Market resolves on user consensus on whether or not blantantly copying someones market and description, only changing minor parts without permission or credit the original creator is ethical or not. You may vote using the two comments below.
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน128 | |
| 2 | แน55 | |
| 3 | แน54 | |
| 4 | แน53 | |
| 5 | แน30 |
@Simon1551 my brother, the market you are showing is a market where the description is copied from me ._.
Copying a market but changing minor parts is a service to the community, surely. Then you have two markets where the difference is the minor parts, so that way you can see what difference the minor parts make to the probabilities.
If one of the points of a prediction market is to see some kind of 'wisdom of the crowds', how is that not helping?
@Tripping I'd agree that it could make the question more interesting, but don't you think you should talk to the original creator or credit them. And would a word for word copy of the description with minor number changed worsen it?
@Tripping Multiple markets about the same event means collective attention is less focused and people have to navigate to each market separately if they want to enjoy the same liquidity that they'd have if all the trading were concentrated on one market.
@DesTiny No that sounds really helpful to me. Like if you have one question where the threshold in question is x, and then someone makes a question which is exactly the same phrasing but the threshold is x+1, you get to see the difference in terms of the probability that that additional +1 makes to people's credences. Again, if the point of pred markets is to produce this opportunity to aggregate collective knowledge and predictive ability, then this helps to produce an opportunity to do that with regards to that difference. If the person hadn't done that we wouldn't have the data or the opportunity to know.
@StevenK (Manifold seems to believe strongly in letting anyone create and resolve markets, but I think this has very major downsides compared to having a single entity with a coherent vision be in charge of cutting up the space of possible futures.)
@StevenK Isn't this argument too general? This suggests that making markets about anything except the most important thing or things is unethical because attention is less focused and liquidity is split more widely and thinly.
Personally I think we should let a thousand flowers bloom, and have wide-ranging and diverse markets on lots of different topics, because that allows for the power of prediction markets to be applied to lots of things that people have interest in, and potentially allow for wider appreciation of prediction markets as a tool more generally.
Consider that maybe people's entry points into prediction markets as a concept could first be through something that might be considered more frivolous by some to begin with, but once they are participating they are contributing their own knowledge and predictive ability and attention and liquidity to the broader platform.
@StevenK You can still have single entities with coherent visions if you want, other people just also still exist. The illusion that you could ever have one singular authority that decides questions that people are allowed to speculate on and specifically excludes all possible others from doing so is not possible anyway, because on the meta-level you're not going to get rid of all other prediction markets and prediction-market-like-platforms and betting markets etc.
Better to accept that ahead of time than try to pretend that you can control everyone else in the world and entirely prevent them from speculating on events.
