  > More than a quarter of Gen Z and millennials surveyed together by Global Strategy Group said they participated in prediction markets, versus 10% of Gen X and just 2% of baby boomers.

This statement borders on lying. At the least it’s extremely misleading framing not supported by their own link.

The 25% of “prediction market” users are entirely doing sports gambling. Two different things that the gambling market desperately wants everyone to confuse.

BS article, do not read.

▲ rdiddly a day ago | parent | next [-]

How are they so different? Seems like sports is just a special case of the larger category.

▲ npc99 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

so, to be clear, are you seeking to mislead us into thinking there is something fundamentally different between gambling on sporting events versus on things like election outcomes?

▲

semiquaver a day ago | parent [-]

> there is something fundamentally different between gambling on sporting events versus on things like election outcomes

Yes. Everyone seems to like sports gambling and no one whatsoever cares about non-sports-gambling prediction markets. Thats the difference. Framing this as an issue about prediction markets is misleading. It’s about sports gambling only

▲

npc99 a day ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of people are pretty puritanical about gambling in general. I think prediction markets just push themselves harder and have an air of tech bro douchebaggery about them, so that's why they are currently getting most of the hate.

▲

rdiddly 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

From the linked survey results:

Percent who say they "frequently" or "sometimes" engage in:

online sports betting: 23%

prediction markets: 14%

Not a huge difference. I would say the two things are not materially different in popularity (in this one survey).

The article (which I agree is a bit crappy) even goes out of its way to mention the two things separately in the sentence "For someone to win in a prediction market or sports bet, someone else has to lose." They are different things, but they are both zero-sum, which is the point of the article. So the two things are not really different in principle, either.

I can't really grasp what your point is or how you can criticize the article for not being unsupported by the link, and then misrepresent the contents of the link.

	▲	semiquaver 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> prediction markets: 14% Doubt