21 ms·

No. Gambling is a part of a free society, just like drugs are. Gambling advertisements on the other hand, learn from Australia. Don't let it happen.

starspangled 2y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion but I'd like to know how you arrived there. What makes gambling a part of free society but not gambling advertisements?
- reidjs 2y ago
  The difference is self harm vs harming others. The distinction is that advertising may convince people who do not gamble to start gambling.
  - addicted 2y ago
    1. Thats a criteria based on harm, not “free society”. 2. Gambling has massive harms on others. The family of the men who gamble (it’s usually men gambling on sports), including the minor kids who cannot leave the individual and are dependent on them, as well as broader society which now has to pick up the pieces for this individual and the people dependent on him.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    In order to censor speech, to prevent leading the masses astray, the censor must hear/see it. Why isn't the censor led astray?
    - cfmcdonald 2y ago
      I can't tell if this comment is really serious. In case it needs explanation, you don't ban gambling advertising by having a censor watch every ad and then decide which ones to allow. You pass a law that says "no advertising gambling" and then if someone does it, you prosecute them.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        Somebody has to look at it to decide it should be banned.
        lillecarl 2y ago
        If you ban it it's no longer going to be produced, and all things don't affect all brains equally. As someone mentioned men are more likely to gamble, I'm sure (but don't quote me on this) that ADHD is over represented as well. If you broadcast an ad to 10 million people and 1k gets hooked it's still 1k too many lives ruined, while being an annoyance to the other ~10 million
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Marxism has resulted in the death of at least 100 million people. Should we ban Marxist content from HN?
    - matharmin 2y ago
      By your argument, moderators on HN/Reddit shouldn't remove harmful content, since moderators would still have seen it either way.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        If moderators can view it without being harmed, what makes them so special?
        matharmin 2y ago
        I can't tell whether you're trolling or serious... It's not about moderators being harmed or not. It's a preference of the wider community to not have the harmful content, and the moderators volunteering to help keep it that way. With most harmful content, the effect of seeing a single instance is not significant. Being exposed to it constantly in places you frequent for other reason (your online communities, or advertisements everwhere), builds up much more of an effect. Now moderators being constantly exposed might also be affected, but they're choosing to do so, and may have coping strategies in place for the more extreme cases.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Online communities can moderate as they see fit. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the law banning certain content. I've lived long enough to see certain kinds of content banned, and then embraced, and then a different kind of content be banned. Which era is correct in their choice of banning?
        Mustachio 2y ago
        What's the deal with trying so hard to defend the advertising of an objectively harmful industry? I think a good parallel here is Tobacco advertising. Smoking is harmful in every way, therefore I don't see any reason why advertising it to a broad audience (which will inadvertently also include children) is something we should allow. What's the net benefit of allowing such advertising? I don't see it. Yo could argue something about rights to free speech or some variation, but societies still have a responsibility to look out for the health of their people, no?
