51–60 of 103 posts
I work in advertising and defend tracking, targeting, Meta, etc all the time as largely harmless. But I think one exception is when they promote products which are bad. Tobacco ads are already banned - gambling should 100% be a banned ad category. So should mobile apps that are basically gambling in disguise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absolutely true and not hard to look up
Then can you share a link? I've seen stuff about negative economic effects of compulsive gambling, but never anything at the aggregate level including the non-problem gamblers. It seems really odd any country would allow gambling if the aggregate effect is negative and so well known. Politicians always talk about the economic benefits (beyond just taxes), but they've also been known to lie.
The same people who will say that gambling should be illegal are the same people who believe that you should be allowed to take any amount of psychoactive drugs that are addictive for almost everyone and leave a double-digit proportion of users with mental illness (as is apparent to anyone who has compared the US with other countries, the number of mentally ill people is staggering).
In particular, the US was the largest gambling market before...when it was illegal. The reason why it is legal is harm reduction. In addition, if you look at some markets where it is not only legal but significant government intervention in activity of gambling companies you find harm because it causes people to go back to illegal casinos.
All of this stuff has been proven over and over again across the world. But the reality is that people do not like other people doing things they don't do themselves. That is it.
And, for some reason, no-one had an issue when large donors to both US political parties were able to pass laws to make competition in gambling illegal. Massive political corruption that people who talk about morals had no issue with whatsoever...again, because it isn't about morals, it is about other people doing something they don't like and them wanting to stop them doing it.
Gambling is definitely one of the weird ones because it is only in countries like the US and China where gambling has a terrible rep...because it has been illegal and a great source of revenue for organised crime. In places like the UK, people gamble, they have fun, and just get on with their lives (again, it is so strange that the US has this attitude...drugs, morbid obesity...no, it is people betting on the Kentucky Derby that need to be brought to heel...of course, not the homeless person smoking crack, it is the guy betting $20 on the SuperBowl, he just can't control himself, the animal).
Finally, something that the Guardian never mention is that the only people gambling addiction treatment in the UK up to about three years ago was...gambling companies. NHS wouldn't fund it at all. I think people assume that the government will regulate correctly, that the government will create a better solution...nowhere is this more apparently wrong than in gambling sector (and one big issue in the UK has been increasing growth of the unregulated sector due to the significant rise in the cost of getting a licence due to the skyrocketing budget/staffing in the Gambling Commission...it is more important for them to keep budgets growing, keep the pay rises than reduce harm...who could have forseen this?).
I'm in the UK and have been applying for dev jobs over the last six months. I've had at least five approaches from recruiters representing gambling companies. They seem to have a lot of money to spend on salaries, and promise experience of languages like Go, and also ML, data science, etc. I always give them the same answer: no. I don't work for parasites. I remember the time before the Blair government unwisely dere…
Are there any other parasites you wouldn't work for?
I'm in the UK and have been applying for dev jobs over the last six months. I've had at least five approaches from recruiters representing gambling companies. They seem to have a lot of money to spend on salaries, and promise experience of languages like Go, and also ML, data science, etc. I always give them the same answer: no. I don't work for parasites. I remember the time before the Blair government unwisely dere…
Not sure when that was but in Australia a similar decision was made in... 2007 or 2008 maybe? It feels like it has been a constant race to the bottom with endless competing companies trying to out-do each other with enticements to bring in new/re-engage existing players (none of whom have any loyalty anyway).
I know monopolies have their issues but I don't remember it being like this when there was a single operator (yes there have always been problem gamblers but 20 years there wasn't wall to wall advertising, deposit-matching, odds-boost etc).
I work in advertising and defend tracking, targeting, Meta, etc all the time as largely harmless. But I think one exception is when they promote products which are bad. Tobacco ads are already banned - gambling should 100% be a banned ad category. So should mobile apps that are basically gambling in disguise.
I live in a Midwest state that allows gambling completely unrestricted, including apps where you just give a credit card and press a slot machine button and (inevitably) lose all your money. I also watch the local news each morning as part of my morning routine. It’s utterly ridiculous how many gambling ads are on tv now. Like outside of election season with political ads, it feels like 9 in 10 ads are for some gambl…
I've never made a bet before, on an app or in a betting shop and have no inclination to ever do so. However, in the UK I'm bombarded with gambling (bingo and 'games') advertisements on daytime TV aimed at trying to convince me it's actually in some way fun to pittle away my money. Then if I watch anything after 10pm on a UK streaming service or live advertising funded TV, I'm absolutely battered with endless gambling…
I have made exactly one actual bet for money. In December 2020 I bet that Donald Trump had lost the US Presidential Election, which he had done the previous month. Ordinarily of course you can't make bets like that because nobody wants the other side of the bet†, but there were plenty of takers for "No, Donald Trump actually won" so I got paid off, it wasn't a huge profit but it was meaningful. † There are two ways y…
The odds didn't look so friendly when I considered them as a chance of a coup.
And indeed, then Jan 6 happened, and people are sill here on this website arguing that what specifically happened on that day doesn't meet their idea of an attempted coup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty rampant in the US too. I don't think a little gambling is bad, but the endless ads are a huge problem. They should really make all advertising of commonly addictive stuff banned - gambling, alcohol, etc. They should also do a better job of educating kids in school about the dangers and tricks. They were going you $100+ to open an account, or doing a deposit match up to $1k here. It's exactly what drug dea…
I think sports betting is obnoxious and stupid but I do worry about this moral policing some seem to want to do. The people I know losing money to online sports betting are the same people who thought they were going to become pro online poker grinders 15 years ago. If you got rid of online sports betting they would go play slots at the casino more and waste their money on the lottery. If you get rid of all games of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absolutely true and not hard to look up
Can you find a link for me if it’s not hard? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63bc25b4d3bf7... This looks fairly official and cites 1.05 to 1.77 billion £ in societal cost on page 6. That’s less than 14 billion £.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have made exactly one actual bet for money. In December 2020 I bet that Donald Trump had lost the US Presidential Election, which he had done the previous month. Ordinarily of course you can't make bets like that because nobody wants the other side of the bet†, but there were plenty of takers for "No, Donald Trump actually won" so I got paid off, it wasn't a huge profit but it was meaningful. † There are two ways y…
I was tempted to do likewise, but then someone pointed out the risk there isn't that we might be incorrect about a very well publicised event that had already happened, it's that the other side has a successful coup to make their fantasy into a reality. The odds didn't look so friendly when I considered them as a chance of a coup. And indeed, then Jan 6 happened, and people are sill here on this website arguing that…
Now, if you're an American that doesn't help, the newly installed regime after a coup can just insist facts aren't true, so the bet is still unwise, but I'm not an American.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absolutely true and not hard to look up
Can you find a link for me if it’s not hard? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63bc25b4d3bf7... This looks fairly official and cites 1.05 to 1.77 billion £ in societal cost on page 6. That’s less than 14 billion £.
That’s looking at harm specifically not economic costs.
Direct taxes to the state are £3.3 billion, but that also ignores missing tax revenue both directly from people spending money on gambling instead of other activities and missing revenue from that economic harm.