This market resolves to YES if it is made public (including on the Manifold discord) that Manifold Markets has received communication from the CFTC, SEC, or any other regulator to the effect that that the whole of or any aspect of its operations or feature set must be changed or stopped, before the end of 2024.
This includes features that are not present today, e.g. if the option to redeem balance for gift cards is introduced after this market's creation and then communication from a regulator indicates this should be removed, this market resolves YES. This includes introducing restrictions, e.g. if communication from a regulator direct that Know Your Customer identity checks are introduced, then this resolves YES.
This does not include required or requested changes to language, introduction of disclaimers or other communication/text changes that do not materially alter the functionality available to users of Manifold. This does not include changes Manifold introduces to try to achieve regulatory compliance, even ones they would otherwise prefer not to do, that do not originate in any specific communication from a regulator, e.g. if they do something because their own legal and compliance advice recommends it.
In event of Manifold Markets ceasing operations for any other reason before the closing time, this market in principle resolves N/A although difficulties performing that resolution may exist.
Related questions
@DeanValentine Especially those food regulators! The free market would solve food regulation, after all, nobody wants to poison their customers right!?
@SamuelRichardson Yes, it's great to know that FDA is protecting our babies from German infant formula, while the shelves here at home run empty.
@Boklam Your singular example doesn't invalidate the need to these institutions to exist. If you'd like, I'm could dig up any number of examples around the world where the failure or absence of these institutions has caused huge amounts of suffering.
To be quite honest, people who think like you (and @DeanValentine) scare the daylights out of me. You're willing to shutdown institutions that have existed for decades and have near literally written their rules in blood.
In some ways, you both remind me of housecats. Both fiercely independent yet totally ignorant of the systems that provide for you and keep you safe.
@SamuelRichardson this thread started when someone said they hate US regulators. Nobody
@MartinRandall I think the statement "I hate US regulators" is equal to implying that you want them to be removed. Happy to see a different POV on that though.
@SamuelRichardson It implies that you want them to be changed. I hate US healthcare but I don't want to have no healthcare. I hate the US tax code but I don't want to have no taxes.
@MartinRandall Hate is about the strongest dislike you can express about something. For example, if someone told me they hated a minority, I would assume that person would have no problem seeing that minority wiped off the face of the earth.
However, this is the internet after all and people can be particularly hyperbolic in the way they write. Perhaps they did imply they wanted to see change but until we hear more from them, I don't think my interpretation is necessarily wrong.
@SamuelRichardson Well that certainly puts a new spin on the phrase "I hate my life".
https://manifold.markets/MartinRandall/is-dean-valentine-willing-to-shutdo
The more interesting question is not "should we do away with all regulators entirely" (for the record, I don't think we should), but rather "would it be better to make a small incremental change to less regulation or a small incremental change to more regulation". This concept economists call the "margin" and mathematicians the "derivative". I suspect you and I disagree on even this question, but the straw-man question of "should we get rid of all regulators entirely" isn't really the same thing.
>> If someone told me they hated a minority, I would assume that person would have no problem seeing that minority wiped off the face of the earth.
Pretty sure you'd be wrong about this. Most people are actually not okay with murder (not to mention genocide), even of those they hate.
@Boklam You would be right on the disagreement. I also think blanket statements like "We should have less regulation / more regulation" are also not useful. Instead, the question needs to be phrased about a specific regulator and probably in the context of an exact regulation that they're enforcing rather than a broad feelings about things.
Above you mentioned the FDA regulating baby formula from Germany. I'm not from the US so I lack the context for what you're talking about but on the surface this does seem silly! I would trust the food produced in Germany. I would not make a blanket statement saying the FDA has too much regulation however. I think the furthest I'd go is saying that we should put a spotlight on the current regulations and ascertain that we do actually need them? Why aren't they allowing it in? But to reiterate the above, blanket statements about regulation aren't helpful (for either over or under regulation).
Most people are actually not okay with murder (not to mention genocide), even of those they hate.
