8 ms·

Unfortunately Brazil also legalized it in 2018, after Dilma was impeached using very sketchy arguments (many call it a legal coup). It is spreading as a cancer

Unfortunately Brazil also legalized it in 2018, after Dilma was impeached using very sketchy arguments (many call it a legal coup). It is spreading as a cancer. This month the central bank published a report saying that in August 20% of the Bolsa Família, the largest money transfer program for very poor Brazilians, was spent on these bets. Out of the 20 million people that receive it, 5 million made bets during that month. This is 2 billion reais (about $450M) spent in a single month by the poorest Brazilians. It's a cancer. Everywhere you go there are ads. The influencers, the biggest athletes and musicians are marketing it. Although I tend to be liberal, this needs to be heavily regulated.

oceanplexian 2y ago
We’ve spent years conditioning an entire generation of kids on quick hits of dopamine from mobile phone apps. I personally believe that it’s a “glitch in the matrix” for a large enough segment of the population to cause societal chaos. As a libertarian however, I break with the opinion of making consensual activities illegal even if they are self-harming. So I guess my stance is probably the same as addictive drugs. They could be legal, but come with the same labeling, warnings, ID requirements and age restrictions that come with a pack of cigarettes. We should probably be educating kids about the dangers of addictive apps like we once did with DARE on the dangers of drugs.
- caseyohara 2y ago
  It's funny you mention DARE because studies have shown the program was a complete failure, along with the War on Drugs™ and "Just Say No". The only reason it continued as long as it did was not because it was effective, but because it was popular with politicians and the general public because they thought – intuitively – that the program should work. It did not reduce student drug use. In face, it backfired and taught kids about interesting drugs that they probably wouldn't have found learned about otherwise. This ineffective program cost U.S. taxpayers $750M per year for 26 years. Let's not do that again.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Now there's New DARE (15+ years old at this point). Not sure if this has been scrutinized as much, but supposedly it is effective since it's eligible for funding that requires demonstrated effectiveness.
  - jimbob45 2y ago
    How could you possibly study such a thing? Even if you compare DARE students against non-comparable DARE students, how could you reliably capture measure how many did drugs? People can lie on surveys, particularly with respect to illegal actions. You could measure arrests but that's not going to capture how many used drugs without ever getting arrested, nor the social context in which they were used. It's a double-edged sword too because the control data would have similar issues with obtainment. I've seen a lot of these talking points before by the pro-drug crowd. "It taught kids about interesting drugs that they probably wouldn't have learned about otherwise" is laughable when subjected to scrutiny. You'd have to live under a rock to otherwise not learn about the drugs the DARE program teaches (and they don't get particularly exotic either). The idea is asinine to begin with - you'd want kids to know about exotic drugs and their side effects to know to avoid them in the first place. The worst part is that the pro-drug crowd, like yourself, touts these talking points in an attempt to end the program - to what end? If I accept your talking points blindly that the program has failed, does that mean we simply stop trying? It seems less that you disagreed with the implementation of the program and more that you don't believe kids, or anyone, should be dissuaded from drugs.
    - stephenbez 2y ago
      Surprisingly you can test this with a randomized field test: > The Illinois D.A.R.E. Evaluation was conducted as a randomized field experiment with one pretest and multiple planned post-tests. The researchers identified 18 pairs of elementary schools, representative of urban, suburban, and rural areas throughout northern and central Illinois. Schools were matched in each pair by type, ethnic composition, number of students with limited English proficiency, and the percent of students from low income families. None of these schools had previously received D.A.R.E.. For the 12 pairs of schools located in urban and suburban areas, one school in each pair was randomly assigned to receive D.A.R.E. in the spring of 1990 https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/uic.htm https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/uic.htm Yes, surveys do have flaws but they are a better approach than just giving up and saying any research is impossible. I’d recommend we don’t simply stop trying, instead we test different programs, and only once we have shown their effectiveness do we role them out further.
- imjonse 2y ago
  Warnings do not really work in practice. What if these activities are not simply self-harming but destroy the families of the addict and large parts of the fabric of society? Even you mention societal chaos. How does the libertarian world-view accommodate that?
  - NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
    I tend to believe that warnings are somewhat effective otherwise cigarette manufacturers wouldn’t be so opposed to them.
    - dao- 2y ago
      Yes, they would still be opposed to them. A measure could well be somewhat effective on its own, but then it would require the industry to get creative and work extra hard to still get people hooked, which they will do, but they'd rather not have to do it in the first place. What's more, opposition to any type of well intended regulation is typical for harmful industries, even if the regulation might be ineffective. They do that on principle, as they don't want the precedent of getting regulated. The mere idea of having regulations for the benefit of society threatens their business models.
    - vkou 2y ago
      They oppose them, because they oppose any first steps on the slope to curtailing them. Warnings serve to ruin their image in the public eye, which makes opposing further control harder. As for gambling, there's a simple solution. Ban all advertising of it. If people really need to gamble, they'll find it on their own. This will dramatically shrink the problem overnight.
  - nick_ 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tomcam 2y ago
      How so?
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  In most respects I would consider myself a libertarian, but when it comes to hard drugs or betting, I tend to be a lot more conservative. Pot is fine, actually better for you than alcohol, but drugs like cocaine are far too addictive. That addiction actively strips away one’s freedom due to their use, and thus I find it counterproductive to a libertarian society. I would argue most forms of betting fall within this category, and much like drug use disproportionately affects poorer areas.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Geee 2y ago
  As a libertarian myself, I've come to the conclusion that anything addictive is not really consensual, because addiction can't be controlled. Thus, selling or providing addictive stuff violates consent of the buyer, and should either be illegal, or have high taxes. Maybe there should be different laws to those who are already addicted and those who are not. Drugs which are not addictive, should be legal, but have all the information about their negative effects on the label. Imo this should apply to addictive apps as well. The damage here is mostly the time that is wasted.
electronbeam 2y ago
Ban the advertising of betting, like cigarettes in many countries
stahorn 2y ago
I think it's similar with all things that hook into our dopamine centers, like alcohol, food, sugar foods, tobacco, gambling, drugs, games, ... It has to be regulated to the correct amount to benefit society. Outlawing them, like with prohibition in United States, just moves it all to black markets. Having them completely free, as has been the case with all of them at some point, also brings harm to society. Somewhere in between those two points is where it's correctly regulated. For example, maybe gamling can continue being legal but advertising for it be outlawed or severely restricted? Can gambling have the same sort of warnings as on cigarettes, maybe with children going hungry because the parent gambled away all the money for the month? Another way is that some part of the revenue from gambling could go to programs such as Bolsa Família that you bring up? Or to fight gambling addiction in some way? That's my pragmatic view of these types of thing: try to find what actually works and hurts society the least. You'll never find any perfect system with no harm anyway.
- viccis 2y ago
  >Outlawing them, like with prohibition in United States, just moves it all to black markets. Ok, good, fine. You should have to seek out a black market connect to gamble on sports.
  - tyree731 2y ago
    Maybe a fine approach for the individual, but then the black market, and its general disregard for the law or the well being of others, comes along with them.
- bbor 2y ago
  I’m pretty happy with our “no murdering” setup, even though it makes some people happy (in the moment). IMO there’s plenty of room for hardline stances. Who cares if gambling goes to the black market? There’s a black market for every serious crime - doesn’t mean we should just okay it. And I’m not sure the USA’s halfhearted only-for-the-poor prohibition is proof that the concept of banning things is broken; if it proves anything unrelated to capitalism, it proves that you need societal buy-in and continued, consistent government pressure.
pants2 2y ago
I had the pleasure of visiting a town on the Amazon river a few times over the course of a decade. I watched as western culture and civilization creeped in and ruined their society. The first time I went, people were living off the land, fishing, gardening, children playing ball games, etc. Here's what I saw last time I went: Gambling, alcoholism, plastic waste, sugary drinks, public advertising, and kids glued to their smartphones. Forests being cleared to raise cattle because now everyone wants to eat burgers. They've managed to bring in the worst parts of modern society without the good parts (medicine, infrastructure, education, etc.) I do believe that without a modern education, these people are not equipped to deal with modern vices. They've never taken a math class let alone learned enough probability to know that gambling is a losing bet. They've never had a nutrition class to learn that Coca Cola is disastrous to your health.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > I do believe that without a modern education, these people are not equipped to deal with modern vices. This isn't limited to the third world. The reason sports betting becomes such a problem is that people don't have a solid foundation in basic statistics. People go bankrupt by thinking they can get out of a small debt by placing even larger bets at a negative expected value.
