Let's at least moderate (including the ability to remove) in cases where it seems malicious. It's very different if it's an earthquake (but still distasteful) than if it's press promoted hate crime, and it seems it's only being bought up to rub people's face in it.

'Death markets should have the clear potential to prevent deaths'

This is the crux of what I always argue when there are death toll markets. To quote from the Bondi market:

"It is undeniably the case that some death markets have real predictive value that can benefit society.

When will Trump die?

Will an Airbus crash in 2026?

How many people will die of famine in Gaza?

are all markets that are deeply unpleasant to me in the way I have described above, but where the value of generating answers to these questions is obvious, such that I believe the correct course of action is to allow them and explain why. I am sure that this is not completely true, but in general I think that:

'Death markets should have the clear potential to prevent deaths'

The point I have always tried to make about mass casualty death markets, is that people are betting largely on:

i) how many deaths are currently unreported

ii) how many people will succumb to their injuries

rather than

iii) are there future deaths that can be prevented"

In most cases, knowing the exact death toll immediately of a mass casualty event does not bring real benefit, ergo markets about it don't meet the threshold of being useful, and are simultaneously the most disconcerting/uncomfortable.

@JoshuaWilkes 100% agree

It's fine because it's play money

What are everybody's thoughts about how this exists? Quroe's Dead-Man Switch

I feel like this will get a conversation going about a deeper root cause.

@Quroe I guess you're referring to your "not consenting" to markets about you that are motivated by an absence of <21 days? And the question of whether the mods would respect that?

And I guess the "root cause" you have in mind is the idea that no such consent is required; that the subject of a market should have no say in the matter?

Poll needs more options:

-morally bad to make such markets but Manifold should still allow it

-not morally bad, but still preferable (supereregatory) to refrain

-bad to create the market but ok to bet in it, or vice-versa

@AhronMaline the first one is really important, even the commenter who complained might not want an official ban

USA, you are alone amongst developed countries in the prevalence of mass shooting events. No other country accepts these events as a "normal" part of everyday life.

1. Manifold Markets SHOULD NOT allow markets that trivialise or glorify mass casualty events.

2. Manifold Markets SHOULD allow markets that - sensitively - raise awareness or better inform the impact from these events.

@Lobstertronic I don't think making a market about a horrible event "trivializes" it in any way, not does it make them a "normal" part of life. Manifold has a lot of questions like this, for instance will X die in 2025 or whatnot. As a prediction marketplace, it's important to have markets on these topics in any case. Are you objecting to the subject of the market or the wording of the question?

Also, Manifold also has a policy of general free speech, with only some exceptions. Mods don't really mute or ban people for what they say, unless it's egregious.

EDIT: I don't see how these markets are glorifying violence in any way. Both of the markets are phrased pretty neutrally.

Hi @Qoiuoiuoiu,

Yep, re-reading my comment I can see the confusion - I should have been clearer.

I have no problems with "counting the dead" (so to speak), and I'm also NOT saying this market glorifies violence. Quite the opposite, I think it's an area that SHOULD be considered - but tactfully and respectfully.

Of the first two choices, I prefer:

"It is ethically acceptable for prediction markets to include questions about fatalities in mass shootings"

That doesn't quite sum up my thoughts, so I chose the third option as I think that (and here I'm tweaking the market creator's words slightly): "It is acceptable for prediction markets to include questions about fatalities in mass shootings if done ethically"

@Lobstertronic agree, as this is not normal +1-0-0 %