Hey Soap Boxers, it's cool to just start new threads for things

Aurich

Director of Many Things
40,904
Ars Staff
There was a recent feedback thread about how we don't have a giant misc Soap Box thread anymore. The tl;dr is we're just not sure it really makes sense to dump every single topic at all related to politics and religion and sociology into one massive thread. It's so broad it feels almost silly.

But people made very reasonable points about it feeling like starting a thread was almost intimidating, or they'd be judged for it. I'm here to tell you it's okay!

Read something interesting and just want to share? Go for it! You don't need to write an essay with a carefully thought out thesis. A link, maybe a quick excerpt, some basic explanation of why you thought it was interest, done. I'll do an example like I was starting a thread.



I read this piece yesterday in the Atlantic:

SUCKER My year as a degenerate gambler (gift link)​


The basic premise is a personal journey through someone who never gambled jumping in with both feet with $10k in seed money from the Atlantic to get first hand experience and then be able to write about it. Spoiler: it went kinda badly, he got addicted, and burned through a lot of money and time he should have been spending with his family.

It was I think pretty fascinating from the perspective of someone who has no interest in this stuff, but is still bombarded with the ads and awareness. And apparently 50% of men are into it. Which is kind of a lot.

There's a lot to take in, from the predatory nature of gambling, to the way it's infiltrated all aspects of sports, the insider cheating scandals, etc. But this part where it pivots into the prediction markets is I think the giant red flag:

I had been aware of platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi, which allow users to “invest” in predictive outcomes and trade their “positions.” I also knew that the platforms, which are available in all 50 states, were competing for market share in sports betting with FanDuel, DraftKings, and other incumbents.​
But my curiosity wasn’t piqued until U.S. forces stormed Venezuela in January. Days before the operation, an anonymous user had created a Polymarket account and started wagering tens of thousands of dollars that President Nicolás Maduro would be in U.S. custody by the end of the month. When Maduro was captured, the account holder walked away with more than $400,000 in profit.​
I assumed at first that the story was an example of obscene abuse—insider trading on a deadly military raid. But once I started playing around with the markets, it became clear that insider trading was a feature, not a bug. The platforms’ founders say they’re providing a social utility, moving the entire digital public square from social-media sites, where AI slop and rage bait reign, to prediction markets, where you are incentivized to invest based on what you genuinely know or believe. “People don’t lie when money’s involved,” Tarek Mansour, a Kalshi co-founder and its CEO, told The New York Times. And although the platforms technically prohibit manipulation—and, in Kalshi’s case anyway, insider trading—proponents have acknowledged that insiders making bets based on what they know only heightens the markets’ predictive value.​
But scrolling through the available bets on Kalshi, I struggled to locate the civic spirit. Would anyone truly benefit because I could wager on which words Trump would use next week (5-to-1 payout on Somalian), or which nicknames he’d deploy for his political enemies (3-to-1 for Newscum)? Was the quality of the discourse improved by our ability to gamble on drug-boat bombings in the Caribbean or whether Gaza would experience a famine? “The long-term vision is to financialize everything and create a tradable asset out of any difference in opinion,” Mansour has said.​

I don't think you have to be gambling genius to see how ugly this is getting, beyond anything we're traditionally seen before. And honestly what's traditionally been ugly has been bad enough.

Anyone here dabbling in this stuff?



That's it. I could write more, I probably wrote too much. Honestly it's easy for me to just share things I find interesting. I think it's a pretty damn relevant story on so many levels, from the more obvious political parts to the just society-level bits that don't need to be about insider trading on war or the bits about politicians being lobbied to not regulate it.

It's a long piece. Maybe skim it, but I found it compelling enough to read the whole thing. You can discuss it here. You can just comment on anything about how you feel about starting threads or how you like to read them. Whatever.

I just didn't want all the navel gazing to be off in a feedback thread most people weren't reading.

Start some threads! It would be really cool if even a handful of regulars thought it would be fun to experiment with posting a few new things more often, just to see where it goes.
 

