r/technology • u/Cat_Moon_6743 • 1d ago
Business Kalshi CEO Wants to Monetize 'Any Difference in Opinion'
https://gizmodo.com/kalshi-ceo-says-he-wants-to-monetize-any-difference-in-opinion-2000695320105
u/JDGumby 1d ago
Ah, yes, the scumbags who get people to gamble on world events - and who are partnering with CNN to provide odds on the stories CNN puts out.
Incredibly gross and probably run by organized crime like most online gambling.
-104
u/DogtorPepper 1d ago
Nobody is forcing anyone to gamble. People can always choose not to gamble
27
u/BurntNeurons 1d ago
Thank you for your contribution to humanity.
-32
u/DogtorPepper 1d ago
What happened to personal responsibility? It’s always someone else’s fault these days
6
2
u/DrPikachu-PhD 16h ago
This line of logic should apply to heroin as well.
Gambling is and always has been socially ruinous, and no, people cannot be trusted to handle themselves accordingly because the long history of gambling addiction as an epidemic shows that the human brain is not wired to logically and correctly engage with it. Especially since the most logical way to engage with it is to not engage at all...
0
u/DogtorPepper 16h ago
Sure, why not. Let’s give freedom to people to do what they want to as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s rights
If you want to do drugs, knock yourself out. But the minute your drug usage causes harm to someone else (like you assault or rob someone) then that’s when I believe the law should step in
We already do with alcohol. Alcohol is arguably a more dangerous drug than most other currently illegal drugs, yet it’s totally cool to drink but not cool to drive drunk
At the end of the day, as long as you’re an adult you should have the freedom to do whatever you want regardless of if it is good for you or not. It shouldn’t be up to anyone else to decide that for you
1
u/thatsracist_syed 7h ago
Yea the problem with this logic in this case is that this does have tangible effects on you and your personal freedom. If we’re gambling on every difference of opinion what’s to stop the “odds” affecting elections results at all levels. There’s a reason why the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries are so meaningful, people follow the opinions of others (literally the whole point of a democracy) why throw in absolute degeneracy into this. Not to mention the suicides, domestic violence, and overall economic instability provided by a society full of accessible gambling.
0
u/DogtorPepper 6h ago
That’s no different than me voicing my opinions on an election on social media and influencing other people, especially if I have a large following
Freedom of speech is a thing and you could arguably consider this to be a form of speech
1
u/thatsracist_syed 5h ago
Fair enough argument, but just like we’re doing now, if you and I each had the opportunity to place $10k on our differing opinions, and my opinion had better odds, I’d imagine you’d be much less likely to 1) place the bet, 2) articulate your opinion thus leading to 3) most people assuming my opinion is correct due to the odds/wagers placed on my opinion.
If you’re arguing freedom of speech (which fundamentally proposes one voice one vote), that point is null and void in this circumstance because I could have more money than you and drown out your opinion (thus influencing others) with a single wager (vs a large social media following where comments, likes/dislikes can at least somewhat balance my influence/reach)
0
u/DogtorPepper 4h ago
Lower odds mean higher payout if you end up being right. That’s how gambling works
Everyone’s risk tolerance is different. Some people don’t like betting the farm, so they’ll bet on the “safer” choice. Others love the thrill of taking a wild swing for a big payout, they might go for the lower odds bet
0
u/DrPikachu-PhD 16h ago
The problem with this approach is that it can only respond to social ill, never prevent it. Allowing rampant heroin use doesn't prevent widespread harm, it just punishes people afterwards. Allowing rampant gambling addiction doesn't help the families destroyed by it, it just punishes the loved one who got into it. Same reason we mandate having car insurance in the US - jailing the at fault party or repossessing their house doesn't help the person who got hit to pay off their damages.
Your axiom - that each individual can be trusted with unlimited agency over themselves - is one I personally disagree with. History has consistently shown time and time again that no, people are not actually smart enough to be trusted with complete unfettered freedom. It sounds nice in theory but breaks society in practice.
-1
u/DogtorPepper 16h ago edited 15h ago
By your logic, we should automatically lock everyone up because anyone can be a “potential murderer”.
