Wow, I'm shocked at the negative attitudes in this thread. Porn and gambling are legit businesses, even if you don't like it. (And some people used to argue that part of the rise of the PC was because some people bought it as a "porn machine.") It's important to keep these things (almost) in the open, because when they become illegal, criminals move in and people get hurt. When I was an intern at a big-name, conserva…
one of those things is not like the other
The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
181–190 of 238 posts
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
> 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. That isn't true; crimes can have aggravating factors and selling drugs to a minor could aggravate the crime of selling drugs. I don't think the laws were written that way, but they could have been.
For dealers this would mean almost nothing when the punishment for dealing already lead people to do things like get in shootouts with police.
Meanwhile legalization of some drugs has directly shown that it decreases youth usage.
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#183And yet I can buy a Premier League soccer shirt with a casino brand sprayed across the front. I wish it would stop, advertising gambling via sports sponsorships should be banned. It literally prevents me from buying the shirt.
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
> 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. That isn't true; crimes can have aggravating factors and selling drugs to a minor could aggravate the crime of selling drugs. I don't think the laws were written that way, but they could have been.
This is why increasing penalties have extremely fast diminishing returns. As the penalty goes up, the relative cost of measures to avoid detection goes down, and the penalty needed to counter them becomes exponentially larger.
If the benefit of doing the crime is a million dollars and the penalty is a 50% chance of a year in prison then you have a problem, because plenty of people would be willing to take the risk. But it's actually worse than that, because spending $100,000 on countermeasures might lower the risk of getting caught to 1%, and they're still making $900,000. That might not be worth it when the penalty is a year -- maybe $100,000 in profit is worth a 50% risk of one year? But if you set the penalty to 20 years then it is. Then the gain is $900,000 but the expected penalty has actually fallen to 1% of 20 years, i.e. expected cost of 2.4 months instead of 6. To deter someone with a $900,000 profit who values a year at $120,000 with a 1% chance of getting caught, you would need the penalty to be 750 years, which you can't do because people don't live that long. And spending even more on countermeasures might lower the risk of getting caught even more. If spending $500,000 makes it 0.1%, that may not be worth doing when the max practical penalty is ~70 years, but the option for it means that even 750 years would be insufficient even if it was possible.
This is why there are things it's very difficult to deter. The profit from doing them is more than the cost of making the probability of detection small and then the size of the penalty can't be made large enough to be a deterrent.
That all changes when you legalize most of the market. Now the profit isn't a million dollars, it's $100,000, because anyone can enter the market so increased competition drives down margins. Moreover, $90,000 of the profit was from selling to adults. So now the profit from selling to kids is only $10,000. Not worth spending $100,000 to lower the risk of getting caught. And then you can easily assign a moderate penalty that acts as an actual deterrent.
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. That isn't true; crimes can have aggravating factors and selling drugs to a minor could aggravate the crime of selling drugs. I don't think the laws were written that way, but they could have been.
>could aggravate the crime For dealers this would mean almost nothing when the punishment for dealing already lead people to do things like get in shootouts with police. Meanwhile legalization of some drugs has directly shown that it decreases youth usage.
I think you're getting at something valid, but it isn't quite what you think.
The punishment for dealing drugs is, as I understand it, mostly applied to major distributors. In this sense, selling drugs wasn't a crime before anyway.
If you're too low-level for prosecution to be much of a concern, it doesn't take much to guide you away from fundamentally similar crimes where prosecution is a real concern.
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#186You 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.
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…
If people are getting priced out, that implies that either the cost of a unit is more than the cost of construction, or that the cost of construction is unreasonably high. If it's the first one the higher demand should just lead to more construction instead of higher prices, because units that sell for more than they cost to build are profitable to build and supply expands until the price falls below the cost. If it's the second one, the actual source of your problem is high regulatory costs and NIMBYism rather than AirBNB.
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
TIL
FYI, Bitcoin proponents seem to "forget" that Lightning transactions are traceable by the Lightning node operator, whomever that might be.
The thing about layer 2 solutions is, they evolve much faster than the base layer (bitcoin). So dont trust statements that are some years old.
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
straw man argument. This was about social stigma of weapons and you told a story about a factory being force closed and the surrounding community degrading by that. We should not keep bad things alive just because jobs depend on it.
Its not a straw man, its not even an argument, it's just what happened.
of course you're implicitly making an argument, you really expect us to think that you just decided to post some random anecdote apropos of nothing?
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like mixing of everything 18+ in the article. I think the author wants to put all the stigma in one basket, and I don't it's as simple. For example, porn meets some actual human needs and has a certain function - but gambling? Simple abuse at scale. I think like you argue, society shaping business is good. And some people should really reevaluate what they're going for if that's too much for them.
> 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…
- helps in managing sexual needs, which can be difficult to handle otherwise, and especially replace
- educational: whether it is about workings of sex, ideas to improve your sex life with a partner, or something to discover about yourself
I suppose there's more to it, but most other things I can think of are an extension to meeting sexual needs.
Re: The operating cost of adult and gambling startups
#190That’s because you are operating in the market of degeneracy, taking profits by offloading your victims’ losses on their commercial counterparts through the bankruptcy system and the rest of us through social services.
There is a reason there were laws against this until the degeneracy operators figured out how to further corrupt our democracy.