3 ms·

Just because someone is predisposed to an addiction doesn't mean that you as someone that interacts with this person doesn't have any responsibility in that sit

Just because someone is predisposed to an addiction doesn't mean that you as someone that interacts with this person doesn't have any responsibility in that situation. For instance in many places bartenders are bound by law to not give more alcohol to people that are already drunk. The biggest problem I see with gambling is that the Pareto effect shows an ugly face there: often it's just economically feasible for the operator because of the addicts.

acconrad 11y ago
This isn't exactly a fair comparison. Bartenders are bound by law not to give drunks more alcohol because they could go drive a car and kill someone. A gambler is only hurting himself when he loses his money.
- idbehold 11y ago
  That is not the reason bartenders are not supposed to give drunks more alcohol. If the person is already drunk and the bartender refuses to give them more, do you think that would encourage the person to remain at the bar or leave? Why do you think heroin or meth are illegal? Those substances are only hurting the person using them, right?
- Vaskivo 11y ago
  Well, he could also be hurting his family. Imagine a gambler betting the children's college fund. The damage is not as impactful and severe, but it is still damage. But I'm still not convinced about your parents first sentence.
  - legulere 11y ago
    Or they might lend some money without being able to pay it back. Or they might steal money. But in my opinion the harm an addict can do to others isn't even the only problem. Addiction is a sickness that needs treatment and help. Addicts are victims first (at least partly of themselves) and only then can also be perpetrators. Living off the problems of other people (by enabling them in their addiction, not by helping them) to me personally is morally questionable. It might be a bit of a cultural thing though, as here in Europe there isn't as much emphasis on the idea that everyone needs to take their luck in their own hands as there is in the US.
    - Vaskivo 11y ago
      Sure, I agree. I also think gambling is a health problem. I find your last paragraph interesting. I too, am European. But there are lots of cultures in Europe. To me, the word "responsability" struck me as being very strong. As a portuguese, we are sociably incentivised to help each other out but it usually goes as far as helping a "friend of a friend". We have almost a "helping out" economy, that I believe comes from the hardships from our parents and grandparents during the middle of the century. And it's how we make bonds with each other. But when someone can't or doesn't want to help, it's OK. The way you phrased it turned a "could do" and "might do" to a "must do".
mattmaroon 11y ago
The problem with gambling is, there are so many other readily available alternatives. Yes, DFS could maybe cut him off if he loses "too much", though how we define that is too difficult. If a guy who makes $50k a year loses $50k, that's probably too much. If Mark Zuckerberg does it's not. DFS sites surely can't be expected to know your financial situation. But anyway, suppose they could. There's always the world's biggest casino: the stock market. Or there are actual casinos. Or there are lottery tickets. In most gaming jurisdictions, casinos are required to pay for billboards and the like advertising where a problem gambler can get help. (The lotteries, which are state run, never do this, and Wall Street sure as shit doesn't.) I'd have no problem with those sites putting link to Gamblers Anonymous on every page. But beyond that, I don't think they have responsibility.
- karmacondon 11y ago
  Hey mattmaroon, I just noticed your comment here. I was thinking of you specifically when reading this article. I could have sworn you were talking about daily fantasy 7 or 8 years ago, back before it was "a thing". I'm curious, did the market play out like you thought it would? Is this about where you expect daily fantasy will end up, or are there still big changes ahead?
  - mattmaroon 11y ago
    This is exactly where we thought it would go when we started Draftmix. It is very much like them, except we did it over 8.5 years ago. (We were in YC summer 2007 and had been working on it before that.) It is a shame we weren't the ones to have gotten there. I would have learned some lessons from the rise and fall of online poker that the DFS guys don't seem to have.
bobby_9x 11y ago
"The biggest problem I see with gambling is that the Pareto effect shows an ugly face there: often it's just economically feasible for the operator because of the addicts." I'm addicted to Hackernews. Does the fact that it's a free site make the operator any less responsible? How about we just make everyone personally responsible for their own actions. Gambling addicts can just block the website. Bartenders have a responsibility not because of addiction, but because someone could actually kill themselves or others when they are too drunk. I also don't see the medical marijuana dispensaries responsibly for people that ruin their lives due to MJ addiction (yes, I know that it's not chemically addictive, but like gambling, you can get addicted to it).