  - wellthisisgreat 2y ago
    Gambling is extraordinarily harmful to others, I personally witnessed half a dozen families ruined completely by gambling when the country I lived in allowed slot machines everywhere. “Legalize everything I can do to myself” is a wildly toxic and uneducated message that completely ignores all the knowledge we have accumulated about the weaknesses and loopholes of human nature.
    - lillecarl 2y ago
      Anecdata, I know a guy who is a chef. He's gambled it all away, it's just 30k$ (in debt) or so but considering the Swedish tax system it's actually a lot of money. Now kronofogden is after him, he's recently been handed divorce papers and the government takes half his paycheck. He's got 3 kids (duh) so it immediately affects 4 people while straining even more, for what gain? Megaprofits for $megagamblingcorp?
  - starspangled 2y ago
    That can't be the difference. Assuming parent poster is talking about gambling hurting people (and ignoring that gambling and most other addictions do hurt others, as siblings pointed out), then banning of hurting others you would mean banning bookmakers, not just their advertisements. Parent was specifically banning advertisements but seemed to be saying to leave gambling industry legal. I could see the way to argue for banning advertising being along the lines of minimizing harm. You acknowledge that gambling does hurt gamblers but also people close to them and society more broadly, but that prohibition may not be very effective so you permit regulated legal gambling (but no ads). I just don't really see how you can make it a freedom argument.
heavensteeth 2y ago
Drugs are in fact banned for the public good (ostensibly). And why aren't gambling advertisements "part of a free society"? I'm all for being skeptical of the government and its (ab)use of power, but I must admit I struggle to find a good excuse to not ban gambling past "people should be allowed to ruin their own lives".
- hifromwork 2y ago
  I'm personally leaning towards gambling ban, but I can give a few excuses not to: * Gambling won't disappear completely, but will move underground (creating mafias), or at least people will gamble online illegally (depriving country of tax revenue) * Not every gambling leads to ruin, just like alcohol drinking is not always alcoholism. At policing the way people have fun is indeed a complex issue. * There are forms of gambling that can't be regulated easily. One (unfortunately) form of gambling common recently is making insane bets in the stock market (see WallStreetBets subreddit, for example). It's even tax advantaged, compared to regular gambling. * Making gambling illegal may make it harder for gambling addicts to find the help they need.
- aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
- sneak 2y ago
  Drugs aren't banned. You can buy nicotine and caffeine and liquor everywhere. The idea that we ban things for the public good is laughable.
  - cowthulhu 2y ago
    Opiates and amphetamines seem like they obviously have a different risk profile (and resultant societal impact) than nicotine or caffeine. Somewhat off topic, but I’ve always wondered if alcohol would still be legal if it wasn’t grandfathered in by, like, every single culture ever.
    - lores 2y ago
addicted 2y ago
There is no logically consistent world in which “Gambling is a part of a free society” and “Gambling advertisements…Don’t let it happen”. If you’re taking a libertarian, its part of a free society therefore we are helpless and must allow it view, then banning the speech around it completely contradicts this view.
bsder 2y ago
> No. Gambling is a part of a free society, just like drugs are. How do you square the harm that gambling does to unrelated parties? It's really easy to lose a lot of money super fast with gambling such that suddenly your entire family is dire straits (losing the house, facing bankruptcy, etc.) before the non-gamblers have any ability to react.

