The NYT will also criticize those apps, a whole lot you can find here: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/sports-betting-daily-fantasy-games-fanduel-draftkings

The NYT will also criticize those apps, a whole lot you can find here: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/sports-betting-daily-fantasy-games-fanduel-draftkings https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/sports-betting-daily-fant... That collection (with the not-so-sunny title "The Dark World of Fantasy Sports and Online Gambling") has various news about the industry plus features with titles like "How the Daily Fantasy Industry Turns Fans Into Suckers." One could argue that they should accept fewer advertisers in general, but otherwise seems like nothing to see here re: RobinHood vs FanDuel or whoever. Unless there's a specific case of "RobinHood ads were rejected while FanDuel ones weren't or such" that would be more interesting... Personally I don't really agree with the idea that a publication should be expected to have a monolithic, religious-level fervor or single-voice to their editorial positions. I would sooner want to crack down on advertising-funded publications in general.