Coriolanus

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,244
Subscriptor++
There was a recent feedback thread about how we don't have a giant misc Soap Box thread anymore. The tl;dr is we're just not sure it really makes sense to dump every single topic at all related to politics and religion and sociology into one massive thread. It's so broad it feels almost silly.

But people made very reasonable points about it feeling like starting a thread was almost intimidating, or they'd be judged for it. I'm here to tell you it's okay!

Read something interesting and just want to share? Go for it! You don't need to write an essay with a carefully thought out thesis. A link, maybe a quick excerpt, some basic explanation of why you thought it was interest, done. I'll do an example like I was starting a thread.



I read this piece yesterday in the Atlantic:

SUCKER My year as a degenerate gambler (gift link)​


The basic premise is a personal journey through someone who never gambled jumping in with both feet with $10k in seed money from the Atlantic to get first hand experience and then be able to write about it. Spoiler: it went kinda badly, he got addicted, and burned through a lot of money and time he should have been spending with his family.

It was I think pretty fascinating from the perspective of someone who has no interest in this stuff, but is still bombarded with the ads and awareness. And apparently 50% of men are into it. Which is kind of a lot.

There's a lot to take in, from the predatory nature of gambling, to the way it's infiltrated all aspects of sports, the insider cheating scandals, etc. But this part where it pivots into the prediction markets is I think the giant red flag:

I had been aware of platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi, which allow users to “invest” in predictive outcomes and trade their “positions.” I also knew that the platforms, which are available in all 50 states, were competing for market share in sports betting with FanDuel, DraftKings, and other incumbents.​
But my curiosity wasn’t piqued until U.S. forces stormed Venezuela in January. Days before the operation, an anonymous user had created a Polymarket account and started wagering tens of thousands of dollars that President Nicolás Maduro would be in U.S. custody by the end of the month. When Maduro was captured, the account holder walked away with more than $400,000 in profit.​
I assumed at first that the story was an example of obscene abuse—insider trading on a deadly military raid. But once I started playing around with the markets, it became clear that insider trading was a feature, not a bug. The platforms’ founders say they’re providing a social utility, moving the entire digital public square from social-media sites, where AI slop and rage bait reign, to prediction markets, where you are incentivized to invest based on what you genuinely know or believe. “People don’t lie when money’s involved,” Tarek Mansour, a Kalshi co-founder and its CEO, told The New York Times. And although the platforms technically prohibit manipulation—and, in Kalshi’s case anyway, insider trading—proponents have acknowledged that insiders making bets based on what they know only heightens the markets’ predictive value.​
But scrolling through the available bets on Kalshi, I struggled to locate the civic spirit. Would anyone truly benefit because I could wager on which words Trump would use next week (5-to-1 payout on Somalian), or which nicknames he’d deploy for his political enemies (3-to-1 for Newscum)? Was the quality of the discourse improved by our ability to gamble on drug-boat bombings in the Caribbean or whether Gaza would experience a famine? “The long-term vision is to financialize everything and create a tradable asset out of any difference in opinion,” Mansour has said.​

I don't think you have to be gambling genius to see how ugly this is getting, beyond anything we're traditionally seen before. And honestly what's traditionally been ugly has been bad enough.

Anyone here dabbling in this stuff?



That's it. I could write more, I probably wrote too much. Honestly it's easy for me to just share things I find interesting. I think it's a pretty damn relevant story on so many levels, from the more obvious political parts to the just society-level bits that don't need to be about insider trading on war or the bits about politicians being lobbied to not regulate it.

It's a long piece. Maybe skim it, but I found it compelling enough to read the whole thing. You can discuss it here. You can just comment on anything about how you feel about starting threads or how you like to read them. Whatever.

I just didn't want all the navel gazing to be off in a feedback thread most people weren't reading.

Start some threads! It would be really cool if even a handful of regulars thought it would be fun to experiment with posting a few new things more often, just to see where it goes.
Gambling sucks. I absolutely detest it is so damn predatory. I grew up in Atlantic City and I saw people wasting thousands of dollars they don't have just to sit at a blackjack table or at the slot machines.
 

