←back to thread

Addiction Markets

(www.thebignewsletter.com)
383 points toomuchtodo | 7 comments | 31 Oct 25 17:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.486s | source | bottom
Show context
gcanyon ◴[31 Oct 25 19:24 UTC] No.45775729[source]▶
This line from the ads always strikes me as darkly ironic:

> if you need help making responsible choices, call…

Like, the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online. What do they even think we’re supposed to take away from that line of the commercial?

replies(5): >>45776233 #>>45776265 #>>45776293 #>>45779246 #>>45780715 #
savanaly ◴[31 Oct 25 20:17 UTC] No.45776233[source]▶
> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online

I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on the experience, usually lose some money, and get some entertainment.

There's a saying about this: abusers give vice a bad name. People should be free to gamble if they want to, and certain checks should be put in place for people who choose to gamble so much it is ruinous to themselves.

replies(13): >>45776327 #>>45776431 #>>45776456 #>>45776503 #>>45776524 #>>45776626 #>>45776789 #>>45777773 #>>45778084 #>>45778607 #>>45778887 #>>45780348 #>>45782611 #
matthewdgreen ◴[31 Oct 25 20:46 UTC] No.45776503[source]▶
These services make a relatively smaller piece of their profit from "responsible" people with a lot of self-control. In many cases, the business is probably not viable without problem gamblers. Problem gamblers account for anywhere from 51% of revenue for sports betting apps, to 90% in the case of casinos [1,2] and the numbers seem to be getting worse.

[1] https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DMHAS/Publications/2023-CT-FIN... [2] https://www.umass.edu/seigma/media/583/download

replies(5): >>45776545 #>>45776606 #>>45777642 #>>45778527 #>>45784317 #
1. savanaly ◴[31 Oct 25 20:49 UTC] No.45776545[source]▶
I can readily believe that to be true, but my point still stands, the person I'm replying to made a really sweeping and incorrect statement.
replies(1): >>45776587 #
2. dwaltrip ◴[31 Oct 25 20:54 UTC] No.45776587[source]▶
You don’t think it’s ethically and morally questionable to frequent a business that knowingly harms the majority of its customers?

I agree there’s a some sort of gray area here, but it feels awfully narrow… especially with the recent sports betting companies.

replies(3): >>45776667 #>>45776975 #>>45778285 #
3. Karrot_Kream ◴[31 Oct 25 21:03 UTC] No.45776667[source]▶
"some gray area" is an understatement.

Sports betting companies structure their odds and order books to disadvantage most bettors. There are plenty of markets where that isn't the case.

replies(1): >>45776898 #
4. ◴[31 Oct 25 21:28 UTC] No.45776898{3}[source]▶
5. savanaly ◴[31 Oct 25 21:37 UTC] No.45776975[source]▶
I feel like the goalposts have been shifted massively in this conversation. The original sentiment was "there's no way to responsibly gamble online", and that's all I was ever responding to.
replies(1): >>45780293 #
6. travisjungroth ◴[01 Nov 25 00:46 UTC] No.45778285[source]▶
I don’t want to derail the conversation, but I do want to make an analogy. I’m vegan, and I mostly go to non-vegan restaurants. I’m giving my money to businesses that mostly do something I don’t support.

The way I resolve this is “What if everyone did what I did?”. The restaurants would obviously have to change. I figure the type of demand I create is more powerful than how they might use the profit.

I think the same thing applies here. If everyone only gambled responsibly, these companies would all be in the responsible gambling business.

At the same time, I think sports gambling has completely gotten out of control and needs to be more regulated. More advertising regulation seems like a good place to start.

7. kannanvijayan ◴[01 Nov 25 09:15 UTC] No.45780293{3}[source]▶
I strongly doubt that the person you were responding to was asserting that "no person, at any time, in any circumstance, can ever gamble online without it being an irresponsible act".

But chances are that the original commenter was really using language in a more colloquial way, the way someone might say "the only responsible choice is not to use drugs". Someone saying that isn't making a statement that "no person ever, under any circumstance, can ever benefit from consuming any drug".

It's not an absolutist statement, but you are choosing to interpret it that way so that you can construct a response based on semantic pedantry.

Goalposts built around strawmen are almost designed to be shifted.