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

The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

orchidfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 238 posts

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#131

Post by IshKebab »

8-prime wrote: post #45
embedding-shape wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, porn meets some actual human needs and has a certain function - but gambling? Simple abuse at scale. Now I'm as as free-minded as people typically gets, but both of those are just "entertainment" for me, one is not more "essential" than the other, what exact "human need" does pornography meet that somehow gambling doesn't also meet, since we're not talking about "fun" or "entertainment" here but someth…

While the porn industry has issue, at its core it isn't constructed to extract money from you. Boiling Gambling down to just being "entertainment" is a bit too reductionist in my opinion.

I don't think that's the issue with gambling - all commercial activity is constructed to extract money from you.

The problem with gambling is that people often get addicted and ruin their lives due to it.

While that probably can happen with porn I think the likelihood is a couple of orders of magnitude lower.

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#132

Post by stronglikedan »

malfist wrote: post #16
jmkd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of other products that literally ruin people's lives: alcohol, tobacco, sugar, pharmaceuticals, credit cards, firearms, timeshares, junk food. Society has them all on very different parts of a stigma spectrum. Honest question: why is this line so clear for you?

Honest question, why isn't the line so clear for you? We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well.

I know plenty of folks who enjoy a little gambling without letting it get them into trouble, so the product couldn't be "built to make people's lives worse". Why should they have something taken away just because some other people can't control themselves?

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#133

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

embedding-shape wrote: post #71
malfist wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's most of the products being sold today That's just not true at all. The fruit I buy is designed to make my life worse? The vacuum cleaner? The lawn mower? The workout equipment? The standing desk for my office? The clothing I buy?

Yes, literally all those things are decreasing in quality because the companies producing and selling these want higher margins. Have you not noticed the sharp drop in quality and durability in made stuff compared to 20-30 years ago? Almost all those things are worse and lasts less today than they used to.

German study:

"The proportion of devices which had to be replaced within five years due to a defect rose quite sharply, from 3.5% in 2004 to 8.3% in 2012."

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/obs...

Electronics are more likely to be obsolete for technical reasons, but - for example - modern dishwashers and dryers are far more likely to have cheap plastic parts that fail more quickly. Even for brands with premium price tags.

With clothes, fast fashion is designed down to a budget and up to a price. For consumer brands, the more expensive something is the more disposable it is and the shorter its working life.

https://irispublishers.com/jtsft/fulltext/analysis-of-qualit...

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#134

Post by caycep »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #46
joosters wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more relevant point is: But almost all social networks and search engines won’t let you advertise without a license from the required jurisdiction. Which is a good thing! This is an area full of scammers, if you can't set up your business legally, I'm very happy to hear it's more difficult for you to advertise it.

I mean, you also can't advertise illegal drugs either. Doesn't seem to curb demand though. It may actually be more beneficial to allow these things more broadly, because then social safety features can be wedged in between consumers and suppliers more easily and they don't have to deal with a gigantic shadow market that already gets stigmatised to death by the rest of the population. Just accept that a certain percen…

I think the laws are written assuming everyone is rational but it's pretty clear from neuroscience than dopaminergic/VTA pathway abnormalities addictions make one anything but rational; and they haven't been updated to reflect the science.

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#135

Post by tt24 »

b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #5

You may have a cool product in the field of sports betting, casinos, or lotteries. But almost all social networks and search engines won’t let you advertise without a license from the required jurisdiction. Good . You should face social stigma for creating products that literally ruin people's lives.

Yawn. I think social networks and search engines can do whatever they like, but this kind of histrionic pearl clutching is getting old.

If people choose to seek out entertainment that’s bad for them then there’s nothing wrong with providing a market for it. It’s on the consumer to know their own limits.

