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

241–250 of 323 posts

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

#241

Post by Dylan16807 »

hgomersall wrote: post #227
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…

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.

> It's gambling when you seek to increase your risk profile in the hope of gaining higher returns

I generally agree, but I don't think it's a binary. If an insured bank is 10% gambling then an index fund is 20% and roulette is 100%. And the snow derivative sounds like it's probably above 80%.

> without actually doing anything else other than "invest" the money.

I don't see why this changes whether it's gambling. Investing in a restaurant and starting your own restaurant are both very risky bets.

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

#242

Post by BoxOfRain »

ricardobayes wrote: post #122
Aurornis wrote: post #81

Earlier 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…

Yes, anyone who has been looking for Spotify alternatives can readily tell how poor the music recommendation algorithms of competitors. I feel like the only comparative one is weirdly, youtube, since they simply have more data points and context to attach recommendations to.

I've come to realise that the only truly good recommendation engines for music are written in wetware; there's a lot to be said for DJ sets and independent radio.

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

#243

Post by Dracophoenix »

wpietri wrote: post #77
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…

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…

> My point being that not having a clear definition won't stop us from grappling with the harms. Nor should it.

In the absence of a clear referent or definition, who gets to decide what constitutes a "harm"? What substance do their claims have beyond conveniently spun moral arguments? Why does betting on an event as common and unalterable as the weather require adoption by an incumbent entity and/or regulation by the state to achieve legitimacy?

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

#244

Post by nkrisc »

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…

This seems like exactly the kind of thing that should be decided by a trial. It’s some mix of intent and the actual outcomes, more or less as you stated.

I don’t really see how it’s much different than premeditated murder versus manslaughter.

In this case I wholly believe much of Facebook and Instagram’s addictiveness is the result of intentional choices and decisions made by people at Meta.

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

#245

Post by nkrisc »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #243
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…

> My point being that not having a clear definition won't stop us from grappling with the harms. Nor should it. In the absence of a clear referent or definition, who gets to decide what constitutes a "harm"? What substance do their claims have beyond conveniently spun moral arguments? Why does betting on an event as common and unalterable as the weather require adoption by an incumbent entity and/or regulation by the…

> In the absence of a clear referent or definition, who gets to decide what constitutes a "harm"?

The jury.

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

#246

Post by tantalor »

renegade-otter wrote: post #230
tantalor wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Skill-based game/wager?

Gambling is playing games with negative EV

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

#247

Post by ck2 »

and since all that tobacco money changed human behavior and gave people healthcarea and access to ways to quit smoking so they did, they lived happily ever after

oh wait no, what the states did is use all that money for other projects and let the smoking addicts pump up sales tax gains on the insane cigarette prices instead

so they are going to do the same with all that facebook money, nothing will change, they won't "protect the children" and they will funnel the millions into other projects for themselves

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

#249

Post by Dracophoenix »

nkrisc wrote: post #245
Dracophoenix wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point being that not having a clear definition won't stop us from grappling with the harms. Nor should it. In the absence of a clear referent or definition, who gets to decide what constitutes a "harm"? What substance do their claims have beyond conveniently spun moral arguments? Why does betting on an event as common and unalterable as the weather require adoption by an incumbent entity and/or regulation by the…

> In the absence of a clear referent or definition, who gets to decide what constitutes a "harm"? The jury.

A jury is relevant to the legal adjudication of harm, not the institutionalization of a certain ideas, activity, etc. as harmful. There are many so-called harms that are arbitrarily declared by agencies as such long before a lawsuit is conceived. Just the same, there are many legitimate harms that states and societies enact as their "right" at the expense of a person's liberty (i.e. conscription, expropriation of property, etc.).

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

#250

Post by jbstack »

xxs wrote: post #202
jbstack wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The examples don't hold in most jurisdictions (except for the stock market and if short sells are allowed). All of the three categories are defined as gambling in pretty much all jurisdictions across the globe. However, they are classified as different types, e.g. roulette is closer to slots than poker is. Then poker can be "cash tables" vs "tournament". The main classifier difference is "game of chance" vs "game of…

As I stated in my comment, they weren't examples of the legal definition of gambling. What the law says something is can often differ greatly from the every day understanding. The legal definition can also change according to the whims of the legislature while the every day meaning tends to stay more static.
Post reply on HN