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

UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#91

Post by s1artibartfast »

OKRainbowKid wrote: post #83
s1artibartfast wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think so. I believe The starting point is often mostly functional people, Some of these have major problems which are struggling to manage. Drugs can lead to a decent path with the end stage of hopelessness and massively more problems than they started with. I think early intervention is possible, and how it works for the vast majority of people. Not everyone who has a beer or line of coke starts off miserable…

I had to read that sentence three times before realizing "decent" should be "descent".

Sorry about that and thanks for the attentive read.

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#92

Post by giantg2 »

selbyk wrote: post #90
giantg2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it possible you could make a mistake that maimed someone? Or that the medical billing is burdensome to some people? On the whole you might be helping people, but I would think there's a small minority that is negatively impacted too.

What benefit does gambling have?

Entertainment

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#93

Post by _DeadFred_ »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #68
spencerflem wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think heavy drug use is more a symptom of hopelessness than the other way round

I dont think so. I believe The starting point is often mostly functional people, Some of these have major problems which are struggling to manage. Drugs can lead to a decent path with the end stage of hopelessness and massively more problems than they started with. I think early intervention is possible, and how it works for the vast majority of people. Not everyone who has a beer or line of coke starts off miserable…

Problem is you are talking about grandpa in the areas OP is talking about, while OP is talking about the third gen addicts that never got any early days, just a life of always living with (others) addiction, and now their own.

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#94

Post by skippyboxedhero »

giantg2 wrote: post #64
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negative effects are generally low. Some types of gambling are close to zero harm (i.e. bingo, some kinds of machines, and sports betting), and the rate of addiction in most studies is under 0.5-1%. 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 doubl…

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with my comment. I was asking for the data where the grandparent was saying the economic effect is net negative.

And as I explained in my post, there is substantial evidence that the effect (including the economic) is positive.

The reason why the other information is included is because if you are arguing from fact, you do not understand this topic. None of the arguments are fact-based (when someone says they made a decision based on data, it does not mean it is objective).

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#95

Post by cm2012 »

EA-3167 wrote: post #7
cm2012 wrote: post #3

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.

How do you feel about advertising alcohol, Gacha games, MLM businesses and things like that?

I'd ban them all

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#96

Post by spencerflem »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #68
spencerflem wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think heavy drug use is more a symptom of hopelessness than the other way round

I dont think so. I believe The starting point is often mostly functional people, Some of these have major problems which are struggling to manage. Drugs can lead to a decent path with the end stage of hopelessness and massively more problems than they started with. I think early intervention is possible, and how it works for the vast majority of people. Not everyone who has a beer or line of coke starts off miserable…

People who are not hopeless tend to care more about their jobs and relationships and thus can prioritize stopping easier. They also have a lot less of a need for the relief that drugs offer.

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#98

Post by cm2012 »

DrBazza wrote: post #25
cm2012 wrote: post #3

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 work in advertising and defend tracking, targeting, Meta, etc all the time as largely harmless. Perhaps tell that to one of my friends that has a shopping addiction. He buys endless amounts of running gear, and then resells it, basically burning thousands of pounds every year. His phone does nothing but show more and more running gear adverts. We've told him to stop but he reckons he doesn't have a problem. No ru…

Advertising is just a tool. Shopping addiction is really unfortunate but it exists with or without targeted ads - people buying too much stuff has existed since shopping existed. Like you said, you can't help someone who doesn't think they have a problem - sellers will just give them what they want.

However, some categories of products are categorically bad, like gambling. So we can ban anything that makes it easier to do those categories.

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#99

Post by cm2012 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #9
cm2012 wrote: post #3

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.

What is bad? Alcohol? Cheap clothes made to be worn a handful times and that shed microplastics all over the place? Gratuitous consumption solely for the purpose of signaling wealth? Political parties that want to restrict people’s rights?

As decided by elected officials.

Re: UK betting giant's unlawful marketing kept suicidal gambler hooked

#100

Post by Retric »

locallost wrote: post #77
Retric wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automobiles have serious positive externalities. Even just ambulances and fire trucks are a major societal benefit. I’m drawing a blank on the positive externalities gambling provides to offset its downsides? Reducing illegal gambling...

The question was which industries with such negative externalities get tolerated. So: * 1.2 million people die every year in car accidents * 200k children die every year * pollution, air pollution, but also noise pollution * people sitting in traffic for hours every day, effectively doing nothing productive * decade long destruction of communities to build roads. * additionally and especially in the US these have bee…

You misunderstand the term.

Negative externalities implies the net externalities are negative for some 3rd party, not just that there’s any negatives.

Economists don’t want to discourage net positive activities like exercise because they have some downsides. ‘People get hurt at the gym and occasionally miss work!’ isn’t a compelling argument. Frankly it’s meaningless to look at downsides in isolation, all that tells you is what scale it’s operating at.

Suppose smoking retained the unpleasant odor, but the health effects where reversed so smokers and people breathing second hand smoke lived significantly longer and healthier lives. Would economists suggest taxing it more to limit how many people smoked or limit where they could smoke? Of course not even though it had some downsides in terms of odor the benefits would hypothetically outweigh them.

Post reply on HN