Aurich

Director of Many Things
40,904
Ars Staff
Gambling sucks. I absolutely detest it is so damn predatory. I grew up in Atlantic City and I saw people wasting thousands of dollars they don't have just to sit at a blackjack table or at the slot machines.
I'm not a fan. Like, it doesn't do it for me, have no interest in it, but I'm also not into the nasty effects it has.

I thought this piece had a lot of clarity on the historical context of how people had figured out a long time ago that gambling was Not Great and then we just took all the guiderails off.

Guess who thought that was awesome btw?

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, made no effort to consider the public-policy rationale that had led Congress to make the law, or the cascading consequences of overturning it. He simply ruled that the Constitution empowers states, not the federal government, to regulate gambling, and scrapped the entire legal framework that had been in place for the past quarter century. No one involved—not Alito; nor the five justices who joined him; nor the legislators in 36 states who would legalize sports betting for their constituents; nor the league commissioners, who would rush into partnerships with online sportsbooks—seemed acquainted with Chesterton’s fence.​
 

Thegs

Ars Scholae Palatinae
879
Subscriptor++
I don't really have much to comment on the substance of the article; I have anhedonia so I've struggled to understand the appeal of things like gambling. But I think this brings up an interesting thing about abstinence and avoidance. It feels like because the author was never exposed to such vices and how to engage with them in a healthy(ish) manner he was put at a grave disadvantage from the start. He has not been equipped with the mental tools and defenses to repel the addicting tactics of those pushing gambling onto us all. That doesn't absolve the pushers of sports gambling of the responsibility for the consequences of their actions, but just like we vaccinate ourselves against the viruses of the body that might injure or destroy us so too must we vaccinate ourselves against viruses of the mind.

Also kind of a tangent here, but it's funny to see that Atlantic articles have a comments section again. The reason that I read Ars daily is because The Atlantic had removed comments from their articles back in 2018 and I wanted a community centered on news where I could still read reader comments. A lot of us Atlantic commenters moved to an existing Disqus community called The Atlantic Discussions (TAD), itself a branch of Ta-Nehisi Coates' community. But eventually Disqus shut down those free communities and we tried to move to Reddit, but there were many losses due to attrition. Deplatforming works, unfortunately. I check in on TAD from time to time and they're still going, six or seven years later. Time blurs.

But anyways, all this is to say that now you've got me wandering down memory lane and wondering if my fellow former TAD-ers are in these new article comments. I hope Tacitus is doing well; I wish I could show him the strange creature I have become. And I hope Jason's dogs (and him of course!) are doing well, but it's also been eight years, I think, and I never asked how old they were.
 

FranzJoseph

Ars Centurion
2,145
Subscriptor
Under the Biden administration, the Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission opened investigations into whether Kalshi and Polymarket were flouting federal regulations. But the government scrutiny ended when Trump returned to office. Polymarket hired a former Trump adviser as its first Washington lobbyist and added the president’s son Don Jr. to its board; Kalshi also brought on Don Jr., as a “strategic adviser.” The investigations were quietly closed, and the companies began to scale up rapidly.
Wow, who'd have thought...
 

poochyena

Ars Scholae Palatinae
4,908
Subscriptor++
I think it would be helpful for mods to create threads for us. Like, when I post some news articles the "current events" thread, I don't intend a dozen people to start replying and arguing with me. Its not that I'm intimated to start a thread, its just I didn't expect a big response and discussion.
It would help if mods, when seeing this, would create a separate thread for the topic and move those related comments to the new thread. Moving the comments will help contain the discussion and encourage people to move to the new thread. This is fairly common in other forums.
 

fractl

Ars Praefectus
3,451
Subscriptor
Gambling sucks. I absolutely detest it is so damn predatory. I grew up in Atlantic City and I saw people wasting thousands of dollars they don't have just to sit at a blackjack table or at the slot machines.
Occasionally I’ll go to the casino with my mom and play some video poker, but I go for the “action” (for me that’s playing 5 or 10 hands at a time with nickels or dimes) and only gamble far less than I can afford. It’s not something I recommend if you are having troubles making ends meet or if you find it compulsive.