My litmus test here is if I was at a party talking to someone and they said to me "I hate trans people", I would still think my assumption that the person wants to "remove" trans people from their life would be correct. They might not want to pull the trigger themselves, but they sure wouldn't stop others from doing so and would probably cheer them on.
@SamuelRichardson There is a big difference between removing someone from your life and killing them. That you continue to conflate these two scares me. Some people hear something that sounds anti-trans (or anti-Black or anti-whatever group) and assume that the speaker secretly wants to kill them all. It's very hard to have a nuanced discussion under these circumstances: if I'm going to discuss complicated issues with someone, I need to be able to say precisely what I mean, and have them accept in good faith that that's actually what I mean.
@Boklam Please don't take this the wrong way, but where do you perceive me not accepting what you're saying in good faith? I'm not aware of anything that I've said in bad faith. I have no hidden agenda here and I can't see anywhere where I might have disrespected you as an individual.
Some people hear something that sounds anti-trans (or anti-Black or anti-whatever group) and assume that the speaker secretly wants to kill them all.
I'm not talking about a scenario where the listener might mistake what someone is saying about them. This is unambiguously someone saying that they hate something. I find it extremely difficult to imagine a scenario outside of someone being hyperbolic where hating something does not mean desiring to remove it from your life.
If you'd like, I'm happy to chat over Discord about this. I think it's interesting that each of our viewpoints on this are so alien from each other that their could be good value in trying to understand why. In all honesty, I'm open to my viewpoint being changed.
@SamuelRichardson I did not mean that you are taking what I say in bad faith -- I was discussing the hypothetical discussion at a party.
I'd be happy to talk on Discord but not for the next couple of days, I should already be getting to sleep because I'm traveling early tomorrow morning. Are you in the Manifold Discord group? (And what is my Discord login info? Pretty sure I made one once...)
Yes, this stuff is sensitive and subtle and hard to discuss reasonably. You'll notice that I'm hiding behind an anonymous name here. I do this because I don't want to come under fire for my opinions. (I've overheard people at work saying things like "if they say they're worried about crime, they're actually racist." Given that "racism" is quite plausibly a fireable offense, I don't want to let people know how I feel about crime. And by extension... I'd rather they not find out how I feel about anything.) So I'd be happy to talk on Discord, privately to you, when I'm back from my trip. Just please don't mention my name or anything publicly :)
@SamuelRichardson By the way, I suspect my viewpoint 5-10 years ago was a lot closer to where you are now. I was a lot closer to the standard "elite American college student" viewpoint on a lot of things. So... I'd be happy to share a number of experiences that made me change my mind. I don't think I'll change yours -- if me 5-10 years ago heard myself now, I'd think "these are standard right-wing talking points, this is a terrible person" (seriously that's what I'd have thought) but sure, happy to chat if you'd like
@Boklam Please share them. I've just joined the Manifold Discord (my username is in my profile).
No hurry either, I should be hacking on my app and I'm here doing Internet debates which ultimately everyone loses (in time wasted).
I wouldn't say that I have an echo chamber in my social circle but I'm cognisant that gravitate towards people with the same viewpoints as my own - being able to stretch those viewpoints in some new directions would be great. We may not agree, but you'll find that I'm open and reasonable in my thinking.
Just ping me sometime on Discord. My hours might be a bit strange as I'm "down under".
@SamuelRichardson The FDA ban on all foreign baby formula is at the best of times a regressive cost that increases infant poverty. Last year it caused a shortage of formula that led to infant malnutrition. I'd go less with "silly" and more with "written in blood". Worth reading more about.
@SamuelRichardson (Maybe not) obviously not all regulations are bad. But so far, without even considering compounding effects the FDA has managed to kill literally millions of Americans on by stalling the deployment of medical technology. Any informed person with any kind of sense thinks the FDA needs to drastically reduce barriers to entry for people trying to research, develop, and sell medicine.
@DeanValentine Ok. Do you mind commenting on https://manifold.markets/MartinRandall/is-dean-valentine-willing-to-shutdo so they can resolve it 😭