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#136

Post by AnthonyMouse »

PaulHoule wrote: post #116
sigmoid10 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you also can't advertise illegal drugs either. Doesn't seem to curb demand though. It may actually be more beneficial to allow these things more broadly, because then social safety features can be wedged in between consumers and suppliers more easily and they don't have to deal with a gigantic shadow market that already gets stigmatised to death by the rest of the population. Just accept that a certain percen…

It's nuanced. When I was a kid I really enjoyed Scarne's books about gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scarne which were written in an era when most of the gambling in the US was illegal and run by organized crime, Las Vegas was small, Atlantic City new, and New Hampshire the first state to get a lottery. Like prostitution, gambling needs a rather sophisticated criminal network, a parallel system of law-and…

> but in the Fentanyl age I see people dropping like flies all around me

Fentanyl is a response to prohibition. If you have to smuggle something it's a lot easier to move 10 kg of fentanyl and cut it with something near the point of sale than to move 10,000 kg of codeine from the point of manufacture.

But then you have street dealers cutting it with who knows what in who knows what amount. They may use a 1000:1 ratio of unspecified hopefully-inert powder to fentanyl but don't mix it evenly so some customers get a 10000:1 ratio and others get 100:1 and become addicted or overdose. Or a dealer has one supplier who was already cutting it 50:1 so they were used to only cutting it another 20:1 so their customers don't complain, but then they start wanting larger quantities and find a new supplier without realizing they just bypassed the one who was pre-cutting it and are now getting uncut fentanyl.

None of that happens if anyone can buy codeine at Walmart. Or for that matter if they can buy fentanyl and know exactly how much they're getting.

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#138

Post by pixl97 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #129
Maxatar wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I mean, you also can't advertise illegal drugs either. Doesn't seem to curb demand though. Making drugs illegal does not eliminate demand, but it absolutely curbs it. The converse is also true, for example legalizing cannabis in Canada has significantly increased demand for it [1]. While it's true cannabis use had been gradually increasing for decades prior to legalization, there was a significant spike afterwards w…

> The converse is also true, for example legalizing cannabis in Canada has significantly increased demand for it The relevant thing that link actually says is that more survey respondents admitted to cannabis use after legalization, the obvious problem being that before legalization they would be admitting to a crime, which will suppress response rates. The same link also points out that the legalization happened rig…

>Meanwhile legal options do cause people to prefer legal sources over the black market

In the case of cannabis it's been showing to lead to less underage use too. If it's a crime, then selling to anyone of any age is still just a crime. But if it's only a crime to sell to under 18/21 then legal shops will avoid selling to the under age to avoid revocation of their license.

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#139

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #46
joosters wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more relevant point is: But almost all social networks and search engines won’t let you advertise without a license from the required jurisdiction. Which is a good thing! This is an area full of scammers, if you can't set up your business legally, I'm very happy to hear it's more difficult for you to advertise it.

I mean, you also can't advertise illegal drugs either. Doesn't seem to curb demand though. It may actually be more beneficial to allow these things more broadly, because then social safety features can be wedged in between consumers and suppliers more easily and they don't have to deal with a gigantic shadow market that already gets stigmatised to death by the rest of the population. Just accept that a certain percen…

> then social safety features can be wedged in

The bans and strict regulations are the social safety features.

Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups

#140

Post by Forgeties79 »

RHSeeger wrote: post #22
antonymoose wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the entitlement of startups to just flaunt laws and regulations. Still kills me to this day Uber and AirBNB running illegal billion dollar operations. I suppose one can at least say Uber mitigates drunk driving tendencies. As far as AirBNB goes, it can rot straight in hell. My hometown is now 20% AirBNB, they ran illegally for many years, and this completely prices out normal folks trying to live near…

I don't have a problem with them actively choosing to break laws to protest the laws themselves; to try to get them changed. Civil disobedience is a long standing practice. However, part of doing that is facing the consequences of breaking those laws; being arrested, etc. Just because _you_ think the law isn't just doesn't mean it's not a law - it just means you think it should be changed. And the companies in questi…

>I don't have a problem with them actively choosing to break laws to protest the laws themselves

Do you truly believe this is some protest action by Airbnb? Because I think most of us rightly characterize it as "intentionally breaking the law for profit" and little more than that.

I'm not sure I like seeing their behavior compared to legitimate protests and activist work. That seems rather insulting to the people and organizations who actually take real risks for the public good. This is a silicon valley startup, a VC-funded profit machine disrupting communities around the world by breaking the law. To paint this as somehow altruistic is a novel take to say the least.

Post reply on HN