|
|
|
|
|
|
by swatcoder
1413 days ago
|
|
|
You spent a lot of time writing that post and raising questions, but all of the answers are within two clicks of the article. PredictIt linked to CFTC and CFTC explains their original act and their justification for the withdrawal in extensive detail in documents linked from there. If you’re actually curious and not just trading outrage for upvotes (I assume not), I’d love to see how your impression evolves in light of the actual facts available to you. |
|
|
On one level - you don't even seem to have recognized what I was asking about. I wasn't asking about the justification for this particular decision: you'll note I explicitly mention that this is in the mandate for the organization. So any reading that thinks I'm talking about that is actually just a misreading of my point.
I'm asking if it even make sense to allow the government to prevent discussion of political issues using a mechanism which has some basis in being mathematically rational? It really doesn't seem obvious to me that the government ought to have the power to do so. I'm not asking for the justification for this decision. I'm asking if there is a justification for political oppression of the mathematically minded more generally.
That said - even under the framing that the letter answers the misunderstanding of what I was asking about - I still don't find it to have done so.
The letter is vague with respect to which particular issue they were breaking; it listed the things not which of the things they contested were not the case. The extent to which it is vague is such that even on the linked page PredictIt contends it still has not broken the commitments.
This isn't the extremely specified justification you seem to think it is - at least not to someone who isn't extensively familiar with PredictIt; and apparently given PredictIt didn't acknowledge that it felt it was out of line - it isn't even something that someone with extensive familiarity can easily spot.