I do find it shocking that we’ve allowed such corrupt enterprises such as unregulated sports betting and “prediction” markets. Seems like we are allowing the have-nots to be fleeced ever-so-easily.
 

Bardon

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,092
Subscriptor++
I think it would be helpful for mods to create threads for us. Like, when I post some news articles the "current events" thread, I don't intend a dozen people to start replying and arguing with me. Its not that I'm intimated to start a thread, its just I didn't expect a big response and discussion.
It would help if mods, when seeing this, would create a separate thread for the topic and move those related comments to the new thread. Moving the comments will help contain the discussion and encourage people to move to the new thread. This is fairly common in other forums.
Mods have more than enough to do as it is, and remember they're volunteers - you're expecting them to make a judgement call on whether a topic has enough legs and do the work to create a new thread then work back through the posts to ensure that they've moved all relevant ones to the new thread?

Our fingers work just fine, we're all capable of creating a new thread all by ourselves!
 

Aurich

Director of Many Things
40,904
Ars Staff
I think it would be helpful for mods to create threads for us. Like, when I post some news articles the "current events" thread, I don't intend a dozen people to start replying and arguing with me. Its not that I'm intimated to start a thread, its just I didn't expect a big response and discussion.
It would help if mods, when seeing this, would create a separate thread for the topic and move those related comments to the new thread. Moving the comments will help contain the discussion and encourage people to move to the new thread. This is fairly common in other forums.
So here's what I have to say to this:

Mods are just volunteers. People from the community. And we're not adding more to their plate. But ...

Maybe what we need are people who are thread starting volunteers. I'd be happy to hand out special hats to people who wanted to step up like that.
 

Aurich

Director of Many Things
40,904
Ars Staff
I do find it shocking that we’ve allowed such corrupt enterprises such as unregulated sports betting and “prediction” markets. Seems like we are allowing the have-nots to be fleeced ever-so-easily.
Forget the fleecing, the side effects of the prediction markets are starting to get super ugly:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/gambl...l-me-if-i-dont-rewrite-an-iran-missile-story/

1773673860563.png
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Bardon

poochyena

Ars Scholae Palatinae
4,908
Subscriptor++
Mods have more than enough to do as it is, and remember they're volunteers - you're expecting them to make a judgement call on whether a topic has enough legs and do the work to create a new thread then work back through the posts to ensure that they've moved all relevant ones to the new thread?

Our fingers work just fine, we're all capable of creating a new thread all by ourselves!
Not really that much effort to select a few comment and move it to a new thread. Its worth it considering it would be a very effective solution to the problem.
So here's what I have to say to this:

Mods are just volunteers. People from the community. And we're not adding more to their plate. But ...

Maybe what we need are people who are thread starting volunteers. I'd be happy to hand out special hats to people who wanted to step up like that.
What I'm saying is that doesn't work well. Look at the last "current events" thread, even after someone DID create a thread... people still stuck to the current events thread to talk about that subject for a page or two. If comments aren't moved, then people will still keep replying in that thread.
And if someone says "hey, don't reply in this thread, reply in this newly created thread" that person gets hit with a suspension for "playing mod" or whatever like happened when I've made those comments before.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Bardon

Aurich

Director of Many Things
40,904
Ars Staff
Not really that much effort to select a few comment and move it to a new thread. Its worth it considering it would be a very effective solution to the problem.
It's a lot of effort actually. The mods aren't on call to read everything waiting to make new threads from comments.

It's just a non starter of an idea.
 

dferrantino

Ars Legatus Legionis
14,064
Moderator
Not really that much effort to select a few comment and move it to a new thread. Its worth it considering it would be a very effective solution to the problem.
I said this in the thread in H&F and I'll say it again here: you can do this yourself. Keep tabs on the threads, find topics that look like they're worth their own thread, quote them and start a new thread with those quotes. It's the exact same amount of effort for us to do that same job.

