🏅 Top traders

I think a more spicy, inflammatory, character-assassinating article that tried to connect us to the legacy of SBF and the alt right or some nonsense like that would have actually driven more traffic, been more fun to deal with, and would have ultimately been better for Manifold in the long run.

But the article we actually got was just very real, impartial, reasonable, and informative. It's what journalism should be. Can't ask for anything else!
And maybe the true spice is the best spice anyways.

re trading I mostly bet based on a prior / vague feeling that the rationalist crowd is too unfair towards journalists. like nothing reaally bad happened to scott alexander, and the article would have been fine probably

also we should take a look at ourselves. while prediction markets may be more objective at a lot of things than professionals writing fact essays, a lot of the criticisms of journalism that I hear on twitter are about doxing, like the outing of Naomi Wu for instance. But do we expect prediction markets to be better at this? We currently explicitly have a culture of heavy openness, freedom of information, radical transparency. But I think if got as big as the nyt we'll have to have a strong culture of personal respect that is implemented in mod decisions. would that not be editorialism? journalistic ethics?

A lot of criticisms of journalism boil down to criticisms of truth, of shared information, in the special cases where truth hurts people. Rationalists need to own this, accept it, and realize that journalism is not that different from rationalism

#blackmailmarkets4manifold

Oof, loss for me. I was mostly betting on the principle that NYT never covers tech positively (https://polititweet.org/tweet?account=15446531&tweet=1588190763413868553, https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1588231892792328192).

Is this a change of policy, or an exception to the rule, or has this rule just never been quite true in the first place?

@citrinitas ea and mm are associated with someone who makes them look very bad, Sam Bankman-Fried. So they institutionally are buffing up anything he is linked with to protect themselves and democratic donor recipients. I'm still surprised at the non attack on Hanania and other speakers, though

@Ernie this is so conspiratorial. maybe this is just the story he felt like writing?

SBF media coverage has mostly been negative, including from the NYT. This is just a 'politics is the mind-killer' thing.

I think it was positive

That was 90th percentile positive for nyt

They mentioned Hanania without any snark or fear mongering or insinuations. Unbelievable. They minimized the death market risk. And they explained the core possible value of markets wow. Congrats manifold team! This is a major achievement.

(Obviously my earlier predictions were very wrong)

@Ernie the journalist they got was based out of SF so more attuned to the culture there, and less east coast-snobby. Also he has kind of an interesting background if you read up more on him. Article didn't really expound on the power of prediction markets in any detail, but looks like this was more of a "look at what these freaky geeks are up to while you munch a bagel on the subway" type coverage than "here is the deep theoretical underpinning of the ideas behind the site and how it can draw light to bad punditry, including that which is regularly employed at the NYT"

@AlQuinn true but it could have been waaaay worse. As a democratic party paper they also have interest in countering the view that SBFs donations were selfish and a scam (eg EA)

"I spend my time on Manifold that I used to spend on Twitter,” said Joshua Fleming, 28, a civil engineer from San Diego. “It’s kind of a more fun way to follow the news."

Ohhh now I get why this article was allowed to be so positive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/technology/prediction-markets-manifold-manifest.html

IMO this is positive.

I went to Manifest to try to understand the appeal of prediction markets, and get inside the heads of the people who are obsessed with them. And while I wasn’t convinced that these markets will be an important part of our future, it’s not a possibility I’d bet against.

“It’s roughly true that in every domain in which we’ve been able to compare data from a prediction market to alternative forecast mechanisms, the market has done better,” said Justin Wolfers, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan.

I can see arguments that it's neutral, but that's just the journalistic tone - if this isn't positive, there aren't very many positive NYT business articles.

@jacksonpolack I agree with YES. I will hold briefly to see if anyone disagrees.

@MartinRandall As a big holder of NO, I would also agree that this should resolve YES! My poor mana 😭

could i get clarity on:

The primary topic of the article must be Manifold Markets.

what does “primary topic” mean? eg if the article is on manifest, or prediction markets, or forecasting, etc, but manifold gets prominently mentioned, how does this resolve?

@saulmunn I know it when I see it, but a piece on prediction markets in general that covers Manifold and multiple others would not resolve the market.

If this resolves NO we'll know that the reporter didn't get any rationalussy at Manifest.

Just looking at the guest list of manifest, I would have a hard time imagining NYT could cover it positively. Given they're mortal enemies of people who manifold allowed to communicate

@StrayClimb Are you specifically talking about Destiny because he’s right wing? Or other people too. Sorry, not informed about this really. SORRY IDK WHAT I JUST WROTE HERE

@cc6 no, other people. don't want to mention them by name but it's pretty obvious. people the left would or has tried to cancel, and to whose arguments they respond with nothing but name calling rather than engaging.

@cc6 are you just memeing that destiny is right wing or do you actually think he is?

@higherLEVELING isn't he left wing

@lag yeah, which is why I'm wondering if @cc6 is just memeing, actually believes that or is just assuming that he is
@StrayClimb it isn't obvious. who are you talking about that was cancelled or had an attempted cancellation on them? just put the initials down

@higherLEVELING RH, which stands for syllables that rhyme with Richard Hanania.

@Quinn thanks. i had no idea. i thought it was someone else.

typo

@higherLEVELING well no yeah I mean the grumpiest malcontents would probably want to cancel a bunch of people on here (i saw a tweet once that said all utilitarians should be no-platformed cuz nazis used for-the-greater-good arguments, something along these lines--- from a productive CS professor hilariously enough -- but yeah that type of person would think eliezer is cancelbait too). Hanania-cancelers at least have defensible and substantial reasons that I respect, which is atypical.

@Quinn lol, are these things that out of context sound really messed up and were probably from years ago? cuz i have no idea and am curious now. actually, will i be put on some watchlist if i google this?

@Ernie wow I was extremely wrong.