starspangled 2y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion but I'd like to know how you arrived there. What makes gambling a part of free society but not gambling advertisements?

reidjs 2y ago
The difference is self harm vs harming others. The distinction is that advertising may convince people who do not gamble to start gambling.
- addicted 2y ago
  1. Thats a criteria based on harm, not “free society”. 2. Gambling has massive harms on others. The family of the men who gamble (it’s usually men gambling on sports), including the minor kids who cannot leave the individual and are dependent on them, as well as broader society which now has to pick up the pieces for this individual and the people dependent on him.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  In order to censor speech, to prevent leading the masses astray, the censor must hear/see it. Why isn't the censor led astray?
  - cfmcdonald 2y ago
    I can't tell if this comment is really serious. In case it needs explanation, you don't ban gambling advertising by having a censor watch every ad and then decide which ones to allow. You pass a law that says "no advertising gambling" and then if someone does it, you prosecute them.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Somebody has to look at it to decide it should be banned.
      - lillecarl 2y ago
        If you ban it it's no longer going to be produced, and all things don't affect all brains equally. As someone mentioned men are more likely to gamble, I'm sure (but don't quote me on this) that ADHD is over represented as well. If you broadcast an ad to 10 million people and 1k gets hooked it's still 1k too many lives ruined, while being an annoyance to the other ~10 million
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Marxism has resulted in the death of at least 100 million people. Should we ban Marxist content from HN?
  - matharmin 2y ago
    By your argument, moderators on HN/Reddit shouldn't remove harmful content, since moderators would still have seen it either way.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      If moderators can view it without being harmed, what makes them so special?
      - matharmin 2y ago
        I can't tell whether you're trolling or serious... It's not about moderators being harmed or not. It's a preference of the wider community to not have the harmful content, and the moderators volunteering to help keep it that way. With most harmful content, the effect of seeing a single instance is not significant. Being exposed to it constantly in places you frequent for other reason (your online communities, or advertisements everwhere), builds up much more of an effect. Now moderators being constantly exposed might also be affected, but they're choosing to do so, and may have coping strategies in place for the more extreme cases.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Online communities can moderate as they see fit. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the law banning certain content. I've lived long enough to see certain kinds of content banned, and then embraced, and then a different kind of content be banned. Which era is correct in their choice of banning?
        Mustachio 2y ago
        What's the deal with trying so hard to defend the advertising of an objectively harmful industry? I think a good parallel here is Tobacco advertising. Smoking is harmful in every way, therefore I don't see any reason why advertising it to a broad audience (which will inadvertently also include children) is something we should allow. What's the net benefit of allowing such advertising? I don't see it. Yo could argue something about rights to free speech or some variation, but societies still have a responsibility to look out for the health of their people, no?
- wellthisisgreat 2y ago
  Gambling is extraordinarily harmful to others, I personally witnessed half a dozen families ruined completely by gambling when the country I lived in allowed slot machines everywhere. “Legalize everything I can do to myself” is a wildly toxic and uneducated message that completely ignores all the knowledge we have accumulated about the weaknesses and loopholes of human nature.
  - lillecarl 2y ago
    Anecdata, I know a guy who is a chef. He's gambled it all away, it's just 30k$ (in debt) or so but considering the Swedish tax system it's actually a lot of money. Now kronofogden is after him, he's recently been handed divorce papers and the government takes half his paycheck. He's got 3 kids (duh) so it immediately affects 4 people while straining even more, for what gain? Megaprofits for $megagamblingcorp?
- starspangled 2y ago
  That can't be the difference. Assuming parent poster is talking about gambling hurting people (and ignoring that gambling and most other addictions do hurt others, as siblings pointed out), then banning of hurting others you would mean banning bookmakers, not just their advertisements. Parent was specifically banning advertisements but seemed to be saying to leave gambling industry legal. I could see the way to argue for banning advertising being along the lines of minimizing harm. You acknowledge that gambling does hurt gamblers but also people close to them and society more broadly, but that prohibition may not be very effective so you permit regulated legal gambling (but no ads). I just don't really see how you can make it a freedom argument.

heavensteeth 2y ago

Drugs are in fact banned for the public good (ostensibly). And why aren't gambling advertisements "part of a free society"? I'm all for being skeptical of the government and its (ab)use of power, but I must admit I struggle to find a good excuse to not ban gambling past "people should be allowed to ruin their own lives".

hifromwork 2y ago
I'm personally leaning towards gambling ban, but I can give a few excuses not to: * Gambling won't disappear completely, but will move underground (creating mafias), or at least people will gamble online illegally (depriving country of tax revenue) * Not every gambling leads to ruin, just like alcohol drinking is not always alcoholism. At policing the way people have fun is indeed a complex issue. * There are forms of gambling that can't be regulated easily. One (unfortunately) form of gambling common recently is making insane bets in the stock market (see WallStreetBets subreddit, for example). It's even tax advantaged, compared to regular gambling. * Making gambling illegal may make it harder for gambling addicts to find the help they need.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
sneak 2y ago
Drugs aren't banned. You can buy nicotine and caffeine and liquor everywhere. The idea that we ban things for the public good is laughable.
- cowthulhu 2y ago
  Opiates and amphetamines seem like they obviously have a different risk profile (and resultant societal impact) than nicotine or caffeine. Somewhat off topic, but I’ve always wondered if alcohol would still be legal if it wasn’t grandfathered in by, like, every single culture ever.
  - lores 2y ago

addicted 2y ago

There is no logically consistent world in which “Gambling is a part of a free society” and “Gambling advertisements…Don’t let it happen”. If you’re taking a libertarian, its part of a free society therefore we are helpless and must allow it view, then banning the speech around it completely contradicts this view.

bsder 2y ago

> No. Gambling is a part of a free society, just like drugs are. How do you square the harm that gambling does to unrelated parties? It's really easy to lose a lot of money super fast with gambling such that suddenly your entire family is dire straits (losing the house, facing bankruptcy, etc.) before the non-gamblers have any ability to react.