After you've done that for a month, let me know and I'll personally pay you the same amount Aurich's paying us.
 

Matisaro

Ars Legatus Legionis
24,202
Subscriptor
It's a lot of effort actually. The mods aren't on call to read everything waiting to make new threads from comments.

It's just a non starter of an idea.

Would it be technically feasible to add a "response to a post" button which creates a new thread that someone who replies to an "interesting post" could use to make it the beginning of a new post. So the finding of interesting stuff is self regulating and not impactful on the mods?

Maybe an option to reply to a post, which creates a special kind of thread which auto locks if no one responds to the post in say 24 hours so the place isn't cluttered up with random uninteresting threads?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lt_Storm

Aurich

Director of Many Things
40,904
Ars Staff
Would it be technically feasible to add a "response to a post" button which creates a new thread that someone who replies to an "interesting post" could use to make it the beginning of a new post. So the finding of interesting stuff is self regulating and not impactful on the mods?

Maybe an option to reply to a post, which creates a special kind of thread which auto locks if no one responds to the post in say 24 hours so the place isn't cluttered up with random uninteresting threads?
I dunno!

Maybe? Or maybe it's some permission we could give some people who did feel like being the topic police in a productive way?

I'm totally open to trying things. I basically just want people to feel like they can use the forum like forums are meant to be used. Start posts, why the hell not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matisaro

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
68,373
Subscriptor
Occasionally I’ll go to the casino with my mom and play some video poker, but I go for the “action” (for me that’s playing 5 or 10 hands at a time with nickels or dimes) and only gamble far less than I can afford. It’s not something I recommend if you are having troubles making ends meet or if you find it compulsive.

I do find it shocking that we’ve allowed such corrupt enterprises such as unregulated sports betting and “prediction” markets. Seems like we are allowing the have-nots to be fleeced ever-so-easily.
It's the American way!

There was some real value in that puritanical stance that gambling was a sin. It probably kept millions from losing their shirts. Now all bets are off ON and it's full speed ahead to the poor house for the susceptible. With the concomitant corruption of all gambling adjacent activities like sports and politics.

It's only a matter of time before the Boy Scouts give up on popcorn and peddle March Madness pools door to door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fractl

GMBigKev

Ars Praefectus
5,671
Subscriptor
Not really that much effort to select a few comment and move it to a new thread. Its worth it considering it would be a very effective solution to the problem.

What I'm saying is that doesn't work well. Look at the last "current events" thread, even after someone DID create a thread... people still stuck to the current events thread to talk about that subject for a page or two. If comments aren't moved, then people will still keep replying in that thread.
And if someone says "hey, don't reply in this thread, reply in this newly created thread" that person gets hit with a suspension for "playing mod" or whatever like happened when I've made those comments before.

It's kind of up to the person doing the responses. I made a randomizer post after having a few randomizer-related discussions growing in the gaming post. It's not had much traffic, probably partly on me.
 

Aurich

Director of Many Things
40,904
Ars Staff
It's kind of up to the person doing the responses. I made a randomizer post after having a few randomizer-related discussions growing in the gaming post. It's not had much traffic, probably partly on me.
I think there's a bit of a chicken/egg problem.

The forums aren't well trafficked anymore. Which is a shame, but that might just be How It Is. But also, people don't look for new threads like they used to. They participate in their comfortable grooves of existing posts. Which is fine!

But if there was going to be any change there it would require some new habits to be formed. It would take time for people to notice that they can find new content if they look.
 

Aurich

Director of Many Things
40,904
Ars Staff
Is that for all forums, or just the box? Perhaps a front page article might lure some people in if you dug into the wealth of both knowledge and humor in here, or perhaps lure some of the people from the news forums into the regular forums?
I mean it's for "all the forums" where you don't include front page comments.