"I'm going to double down on not reading this article herpa derpa gerpa poop" that's you. Please fuck off
swlabr
joined 2 years ago
FWIW, I read this somewhat charitably: I didn't read this article as "I want there to be prediction markets in journalism" as much as "The right-wing fuckos are very into this shit, so expect for it to froth up out of the sewers in 2025." That being said, as discussed elsewhere, many of the finer points are questionable.
N.B: I am not aware of Lorenz's shit opinions.
Oh yeah, haha. I often face the dilemma dilemma in which I have to choose between ignoring the 'incorrect" usage (i.e. not a choice between two things that are difficult to choose between) and seethe OR mention the correct usage and look like a pedant. Sometimes it's a trilemma, and I'm all over the shop. But more seriously, I usually let it slide and let people use it to mean "a situation".
I doubt that Lorenz has a dilemma in line with the correct usage. I couldn't fight the urge to steelman, spoilered below, which I suspect this is nothing near what Lorenz had in mind.
exhausting Steelman within. I only tried to come up with something, it's not a good steelman. I'm so sorry about this.
In the world that Lorenz posits, where prediction markets somehow represent accurate news reporting, either a journalist participates in the market whilst reporting news (conflict of interest), or they don't, and they are bad at their job (and not performing at your job is unethical, I guess?)sorry, what exactly is the dilemma here? how is it an ethical dilemma to have an unethical way to make money?
I'm guessing what's being said is that in this fictional scenario with an ethically neutral prediction market, you could do insider trading but with fake news? Like, you predict that they will find cheese on the moon, and then you make a story about cheese on the moon.
Either way, it is a moot point since prediction markets are bunk, ethically or otherwise.
One too many poop pills