[abustamam]

> The prohibition extends to services supporting prediction markets, like virtual private networks, that could allow consumers to disguise their location and get around the ban.

Yikes. I am all for banning prediction markets but I feel like this is overreaching.

[tty456]

Does it actually ban VPNs? or just ban VPNs from being used to access prediction markets?

[mnahkies]

Yeah that seems like a massive reach. Does banking count as a "supporting service"? After all a prediction market isn't very useful if you can't get money in/out.

[abustamam]

I think "supporting services" is in reference to ways to disguise the location, which is why they used VPN as an example.

I don't know how they will enforce it but the fact that they want to control it is concerning.

[BiteCode_dev]

Maybe as often, the laws is just a pretext for this little nuget. They innovate for once, not using terrorists or pedophiles, nobody checked.

[Broken_Hippo]

If you don't actually sell someone something illegal, but take them to buy illegal things using the safety of your car so they avoid detection - are you innocent?

Drinking and driving exists and is illegal, but going to the grocery store isn't. Should we do an all or nothing sort of ban, either allowing drunk driving or banning cars altogether? No one would do this - some uses are illegal, most aren't.

A law that allows legal uses of your car but disallows illegal activity isn't all that unheard of.

[abustamam]

Using your analogy, this is a law that bans cars for everyone so that people can't go to the store to buy an illegal lottery ticket.

[chadgpt3]

If you are a taxi company and a bank robber takes a taxi to the bank, are you innocent?

[Otek]

Yes? I mean it depends probably but by default - yes