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

Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

bristol.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#51

Post by fc417fc802 »

charcircuit wrote: post #44
fc417fc802 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if they would overturn that if sufficient evidence of harm were demonstrated. They've been remarkably consistent about permitting violations of constitutional rights where the government can unambiguously demonstrate a pressing need.

The 1A does not have an exception for harm.

And yet SCOTUS has carved out a number of exceptions where they felt it was clearly necessary. Disorderly conduct and noise ordinances are examples. It's not the end of the world but (very approximately) being woken up by someone shouting in the street at 2 am was deemed a larger problem than restricting your individual right to drunkenly shout at your friend in that scenario.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#52

Post by kelseyfrog »

fn-mote wrote: post #50
kelseyfrog wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a gambling addiction is the same as not having the capacity to choose not to. Is that a misunderstanding?

People in Gambler’s Anonymous (GA) would definitely disagree with this characterization. The same way sober alcoholics would disagree with a similar statement about alcohol addiction.

Please correct me! Gaps in my understanding are opportunities to learn something new.

I'd like to know the difference between the characterization of being "powerless over alcohol" for example and not having the capacity of choice.

1. https://www.aa.org/the-twelve-steps

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#53

Post by mothballed »

eucyclos wrote: post #46
mc32 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also there’s a bit of a tragedy of the commons. If one entity is scrupulous that doesn’t mean another will. Obviously if they had any morals they’d see the bright line.

I wonder how incentives could be better aligned. Had an interesting case study where a coworker liked to gamble - he was fairly responsible, kept to his budget and treated it like an expensive hobby he enjoyed- but at the same time, he had someone else handle his retirement investments, which is an unpredictable payoff market where you come out ahead on average. I asked a couple times why he didn't replace gambling w…

I'm not sure it's irrational to sell in a market downturn. It's a way to pad your emergency savings rather than try to catch a falling knife later when you're already fired. Of course if you sell more than you need to survive a layoff, then that's probably not smart.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#54

Post by schubidubiduba »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #33
xenadu02 wrote: post #2

Super shocking (sarcasm). Gamblers are the whales of that industry. The industry is well aware of that and well aware of how much harm they can cause. But their paychecks depend on not knowing so they choose not to. Same as pay-to-win freemium games. Find the whales and milk them for all you can. For every high-spender who can afford it they know full well the other 99 cannot. They know they are ruining some people's…

No different than Big Tobacco right? They loved researching all the things that weren’t linked to smoking.

No different than big tech and their divisive algorithms. Or big pharma and side effects. Or big manufacturing and environmental harm (including harm to the people living around manufacturing companies).

It is an inherent property of unchecked capitalism to externalise and ignore any unwanted costs. Or on the flip side of that coin, profit from causing damage to others, where possible.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#55

Post by Jerrrrrrrry »

mc32 wrote: post #9
xenadu02 wrote: post #2

Super shocking (sarcasm). Gamblers are the whales of that industry. The industry is well aware of that and well aware of how much harm they can cause. But their paychecks depend on not knowing so they choose not to. Same as pay-to-win freemium games. Find the whales and milk them for all you can. For every high-spender who can afford it they know full well the other 99 cannot. They know they are ruining some people's…

Also there’s a bit of a tragedy of the commons. If one entity is scrupulous that doesn’t mean another will. Obviously if they had any morals they’d see the bright line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#56

Post by Forgeties79 »

schubidubiduba wrote: post #54
Forgeties79 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No different than Big Tobacco right? They loved researching all the things that weren’t linked to smoking.

No different than big tech and their divisive algorithms. Or big pharma and side effects. Or big manufacturing and environmental harm (including harm to the people living around manufacturing companies). It is an inherent property of unchecked capitalism to externalise and ignore any unwanted costs. Or on the flip side of that coin, profit from causing damage to others, where possible.

Absolutely

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#57

Post by lokar »

charcircuit wrote: post #44
fc417fc802 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if they would overturn that if sufficient evidence of harm were demonstrated. They've been remarkably consistent about permitting violations of constitutional rights where the government can unambiguously demonstrate a pressing need.

The 1A does not have an exception for harm.

Not true. Generally the law must be evaluated by the “strict scrutiny“ standard.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#58

Post by xXSLAYERXx »

abcde666777 wrote: post #10

I've always found the marketing around gambling (and most things really) completely disgusting. As a society I think we're far too tolerant of these things. A lot of the ads basically go along the lines of: 'you could win big and have a great time, awesome! (disclaimer: will probably ruin your life)'. It should be like it is with smoking - photos of lung cancer patients on the package. People will still do it of cour…

At this point I question whether they should even be allowed to advertise.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#59

Post by lokar »

Bratmon wrote: post #26
beloch wrote: post #8

>“Although the findings relate to direct marketing, I see no reason why the same or similar adverse effects wouldn’t occur for gambling advertising on TV or social media.” Controlling/banning advertising for Alcohol and Tobacco results in significant health benefits. Sports gambling used to be illegal in many places or limited to specific places. Now that it's available in your pocket, like a pack of smokes or a flas…

Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association, Inc. v. United States (1999) makes it illegal for the government to ban advertising of legal gambling in the US.

That was because they allowed advertising for some forms of (legal) gambling but not others.

Re: Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

#60

Post by anonymars »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #56
schubidubiduba wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No different than big tech and their divisive algorithms. Or big pharma and side effects. Or big manufacturing and environmental harm (including harm to the people living around manufacturing companies). It is an inherent property of unchecked capitalism to externalise and ignore any unwanted costs. Or on the flip side of that coin, profit from causing damage to others, where possible.

Absolutely

Ha, well, opinions sure vary here. I'm sure it has nothing to do with that Upton Sinclair quote about "understanding"
Post reply on HN