Top
Best
New

Posted by Vaslo 3 days ago

Polymarket has flooded social media with deceptive videos by paid creators(www.wsj.com)
464 points | 373 commentspage 2
tgtweak 21 hours ago|
It's the same for all the gambling platforms - they give creators and influencers privileged accounts that win more than they lose so when they stream it looks like they're not losing constantly.
quietsegfault 21 hours ago|
Isn’t that auditable by gambling regulators?
derwiki 20 hours ago||
Is it illegal? What gambling regulators are working with polymarkets?
october8140 1 day ago||
Is this fraud?
fer 1 day ago||
I might age myself out here, but, does anyone take influencers at face value, for anything at all, but especially for anything involving money?
aqfamnzc 21 hours ago|||
Sadly, yes.
blitzar 1 day ago|||
Prior art; “More Doctors Smoke Camels” - 1946
jcgrillo 1 day ago|||
Isn't everything these days? It's all gotten so gross.
aucisson_masque 1 day ago|||
No. There are still people and companies being proud of their work and not doing it only for the money side. I know, shocking..
matheusmoreira 1 day ago||||
Yeah. It's so demoralizing, seeing all these people make fortunes while honest people scrape by. It feels like getting in on the grift is the only way to make it.
m00dy 1 day ago|||
you may be confusing it with deregulation.
RugnirViking 23 hours ago||
only lawyers care what the laws say. I care about what's right and good and leads to prosperity for people I care about (which is to a greater or lesser extent everyone)

It's the lawyers job to make the laws align with some version of the above, and many of them, like most other people with power in society, are doing a willfully terrible job of it

trumpdong 21 hours ago||
This is not correct. It's a politician's job to make them selfrich by any means necessary. It's a lawyer's job to make you pay for as many hours as possible.
RugnirViking 19 hours ago||
correct - "a" lawyer. a single lawyer is but a cog in the machine. Lawyers as a whole, as an institution, however are at least ostensibly supposed to exist for some benefit to society. They, like other institutions, must act to prevent principal agent problems. And like other institutions, they are failing dramatically
idle_zealot 1 day ago|||
Would it matter if the bets were real and they picked the 0.00001% big winners to feature in the ad? Would that be less fraudulent in any meaningful sense, would it have a different impact on the world?

Is the real crime here that they were too lazy to lie with selective facts?

jmilloy 1 day ago|||
In the US, the FTC is very clear that faking or purchasing testimonials is illegal. Fabricating, purchasing, or misrepresenting customer experience is deceptive advertising and is a form of fraud. On the other hand, selecting and advertising specific real testimonials is fine. A customer described their actual experience that way, and presumably the consumers understand that advertisers will select especially positive individual testimonials for their advertisements. I can't believe I'm actually trying to explain this, but fake testimonials are illegal because the consumer has no way to know that they are made up. Real testimonials are not "lying with statistics", they're not statistics at all, and are legal because consumers can understand that it's not the median customer experience.

If picking real winners and real winnings to feature in the ad was just as good, they could do that. If not, then yes, it makes an impact on the world to mislead people with that marketing.

Somehow there's a difference between things that happened and didn't happen, and that's a good place to draw a line in the sand of what you're allowed to advertise and not.

what 1 day ago|||
> Fabricating, purchasing, or misrepresenting customer experience is deceptive advertising and is a form of fraud.

Doesn’t this make every ad fraud? It’s an actor pretending to enjoy drinking Coca Cola, every ad is the same.

jmilloy 18 hours ago|||
Believe it or not, the laws don't say verbatim "Fabricating, purchasing, or misrepresenting customer experience is deceptive advertising...". I can't really believe that this is a real question and that I'm trying to explain this, either. The actual laws are more specific, and combined with how the courts interpret them, cover a lot of different situations and try to do so in a reasonable way.

If you actually want to understand why "an actor pretending to enjoy drinking Coca Cola" is okay while other kinds of endorsements are not, in the US at least, you could start with the FTC "Truth in Advertising" website, and "Advertising Endorsements" specifically, or other resources on that page.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/adv...

SJC_Hacker 1 day ago||||
How do you know the actor is merely pretending ? Maybe they actually it?
stanac 1 day ago||
Not GP, but here is how I know. Messi and Steve Carell did an ad for local chips brand, (market size < 10 million people). There is no way that brand could afford them. Searched online and found the same ad for Lay's. Turns out Pepsi owns a lot of local snack brands. They'll buy local brand and if it's popular they will keep the brand (instead of replacing it with global brand like Lay's). Ad is recorded for all brands at once, they just replace bag of Lay's with bag of whatever is the local chips they own.
da_grift_shift 1 day ago|||
The actual verbiage is narrower.

First result with a summary of 16 CFR Part 465: Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/...

