I believe there are valid critiques to be made of prediction markets, particularly on the morality of allowing bets on events with serious/market outcomes (the market could create an incentive for an insider to actualize that bad outcome, hence we should ban the market as it increases the odds of a bad outcome occurring) or on the negative repercussions of gambling addiction. Instead of making either of these valid arguments, the article instead decides to critique the epistemic value of prediction markets. It comes off to me as ill-informed handwringing and tribal signaling, rather than bothering to engage critically with the topic and offering a meaningful critique.