They Looked Like They Were Getting Rich on Polymarket–But None of It Was Real

Re:They Looked Like They Were Getting Rich on Polymarket–But... by idle_zealot on Monday June 22, 2026 @09:29PM (#48639003)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:They Looked Like They Were Getting Rich on Polymarket–But... by ceejayoz on Monday June 22, 2026 @09:36PM (#48639064)

"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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:They Looked Like They Were Getting Rich on Polymarket–But... by SpicyLemonZest on Monday June 22, 2026 @10:24PM (#48639414)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]