Some examples that could resolve this to YES:
A Twitter thread that goes viral about how inappropriate a certain market question is.
A Twitter thread that goes viral about how Manifold as a platform allows people to incentivize assassinations or other bad actions.
A strongly critical news article on Manifold that achieves significant community spread.
A calm, well-reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of Manifold doesn't count. There must be outrage and anger in order for this to resolve YES.
Markets on various sizes of controversy:
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ61 | |
| 2 | Ṁ61 | |
| 3 | Ṁ23 | |
| 4 | Ṁ18 | |
| 5 | Ṁ18 |
this is kind of a difficult one. The market has no interest for me in terms of predictive powers. The market itself has nothing that triggers moderation in terms of content.
at 22%, I could achieve a decent payout by seeding a twitter outrage. There's enough content to do so (in IK's previous markets). I'm confident enough in twitter SEO to do so. Such action would get me a payout, but would either damage this website, and/or trigger an influx of people attracted by outrage (a different kind of damage for a cerebral prediction site).
Proposing such a dilemma to the site owners and requesting a minor payout to not trigger the outrage is akin to blackmail/ransom, and they can't payout, as they'd have to do the same to every confident blackmailer.
So this question is actually, "Do I want to damage this website in return for fake internet points?, but this website means nothing without fake internet points"
@CromlynGames You could win about $2 of real-world money in this market by doing so. If someone offered to Paypal you $2 in return for such a thing, would you accept? If not, then your desire to do so is likely not just due to the financial incentive the market provides.