  - exogenousdata 2y ago
    Martingale, baby!!!
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Martingale is dumb, but i think that's the point, it's telling you what not to do because the only way to recover your initial lost bet is to have a larger bank than the house (and why casinos restrict max bets, $2000 max, $10000 max) - martingale fails. If you just gotta have a betting system because it helps quell the gambling anxiety or whatever, reverse martingale is fine. I made a video a long time ago about how it works[0] - but in essence, you only stand to lose your initial bet, and you have a bet schedule if you start winning. In "bet units" the way i do it is 1 unit until a win, then for each consecutive win: 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5 (etc). Everything after the first 3 unit bet is the casino's money you're gambling with, which is a good feeling. Note, this implies i consider each "round" that starts after a loss as separate from other rounds, obviously if you lose 20 times in a row and then win 3 games you're not suddenly in the green! There's no system guaranteed to make you winner, but there are systems to help you lose more slowly, and reverse martingale is my go-to [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwu-5g3q-2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwu-5g3q-2E
erfgh 2y ago
The figures you state are misleading. Money bet is not money lost. For example, roulette payout is 97.3% and sports betting payout can be as high as 99% or even 100% (done to attract players so that they open an account).
- nullc 2y ago
  Pop quiz: What's better for your wallet? a game with a 66% expected payout that you will play twice before you lose interest, or a game with a 97.3% payout that you'll play 31 times on average? The comparison needs to be in terms of typical use, otherwise engineering for addictiveness gets a free pass because it often hinges on frequent small rewards and can have a near unity return on a single shot basis yet be a big money maker for the house. Of course there are probably 'safer' forms of gambling that some addicts are presumably able to use to maintain their addiction at a level which isn't disruptive to their life. ... but single shot EV isn't the right metric. Some weekly state lottery usually has pretty poor EV, yet is seldom ruining anyone.
- jjice 2y ago
  I'm not sure I'd call them misleading because they didn't say the money was gone, just that it was spent (not implying it didn't come back). The fact that that much money was bet at all for an aid program is astonishing and unfortunate. Sure, not all of that money was lost, but I'd call any of those returned "winnings" an investment by the sports betting companies to secure clients for life.
  - titanomachy 2y ago
    I'm curious which statistic they actually used (spent vs lost). If you're playing a quick game with 99% payout, you could earn $1k of income in a month and "spend" $10k on gambling. It seems like money lost would be an easier figure to compare.
definitelyauser 2y ago
> The influencers, the biggest athletes and musicians are marketing it The government is marketing it. Public concerts hosted by the municipality will have gambling ads posted all over, sponsored by the latest scam. Sample size: Alagoas/Pernambuco. Cannot say anything about the gambling ads in the other states.
yas_hmaheshwari 2y ago
Same thing is happening in India. For a poor country like India, Sports betting app that shows advertisements that you can make this much money should be banned. It is literally taking money from the poorest and most gullible Indians to the owners.
hei-lima 2y ago
There is simply no reason why this should not be better regulated here in Brazil. It ruins families and the sport. They can advertise themselves freely.
afh1 2y ago
The impeachment has zero relation with this topic, you are using this space to drop in a political and highly controversial statement in order to try and gain visibility to your highly contentious POV. How is this not removed yet? Flagged.
leonidasv 2y ago
I'd argue that sports betting is not the biggest concern. What we saw was the rise of online cassinos after a new law in 2023 classified them as "sports betting" too. Betting your team will win the tournament has a very delayed reward: the game needs to play out for hours/minutes before you know if you have won. Only hardcore gamblers experience instant rewards and becoming a 'serious' sports gambler is no easy task: you have learn about the sport, then teams, the players, the outcomes, the time of the matches, etc. Cassinos, on the other hand, are just an app with a lever that provides instantaneous rewards and thus hook your brain with much more intensity in a shorter time span. A lot of people who don't care about sports or just won't be hooked by sports betting are now trapped in those online cassinos. It's a shame.

