Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 323 posts

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#221

Post by pjc50 »

pants2 wrote: post #116
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier 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 certainly not well defined today; memecoins, prediction markets, sports betting, and more are all toeing the line of gambling.

See also "binary options", which are such a bad deal for retail investors that the UK FCA explicitly tells you they're a scam.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#222

Post by anon373839 »

matrix87 wrote: post #25

This 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…

> how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform?

Legal systems have dealt with these sorts of slippery definitional issues for centuries! In this specific case, I would venture that the applicable legal standard would be some form of a balancing-the-factors test, where there is a list of criteria that a court weighs to determine if a given situation meets a legal threshold. It’s purposefully designed to have flexibility and ambiguity, with the expectation that, over time, courts will develop precedential law defining how the factors apply in various contexts.

For something like “addictive social media”, imagine a standard with factors such as:

- Whether an algorithm determines what material is presented to the user, based on a statistical model of user behavior;

- Whether the product was developed with the input of behavioral psychologists;

- Whether a significant portion of the users exhibit compulsive use of the product;

- Any mechanisms implemented l by the developer to deter compulsive use;

and so on.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#223

Post by pjc50 »

jbstack wrote: post #152
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier 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…

> What made one gambling and the other not? What makes any given bet a legitimate financial trade versus pure gambling? Legally, it's whether the bet meets the legal definition of gambling as per the legislation applicable in your jurisdiction and any binding case law. There's no universal answer. But from an ordinary language perspective, the difference is whether it involves an element of skill sufficient (at least…

> Poker - not gambling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg

In the distant past of 2011, offering online poker to Americans, even from overseas, brought serious Federal prison time. That was before the lobbyists got to work.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#224

Post by hgomersall »

gloryjulio wrote: post #175
hgomersall wrote: post #165

Earlier 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…

> If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling. There are lot of value investors which sit at home do stock picking occasionally. They don't work for their money. I don't think they are gambling. The only investors that fits your non gambling definition seems to be the active investors who take part in the companies. But most investors don't

Why don't you think they are gambling?

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#225

Post by hgomersall »

nickjj wrote: post #205
hgomersall wrote: post #146

Earlier 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.

> The stock market is exactly the same - middle class gambling. Our entire society is based on being forced to gamble. If you don't invest your money in some capacity then inflation will eat you alive.

Why should having money ever give you a return on that? I ask that question in the context of moral philosophy, not a capitalist society. Surely there are better ways to determine how an individual should live that doesn't typically amount to emerging from a lucky orifice?

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#226

Post by tantalor »

renegade-otter wrote: post #199
pants2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not well defined today; memecoins, prediction markets, sports betting, and more are all toeing the line of gambling.

Prediction markets are 100% gambling. It's just synonym acrobatics. I say this as someone who had a lot of fun GAMBLING during the World Cup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOptJl8Xkx0

Not 100%

In certain cases you can use information asymmetry to your advantage. You know something they don't. A good example is any market dependent on public opinion surveys (eg political polling). That data can be hard to find. If you can find it faster than everybody else then you win more often. There is still some chance involved but it's more like poker than blackjack (not a great analogy but you get my drift).

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#227

Post by hgomersall »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #171
hgomersall wrote: post #165

Earlier 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…

Fair point re seeking the best return given the same risk profile.

Allow me to refine my point: It's gambling when you seek to increase your risk profile in the hope of gaining higher returns, without actually doing anything else other than "invest" the money.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#228

Post by StilesCrisis »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #218
Dylan16807 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Government-backed bonds are the intended zero-risk option. You know exactly how much you will get and it is designed to track inflation (sorta).

If you don't believe in that, precious metals are another way to go. I don't personally subscribe to that theory but that's the idea.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#229

Post by aqme28 »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #115
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier 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…

How would Poker fit into that definition?

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#230

Post by renegade-otter »

tantalor wrote: post #226
renegade-otter wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prediction markets are 100% gambling. It's just synonym acrobatics. I say this as someone who had a lot of fun GAMBLING during the World Cup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOptJl8Xkx0

Not 100% In certain cases you can use information asymmetry to your advantage. You know something they don't. A good example is any market dependent on public opinion surveys (eg political polling). That data can be hard to find. If you can find it faster than everybody else then you win more often. There is still some chance involved but it's more like poker than blackjack (not a great analogy but you get my drift).

People did this in sports gambling since forever. Professional gamblers would cultivate a source (like a coach) to get inside information to get a leg up. That said - you are still placing a bet based on the best information you have. It's gambling, or else, what other word is for it? Investing?
Post reply on HN