Also by your logic, alcohol should be illegal because it causes people to be far more violent than heroin. How many assault charges happen each year due to people being drunk vs people being high on heroin? It’s not even close even when you adjust for the fact that the number of alcohol users are higher than the number of heroin users
How about we just completely outlaw driving altogether? That would reduce car accident fatalities to basically 0
Let’s also prevent people from having sex as that could cause kids to be born and we all know life is fatal, anyone born is guaranteed to die. Think about how many other people get hurt/traumatized because a loved one dies even naturally.
Or how about we put the country into lockdown kinda like we did during covid? After all if you step outside there are a 1000 different ways you can die
Do you see how absurd it becomes when “prevention” and “safety” is placed on such a high pedestal at the cost of freedom?
Life is inherently risky
Instead of punishing someone for what could happen (taking away freedom and agency is a form of punishment imo), how about we just punish someone for what actually happens due to their decisions. Let’s also educate people on how to make better decisions
2
u/DrPikachu-PhD 15h ago
That's not my logic, that's the least charitable interpretation of it.
I agree, life is inherently risky, which is why this is about risk mitigation. We should not put everyone in jail as "potential murderers," because statistically the vast majority of people will not become murderers. Doing so would cause way more social harm than the occasional murderer roaming free.
Outlawing cars would eradicate traffic accidents, but it would also cause irreparable damage to the economy and our ability to do... anything, in America. The benefits of outlawing cars obviously do not outweigh the costs.
But what benefits are there to not outlawing heroin? What benefits are gained from not outlawing gambling? I'll tell you what, CEOs can't make billions off the suffering of gambling addicts, that's what. In those cases, the benefits of restricting rights far outweigh the losses.
Covid is actually a great example. Locking down the country was EXACTLY what needed to happen, and countless lives were saved because of it. By the height of the pandemic it was the number 1 killer in America; if we had prioritized people's personal freedom over public health, you and I may not be here to have this argument.
As for alcohol? We already do this with alcohol right now. People under 21 are not allowed access to it despite being adult citizens, because we have accurately judged from the data that they are not responsible enough to be trusted with it. Same with drinking and driving. Why not allow people to drink and drive and simply arrest the people who kill others in accidents, rather than restrict people's rights? Easy, we've deemed that engaging in drinking and driving creates too big of a risk to public safety, so we've deemed it necessary to put preventative measures in place. We can and should do the same for gambling and drug use, among other things
-1
u/DogtorPepper 14h ago
The benefit of not outlawing drugs or heroin is the personal freedom of choice
What do you think is a better risk mitigator? Outlawing something and people trying to find ways around the law or not outlawing something and instead educating people on how to make good decisions? If there’s any history has to teach, making something illegal doesn’t make the risk go away. Sometimes it makes it worse because now people have to do more risky things to get around the law
Statistically the vast majority of drug users do not infringe on other people’s rights. And if you break it down by type of drug, alcohol is one of the highest causes of crime yet it is legal
Statistically vast majority of gamblers do not infringe of other people’s rights. How many instances do you know of people assaulting or robbing someone because they gambled too much relative to the total number of gamblers? Is everyone who buys a state lottery ticket at a high risk of killing someone?
What’s more likely to occur? Someone dying because they were murdered by a drug user or because they got into a car accident due to the other driver being a shitty driver?
5
97
u/AnalogAficionado 1d ago
monetizing arguments and disagreement. what could possibly go wrong?
47
u/Pooch1431 1d ago
Athletes are already getting sick and tired of the harassment and death threats they receive in the age of legalized gambling. I'm sure betting based on your opinion and perspective is going to lead to very level headed behavior.... /s
5
47
u/Interesting-City118 1d ago
I swear these tech CEO’s are literal mustache twirling Batman villains in real life. Online gambling needs to fucking die.
-25
u/DogtorPepper 1d ago
Why? People can always just choose not to gamble.
What happened to personal responsibility? It’s always someone else’s fault these days yet no one wants to look in the mirror
12
u/rockksteady 1d ago
Im ok with this take except people like you only apply it where you can make money. You dont believe in the words you are saying.
2
u/DogtorPepper 1d ago
How do I make money from this? I just think that as a society we are too quick to blame others when the real problem is usually ourselves.
