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

Addiction Markets

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#441

Post by dredmorbius »

hamasho wrote: post #306
mlrtime wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly pro-market, but I agree with this. I think people should do what they want if they don't harm themselves or others. Advertising these things are different... I don't have a problem with people smoking or drinking, but I agree we shouldn't allow advertising. However, they should be able to advertise in adult only outlets. ex: Does Playboy still have Cigarette and Liqour advertisements?

> I'm fairly pro-market, but I agree with this. I think people should do what they want if they don't harm themselves or others. Is this still pro-market though? I have the same opinion and I often labeled as "anti-market" when I call regulations for gambling, social media, AI, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure>

Re: Addiction Markets

#442

Post by dredmorbius »

cael450 wrote: post #201
wombatpm wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax advertising for gambling? Require all advertising for gambling to go through a state agency? There is lots a state can do besides banning.

Yeah but banning them is the right thing to do. Why would you have a state agency review gambling ads?

Look at regulated advertising / marketing on tobacco products as examples.

No ads on TV/Radio. Mandated warnings. In some countries, packaging must carry prominent health warnings, in some cases excluding virtually all branding (Australia, for example).

That along with high taxation, smoking cessation programs, legal proceedings against tobacco companies, restrictions on retailling, etc., have drastically reduced smoking rates in many countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Public_policy>

Re: Addiction Markets

#443

Post by dredmorbius »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #277
wombatpm wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax advertising for gambling? Require all advertising for gambling to go through a state agency? There is lots a state can do besides banning.

> Tax advertising That move alone would make a big dent in many of the major problems of modern living.

Prior to the 1830s, advertising was apparently very heavily taxed in the UK, though I know very few details about this, the reasons why, or what occurred to change this.

Re: Addiction Markets

#444

Post by dredmorbius »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #71

On a somewhat related note, there seems to be a huge interest in vice policing on social media. Gambling, sex, drugs, these are some of humanity's oldest vices. Why has it become so popular on social media to highlight these, along with a narrative of social or cultural decline?

Moral panics are as old as the hills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic>

Re: Addiction Markets

#445

Post by trashface »

I hope if there is a regulatory backlash it results in loot crates in games getting regulated, ideally outlawed.

Apologists for that practice claimed there was no harm in it, but now we see the harm - a generation of young men trained on those that is now older and ruining their financial future on sports betting.

Re: Addiction Markets

#446

Post by superfrank »

iamacyborg wrote: post #253
superfrank wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federally, That's not even true anymore. In the BBB there was a tax code change that says you can only write off 90% of your losses from sports betting now. If you win $95 on one bet and lose $100 on another, you owe taxes on $5 of that $95.

> In the BBB there was a tax code change that says you can only write off 90% of your losses from sports betting now. If I understand correctly that’s no longer the case as “sports betting” prediction markets are now becoming a financial product. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-07-10/do-...

We're kind of in the middle of that shift, but yeah, prediction markets are futures contracts and handled differently.

The main sportsbooks you see advertising on TV like Draft Kings, Fan Duel, etc are still the old sports betting model where you're betting against the house. That's still taxed as sports betting. Kalshi, Polymarket, and some smaller sports focused apps like NoVig and Sporttrade are prediction markets that allow sports predictions and those would allow a full write off.

That said, I've heard that most of the major sportsbooks like Draft Kings and Fan Duel are building out their own prediction market platforms, so I think it's only a matter of time until everyone is in that model. Even ignoring the tax implications, it's lower risk and more consistent revenue for the books since they can structure things so they make money on every trade (if they want).

Re: Addiction Markets

#447

Post by paulryanrogers »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #168
lurk2 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? A person can be generally responsible while still making decisions that are irresponsible. Gambling has a negative expected value, and so is generally considered to be irresponsible. Gamblers will often counter that they expect to lose their money and consider it to be a form of entertainment, but the whole of the entertainm…

>> Gambling has a negative expected value Subscribing to Netflix has a negative expected value. Ban Netflix.

You cannot bankrupt yourself, your family, and your friends by paying for Netflix. They will only take so much of your money.

Re: Addiction Markets

#448

Post by paulryanrogers »

Libidinalecon wrote: post #274
rufus_foreman wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Gambling has a negative expected value Subscribing to Netflix has a negative expected value. Ban Netflix.

Even more so are restaurants exploiting the public with over priced food compared to cooking at home. Food that is so good that it is addictive. Restaurants are immoral too since think of the negative health consequences they cause exploiting this situation with their addictive substances. They even put more butter than necessary in the food to make it more addictive. The wait staff treated literally like servants. "…

Gambling has unbounded loss potential. That factor is being shamelessly exploited by providers. Restaurants and Netflix have upper bounds on how much financial harm they can inflict upon you, should you compulsively pay for them.

Re: Addiction Markets

#449

Post by rufus_foreman »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #447
rufus_foreman wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Gambling has a negative expected value Subscribing to Netflix has a negative expected value. Ban Netflix.

You cannot bankrupt yourself, your family, and your friends by paying for Netflix. They will only take so much of your money.

There's more than Netflix. You can bankrupt yourself paying for things you can't afford.

Every streaming service you subscribe to has a negative expected value.

Re: Addiction Markets

#450

Post by falseprofit »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #401
harha wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a win to me, you can leave more for productive activity to grow and attract more, there less incentive for illegal gambling, and no one is forced to do it. If there’s a massive burden with addicts, you can still impose that the gambling industry pays more to offset.

> no one is forced to do it Go tell that to joint bank accounts and family court.

Not being forced to open a joint account either…

In all seriousness, all the pushback against paternalism comes from people who still believe in free will.

Post reply on HN