Pxtl 1 day ago|||
Laws are for poor people.
ceejayoz 1 day ago||||
> Would that be less fraudulent…

Is this even a question? Yes, it would be less fraudulent.

idle_zealot 1 day ago||
I question your definitions. In what sense is it legally or morally useful to discriminate between lying with statistics and lying without them? It's an academically useful distinction, but why does it matter in practice? People are misled, the misleading is intentional, but if you hire a statistician to do it for you instead of an actor then you're A-Okay?
ceejayoz 1 day ago|||
"Someone won" is truthful.

"Celebrity X won" was not.

I am not a fan of gambling, nor gambling advertisements, but this was outright fraud, and a violation of FTC rules (https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorse...) on disclosure.

SpicyLemonZest 1 day ago|||
It's useful because honesty and dishonesty are strongly self-correlated. Someone who works hard to ensure their advertising is technically true will likely work hard towards technically satisfying other goals and rules we set for them; someone who's comfortable outright lying in their ads will likely also lie about other things.
baobabKoodaa 1 day ago|||
Is fraud "more fraudulent" than non-fraud? Yes. Wtf man?
ggm 1 day ago|||
Would a prosecution have high chance of succeeding?
realJared54 1 day ago||
Yes, it is 100% a misrepresentation of reality to fool the general public into joining a platform that condones deceptive user acquisition strategies.
jordanb 1 day ago||
I was listening to a podcast and heard an ad for supplements (I think it was collegian). The thing that struck me was the specificity of the health claims they were making in the ad.

There was no "promotes healthy whatever" it was like "this will make your skin younger and eliminate/prevent wrinkles and other signs of aging."

Then the quiet fast-talking guy said that none of their health claims have been reviewed by the FDA.

So that's where we are now. Everything is scams and nobody will do anything about it.

pesus 1 day ago|||
I agree with your point in general, but doesn't that disclaimer apply to any kind of supplement? As far as I know that sort of thing has been allowed for quite some time. For whatever reason the FDA allows for an almost completely unregulated vitamin/supplement industry.
jordanb 1 day ago|||
They used to be vague and not make specific claims because that wasn't allowed. They'd say "Vitamin K helps promote healthy eyes." They can't say "our chewable will cure your glaucoma. (claimhasnotbeenreviewedbytheFDA)"

But apparently they can do that now, or at least they are doing it.

qlte 1 day ago|||
It's not up to the FDA, their hands are tied thanks to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah on behalf of the supplement lobby.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_...

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/31/6738513...

dylan604 1 day ago|||
I don't see an end to any of it when the Grifter-in-chief is in office.
ok_dad 1 day ago||
[flagged]
recursive 1 day ago||
I mean maybe Trump also caused it but there's no way he's just an innocent bystander here.
ok_dad 1 day ago||
Yes I already said that he’s bad, don’t roast me, I’m trying to use nuance here like we’re supposed to.
lobito25 3 days ago||
Bait from polymarket to get new users, They should get sued.
ekjhgkejhgk 2 days ago|
Seems like a weird mistake to make. If they're going to bait new users, why not just use bets that did exist? Better yet, why not use users who did make a lot of money?
rcxdude 2 days ago||
Seems to be a popular means for marketing gambling. There was a scandal of a bunch of twitch streamers doing the same thing for skin gambling websites.
ne11nn 3 hours ago||
this reminds me of the social media "turbolearn ai" slop. i feel like the vastness of this form of marketing is becoming the new ai slop on social media.
aussiegreenie 12 hours ago||
So Polymarket did marketing....what a shock.
jmyeet 1 day ago||
This is a well-trodden path.

A few years ago crypto gambling really took off. The big fish here is Stake. Back when Twitch still allowed slots, there was a flood of slots streamers. Ultimately this led to Twitch banning gambling. This was such an issue that Stake created their own live streaming platform (ie Kick). That should tell you how lucrative it was.

But what came out was that there was different contracts the streamers had. Some were paid a hefty fee and they got to keep any winnings. Why anyone would choose this is beyond me because over time your expected return is negative. The other option was that you could "gamble" with fake money. None of it was real. And none of it was disclosed.

I never understood why people would atch someone play slots all day but some people did. I think psychologically it's a bit like mukbang where people live vicariously through someone else's gluttony. With gambling, the psychological hook is so strong that it can be triggered by watching someone else gamble. But that's just a guess. Luckily, I've never been bitten by the gambling bug. It's one of the worst addictions.

I think fake gambling in particular should be illegal or, in the very least, disclosed publicly.

wiseowise 23 hours ago||
Unregulated gambling website is fraudulent? Jesus Christ, how did that happen? I'm baffled, completely shocked!
AIorNot 1 day ago||
Good luck - polymarket sponsored trumps White House UFC Extravaganza

God I cant believe I wrote that

asdff 14 hours ago|
People in the white house are using polymarket to front run whitehouse actions. Someone made bank over maduros capture.

If you go to polymarket, Iran related bets have a specific subpage on their website no different than the sports subpage.

mihaic 1 day ago|
How is this not gambling? I mean, any mobster bookie could simply claim prediction market in this case, and simply take a cut. Where is the line drawn? On how much money the organizers give to the Trump family?
More comments...