way, though.

	▲	dozerly an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There’s been plenty of blatant voter interference, and billions spent influencing American voters, not really seeing where your point is based. More handles to steer democracy with money is not better, period.
	▲	AngryData 32 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Why not both?