data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fdaa4/fdaa4d21173f0e766a1831d226a26a748ad7bfa9" alt="awes pfp"
awes
@awes
28 replies
7 recasts
34 reactions
17 replies
41 recasts
221 reactions
0 reply
5 recasts
24 reactions
43 replies
95 recasts
587 reactions
0 reply
9 recasts
11 reactions
1 reply
6 recasts
28 reactions
20 replies
43 recasts
143 reactions
1 reply
9 recasts
28 reactions
3 replies
47 recasts
82 reactions
0 reply
6 recasts
15 reactions
2 replies
7 recasts
19 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
0 reply
3 recasts
1 reaction
2 replies
4 recasts
14 reactions
Discourse is more constructive than throwing money around, which only the wealthy can afford, or dueling, which only a few are skilled at
Both plutocracy and violence are abhorrent in a modern, civilised society, except wealth often follows from privilege, while dueling is meritocratic
Not to mention, society is not about an egotist fantasy about who is "right" or "wrong" - it's about finding truth before it's too late. There's absolutely zero value to society if a billionaire swept up a prediction market for nuclear apocalypse, there's infinite value for all of us to come together and discuss how we can best prevent that outcome. (Same goes for positive outcomes.)
Betting markets aka prediction markets are useful for what they do - betting.
(Side-note: "personal consequence" would be partially true if betting markets had "wealth-adjusted risk", e.g. for a billionaire throwing $1M into a bet is nothing; for the average person, $1M is impossible.) 5 replies
15 recasts
82 reactions
10 replies
6 recasts
31 reactions
15 replies
9 recasts
21 reactions
20 replies
18 recasts
97 reactions
2 replies
5 recasts
19 reactions
14 replies
8 recasts
31 reactions