Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the eyes of law (in many or most jurisdictions that regulate gambling).
At some point it's going to catch up. Legislation is a very hard process.
Sports betting is centuries if not thousands of years old.
Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
211–220 of 323 posts
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would include everything from my Spotify recommending new music that I like to my Netflix showing me similar shows. I'm a responsible adult. I want those things. I make use of them. They make my life better when I'm trying to listen to some music while I work on something or when I have exactly 2 hours of TV watching time in a week and don't want to waste it finding a new show. I do not want regulations coming a…
> when I have exactly 2 hours of TV watching time in a week and don't want to waste it finding a new show. Please please somebody explain this to me. I see it often, but fail to understand it. The television is a tool for watching shows. The show is ostensibly the draw, and the television is the vehicle for watching it, no? So why do some people (lots of people actually) feel compelled to sit in front of the televisi…
I knit. Sometimes I just want to be watching something, while doing that. The goal isn't to watch a specific show, but to have something to watch, while I let my hands do the work.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all gambling. You can dress it to as having a social purpose, but that's not why most people do it - they want the numbers to go up. The stock market is exactly the same - middle class gambling.
> You can dress it to as having a social purpose, but that's not why most people do it - they want the numbers to go up. Too cynical. This disqualifies basically anything you can do with money. If you put it in a bank to get interest you are solidly into the not-gambling end of the scale. And I don't think an index fund is that much more to the gambling side.
> If you put it in a bank to get interest you are solidly into the not-gambling end of the scale
Isn't that a bet that your government won't devalue your currency fast enough?
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#214This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…
The same way we already distinguish between card games and gambling. I can think of quite a few to distinguish normal platforms from addictive ones;
- non-chronological timeline
- promoted content from people you don't follow
- Rewards for using the app (reddit is a great example of this)
- Dark patterns to take control away from the user about what they see
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#215[dead]
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#216I do wonder what’s going to happen in the future to addictive social media algorithms. Feels like one of those things that’s so powerful, but skirts by because it doesn’t feel like it should be (like targeted advertising).
Can we just ban algorithms for content and go back to chronological feeds circa 2004 Facebook? Or maybe ban all content that the user isn't explicitly subscribed to. Those both have problems too, I'm sure.
We have that in the EU, they mandated it. It finally made instagram use-able for me again. Did instagram geo-gate that feature? Wouldn't surprise me, but still.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the major issue is, people still have the option of those older forms of feeds, people just don't like them. New social media competitors (ie Tiktok) have won users by having even more powerful algorithms rather than other options.
How? The 2 feeds on my IG account: "posts" and "reels" show content of people that I do not follow.
if you click on the ig logo you can switch to a feed that only shows accounts you follow
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is largely around expectation. Sure, the base case of putting money in a bank is very safe, but the interest on that is not. Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits. If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling. Sticking money in the bank with the hope that it's still there next time you come back to it…
> Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits. But that applies to having money at all. That can't be enough to call it gambling. > expectation, intent I understand your argument here, but I disagree. Shifting to the bank that offers the best rate is good management, not gambling. Understanding how interest works and being motivated by interest to do bog-standard money storage doe…
>But that applies to having money at all. That can't be enough to call it gambling.
It is, because there's no choice not to gamble. You have to make choices, and none of those choices are risk-free. The options are on a scale between low-risk negative-return and high-risk high-return. But the risk is never zero - not even in FDIC insured accounts - and there's an element of randomness involved in the outcomes.
That's the point. There's no option to say "I have this store of value, and if I don't do anything with it it will retain its value forever."
It won't. So you're forced into risk assessment and randomness, not just with money but with assets in general.
This is the foundation of the economy. All non-trivial transactions are based on risk/reward estimates, and some parts of the economy can force risk and hazard on others.
It's not just a casino you can never leave, it's a casino where the management use various tricks to siphon money from your assets into their pockets without giving you any agency over what happens.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
It took decades to clearly define gambling enough to regulate it as we do now. Note that pinball was banned in major cities for decades because it was too similar to gambling devices. And even with those definitions things weren't very clear. I used to work for financial traders here in Chicago. Every year there would be an unofficial snow futures market. It was a fancy way for all the traders and clerks to gamble on…
It's actually somewhat easy... If you are creating financial exposure to an event with no underlying risk to it, and the point is exposure itself, you are gambling. In your snow example, those guys were gambling on snow for fun. The formal weather derivative - most weather derivatives have parties (usually players in the energy market, sometimes agriculture) who have real underlying risk and aren't entering those con…
The "for fun" part is really important here. Addictive behavior comes from a hijacked dopamine system, into which you slowly get lured in. This makes it applicable to social media, drugs and if you squint, even to broad obsessions.
This doesnt help the gambling distinction though. What activities can take over your neurological reward mechanism? Pretty much everything, like neurotically washing your hands. So you have to factor in societal scale and amount of (potential) harm and this is where the vague debate begins. A key point is a dealer/platform, profiting from your behavior, to exclude neurotics.
A striking observation i made was, that gambling machines have deliberate delays between action (eg pull the lever) and reaction/reward for the brain to create tension and to break it with a dopamine spike. This deliberate design is how the machine exploits your brain and makes you an addict. A similar system is the endless social media feed (or even worse brainrot short videos). You scroll, you see new stuff, you identify content maybe emotionally. Its the same fast stimulus-reward cycle. Meassured in 1-2 seconds, same as gambling machines.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#220This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…
In my humble opinion: anyone optimizing for "engagement" is trying to make a product inherently addictive. Having a great product is not, but designing your product intentionally so people spend more time with it, than they wanted - intentionally not just let them write that one message, but distract them into other stuff - would qualify.
I would love to see "SEO" qualifies.