The house wins in a casino. The advertiser and the house win in a social network. They do not appear all that different from the perspective of the consumer.

The house wins in a casino. The advertiser and the house win in a social network. They do not appear all that different from the perspective of the consumer. But I can understand the viewpoint that if a consumer is introduced to something useful they had a need for, but did not otherwise know how to fulfill, it could be seen as a "win-win." Some purchases are, indeed, satisfaction fulfilments, or full-circles on unmet satisfaction flows; while some fish will find themselves in a new and excellent aquarium [to stretch the analogy], not all fish delight in being caught. It depends on perspective: that of the platform owner, that of the advertiser, and that of the consumer, for what the [relative] benefit is. I still maintain that they are strikingly similar business models. One could argue that the dopamine rush one gets from playing slots is relevant and also a "win-win." If the distinction is in the end result (useful product or service versus transient dopamine rush) then your statement makes much sense, but aside from that I see no striking difference between the operation of these businesses.