[nunez]

Not a new phenomenon! It happened during the War on Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-...

People will bet on absolutely anything; gambling is as old as time itself.

> Wagering was generally legal under British common law, so long as it did not to lead to immortality or impolity.13 Bets about the outcome of events in war, over the death of political leaders, over court cases, or between voters over election results were illegal on these grounds.14 In the Victorian and Edwardian periods, the British government increasingly attempted to limit gambling, especially among the working classes. The Gaming Act of 1845 made gambling contracts and debts unenforceable in court (but otherwise liberalized what amounts could be wagered); the Betting Houses Act of 1853 outlawed the operation of betting establishments other than private clubs; the Betting Houses Act of 1874 cracked down of the advertisement of wagering; and the Street Betting Act of 1906 made acceptance of wagers in streets and public places illegal.15 Despite the legal uncertainty in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Fleet Street press reported on election wagering at the London Stock Exchange and at Lloyd’s in markets for Parliamentary “majorities.” [^0]

[^0] Rhode, Paul W. “The Long History of Political Betting Markets.” KU School of Business, 2012 March. https://users.wfu.edu/strumpks/papers/Int_Election_Betting_F...

[elicash]

Your comment is a great addition to the conversation. I do just want to add the scale point, though. That source is less than a million was bet, and now there are hundreds of millions bet on the ceasefire, and millions more on other Iran bets, and then even more bet on Russia/Ukraine.

So I think it's a bit overstated to frame it as nothing is new. But your historical context is helpful.

[rayiner]

> That source is less than a million was bet, and now there are hundreds of millions bet on the ceasefire, and millions more on other Iran bets, and then even more bet on Russia/Ukraine.

I'd imagine those numbers are typical for any transaction facilitated by the Internet comparing 2003 to 2026.

[elicash]

It seems to me there's an explosion in just the last few years that's noteworthy -- that gambling on war did not simply grow hand-in-hand with all web purchases. Am happy to be wrong, but that's my experience seeing this play out.

[bobwaycott]

I’m sure that immortality was meant to be immorality, but the idea of British law prohibiting some Faustian bargain struck with eternal life on the line if the wager works in your favor gave me a good chuckle.

[casey2]

There was a small period, yes, where the internet was less regulated because the government didn't want to stomp out a new technology and let another country get an advantage. Now that the US has the advantage they are only harming their citizens by leaving it unregulated. Less people engage in a behavior if it's illegal and uniformly enforced.

Wagering was commonly legal, but generally illegal since 1541 Henry VIII banned for laborers & servants.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"Not a new phenomenon!"

True, but I cannot find anything in the article that suggests such betting is a "new" phenomenon

Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN reply when the submission makes no explicit or implicit claims that the subject matter is "new", or that being "new" is significant

IMHO, the "this is not new" replies need further elaboration to clarify the point being made

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

It could be that these "this is not new" HN replies are not responding to the submission, its author or its subject matter but are instead focused on HN thread readers and other HN commenters and what those readers might think or how those commenters might react

If there is a submission or a comment that makes a claim such as "this is unprecedented", then a "this is not new" reply, preferably with supporting evidence, makes sense

But that's not what's going on here

[potsandpans]

> Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN...

Because articles like this tend to come with a implicit or explicit moral outrage.

So these comments are the equivalent of "yes... and?"

[datsci_est_2015]

This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? “yes…and?” is a weak response to journalism intended to shine a light on something that causes moral outrage, especially given that “moral outrage” is justified on a highly subjective basis.

[potsandpans]

> This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to?

Is that a question or a statement?

[datsci_est_2015]

Using a question mark in such a statement is a rhetorical device to indicate an implicit question, such as “did you intend to write a comment that sounded like an argument, yet only strengthened the argument of the comment you were responding to.” Conversationally, humans usually inflect the end of the sentence to indicate such uncertainty. Have you had a conversation with a human before?

[miltonlost]

Still isn't something we should allow legally at scale on a public website. IS != OUGHT

Murder is also old as time itself! Guess we just gotta let it happen!