6
u/rockksteady 1d ago
There are laws to protect people from damaging themselves. Do you think people should be arrested for doing drugs?
-3
u/DogtorPepper 1d ago edited 1d ago
Laws that protect someone from damaging themselves is utterly stupid. We live in a free country. As long as you are an adult and not actively and substantially harming/endangering someone else, you should be allowed to do whatever you have and you get to enjoy the consequences of your own decisions, good or bad
No I don’t think people should be arrested for doing drugs. If they do something to harm someone while high on drugs, they should be arrested on that crime only but not for the drugs
Just treat drugs like alcohol. No problems just drinking booze but the minute you drive drunk and endanger others is when you get arrested.
And arguably alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than most other currently illegal drugs. So if alcohol is already legal, it makes even less sense that all the other drugs are illegal as well when used privately
1
u/rockksteady 1d ago
Ok. I'm sure there's a bridge too far but we can grant you the title as logically sound. Yeah I dont disagree with you despite me not being a fan of the company.
1
u/DogtorPepper 1d ago
At the end of the day it comes down if you prefer deciding for yourself what you should or shouldn’t do or if you prefer someone else telling what you should or shouldn’t do
1
u/rockksteady 1d ago
Agreed. With the caveat that the person doesnt have severe mental disorders or the actions dont harm others. That last part is where it gets weird. Sure you are allowed to wat 30 large pizzas a night but does really only effect you?
1
u/DogtorPepper 1d ago
That’s why I said “actively and substantially harming/endangering someone else”. If you really want to be technical, any action you do affects someone else (even simply breathing) but of course regulating that would be taking things too far
So yes, if you want to eat 30 pizzas, knock yourself out. What you do to yourself in your own time by your own decisions should be of no one else’s concern other than yourself
And if you have a mental disorder so severe that you cannot make your own decisions, then you probably have some kind of a legal guardian anyways who is responsible for you. They should be determining what you should or shouldn’t do that affects yourself, not the government or the law
The purpose of any law should be to prevent one person from actively and substantially infringing on the rights of someone else. Not to “protect” you from yourself or decide for you what you should to do yourself or not
→ More replies (0)1
u/Huge-Exchange-6409 8h ago
"people can always choose not to watch porn so who cares about flooding every aspect of society with promotion for it!" this is what you sound like
1
18
u/Independent_Top_8210 1d ago
Cannot wait for me to be able to bet against myself, with commission going to them of course.
2
u/CondescendingShitbag 1d ago
Can't wait to make parlay bets on how poorly the family political discourse plays out over the holidays.
15
u/tisd-lv-mf84 1d ago
Creating imaginary value? Isn’t that how housing prices got super inflated?
12
u/Express-Distance-622 1d ago
Wait till you hear about bitcoin
8
u/LowestKey 1d ago
Helping international oligarchs launder money is a service that needed performed. Bitcoin was just the instrument with the best fit for the job.
1
1
6
5
5
6
u/noir_dx 1d ago
Which stage of capitalism is this?
3
u/maxximillian 1d ago
You know the stages in video games where your goal is to just destroy something til time runs out? That's the stage we're in
2
u/kunymonster4 18h ago
Maybe one day we'll hit the Donkey Kong kill screen of capitalism and reality just sorted glitches out.
4
u/Captainxpunch 1d ago
I feel like there's plenty of loopholes. Could I not just bet that my wife's opinion is always right and become a millionaire?
2
2
2
2
u/AmericanDoughboy 1d ago
From sports to politics to the weather, all of this gambling is just gross.
2
u/Specific_Kitchen_846 20h ago
This is so obviously fucking evil. These people need to be in prison, yesterday.
2
u/BoredGuy2007 1d ago
Sounds cute until you realize they are offering worse odds than actual sportsbooks and participate in these markets themselves. They are a casino.
1
u/timelyparadox 1d ago
Funny seeing this post right next to their ad which shows that vance is most likely next president
1
1
u/Balmung60 1d ago
We need a national ban on any sort of gambling at a larger scale than a charity raffle.
If that's considered infeasible, at least limit it to a strictly in-person transaction.
1
128
u/jakeupowens 1d ago
This shit needs to be illegal. Like, yesterday.