acconrad 11y ago

This isn't exactly a fair comparison. Bartenders are bound by law not to give drunks more alcohol because they could go drive a car and kill someone. A gambler is only hurting himself when he loses his money.

idbehold 11y ago
That is not the reason bartenders are not supposed to give drunks more alcohol. If the person is already drunk and the bartender refuses to give them more, do you think that would encourage the person to remain at the bar or leave? Why do you think heroin or meth are illegal? Those substances are only hurting the person using them, right?
Vaskivo 11y ago
Well, he could also be hurting his family. Imagine a gambler betting the children's college fund. The damage is not as impactful and severe, but it is still damage. But I'm still not convinced about your parents first sentence.
- legulere 11y ago
  Or they might lend some money without being able to pay it back. Or they might steal money. But in my opinion the harm an addict can do to others isn't even the only problem. Addiction is a sickness that needs treatment and help. Addicts are victims first (at least partly of themselves) and only then can also be perpetrators. Living off the problems of other people (by enabling them in their addiction, not by helping them) to me personally is morally questionable. It might be a bit of a cultural thing though, as here in Europe there isn't as much emphasis on the idea that everyone needs to take their luck in their own hands as there is in the US.
  - Vaskivo 11y ago
    Sure, I agree. I also think gambling is a health problem. I find your last paragraph interesting. I too, am European. But there are lots of cultures in Europe. To me, the word "responsability" struck me as being very strong. As a portuguese, we are sociably incentivised to help each other out but it usually goes as far as helping a "friend of a friend". We have almost a "helping out" economy, that I believe comes from the hardships from our parents and grandparents during the middle of the century. And it's how we make bonds with each other. But when someone can't or doesn't want to help, it's OK. The way you phrased it turned a "could do" and "might do" to a "must do".

mattmaroon 11y ago

The problem with gambling is, there are so many other readily available alternatives. Yes, DFS could maybe cut him off if he loses "too much", though how we define that is too difficult. If a guy who makes $50k a year loses $50k, that's probably too much. If Mark Zuckerberg does it's not. DFS sites surely can't be expected to know your financial situation. But anyway, suppose they could. There's always the world's biggest casino: the stock market. Or there are actual casinos. Or there are lottery tickets. In most gaming jurisdictions, casinos are required to pay for billboards and the like advertising where a problem gambler can get help. (The lotteries, which are state run, never do this, and Wall Street sure as shit doesn't.) I'd have no problem with those sites putting link to Gamblers Anonymous on every page. But beyond that, I don't think they have responsibility.

karmacondon 11y ago
Hey mattmaroon, I just noticed your comment here. I was thinking of you specifically when reading this article. I could have sworn you were talking about daily fantasy 7 or 8 years ago, back before it was "a thing". I'm curious, did the market play out like you thought it would? Is this about where you expect daily fantasy will end up, or are there still big changes ahead?
- mattmaroon 11y ago
  This is exactly where we thought it would go when we started Draftmix. It is very much like them, except we did it over 8.5 years ago. (We were in YC summer 2007 and had been working on it before that.) It is a shame we weren't the ones to have gotten there. I would have learned some lessons from the rise and fall of online poker that the DFS guys don't seem to have.

bobby_9x 11y ago

"The biggest problem I see with gambling is that the Pareto effect shows an ugly face there: often it's just economically feasible for the operator because of the addicts." I'm addicted to Hackernews. Does the fact that it's a free site make the operator any less responsible? How about we just make everyone personally responsible for their own actions. Gambling addicts can just block the website. Bartenders have a responsibility not because of addiction, but because someone could actually kill themselves or others when they are too drunk. I also don't see the medical marijuana dispensaries responsibly for people that ruin their lives due to MJ addiction (yes, I know that it's not chemically addictive, but like gambling, you can get addicted to it).