oceanplexian 2y ago

We’ve spent years conditioning an entire generation of kids on quick hits of dopamine from mobile phone apps. I personally believe that it’s a “glitch in the matrix” for a large enough segment of the population to cause societal chaos. As a libertarian however, I break with the opinion of making consensual activities illegal even if they are self-harming. So I guess my stance is probably the same as addictive drugs. They could be legal, but come with the same labeling, warnings, ID requirements and age restrictions that come with a pack of cigarettes. We should probably be educating kids about the dangers of addictive apps like we once did with DARE on the dangers of drugs.

caseyohara 2y ago
It's funny you mention DARE because studies have shown the program was a complete failure, along with the War on Drugs™ and "Just Say No". The only reason it continued as long as it did was not because it was effective, but because it was popular with politicians and the general public because they thought – intuitively – that the program should work. It did not reduce student drug use. In face, it backfired and taught kids about interesting drugs that they probably wouldn't have found learned about otherwise. This ineffective program cost U.S. taxpayers $750M per year for 26 years. Let's not do that again.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Now there's New DARE (15+ years old at this point). Not sure if this has been scrutinized as much, but supposedly it is effective since it's eligible for funding that requires demonstrated effectiveness.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  How could you possibly study such a thing? Even if you compare DARE students against non-comparable DARE students, how could you reliably capture measure how many did drugs? People can lie on surveys, particularly with respect to illegal actions. You could measure arrests but that's not going to capture how many used drugs without ever getting arrested, nor the social context in which they were used. It's a double-edged sword too because the control data would have similar issues with obtainment. I've seen a lot of these talking points before by the pro-drug crowd. "It taught kids about interesting drugs that they probably wouldn't have learned about otherwise" is laughable when subjected to scrutiny. You'd have to live under a rock to otherwise not learn about the drugs the DARE program teaches (and they don't get particularly exotic either). The idea is asinine to begin with - you'd want kids to know about exotic drugs and their side effects to know to avoid them in the first place. The worst part is that the pro-drug crowd, like yourself, touts these talking points in an attempt to end the program - to what end? If I accept your talking points blindly that the program has failed, does that mean we simply stop trying? It seems less that you disagreed with the implementation of the program and more that you don't believe kids, or anyone, should be dissuaded from drugs.
  - stephenbez 2y ago
    Surprisingly you can test this with a randomized field test: > The Illinois D.A.R.E. Evaluation was conducted as a randomized field experiment with one pretest and multiple planned post-tests. The researchers identified 18 pairs of elementary schools, representative of urban, suburban, and rural areas throughout northern and central Illinois. Schools were matched in each pair by type, ethnic composition, number of students with limited English proficiency, and the percent of students from low income families. None of these schools had previously received D.A.R.E.. For the 12 pairs of schools located in urban and suburban areas, one school in each pair was randomly assigned to receive D.A.R.E. in the spring of 1990 https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/uic.htm https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/uic.htm Yes, surveys do have flaws but they are a better approach than just giving up and saying any research is impossible. I’d recommend we don’t simply stop trying, instead we test different programs, and only once we have shown their effectiveness do we role them out further.
imjonse 2y ago
Warnings do not really work in practice. What if these activities are not simply self-harming but destroy the families of the addict and large parts of the fabric of society? Even you mention societal chaos. How does the libertarian world-view accommodate that?
- NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
  I tend to believe that warnings are somewhat effective otherwise cigarette manufacturers wouldn’t be so opposed to them.
  - dao- 2y ago
    Yes, they would still be opposed to them. A measure could well be somewhat effective on its own, but then it would require the industry to get creative and work extra hard to still get people hooked, which they will do, but they'd rather not have to do it in the first place. What's more, opposition to any type of well intended regulation is typical for harmful industries, even if the regulation might be ineffective. They do that on principle, as they don't want the precedent of getting regulated. The mere idea of having regulations for the benefit of society threatens their business models.
  - vkou 2y ago
    They oppose them, because they oppose any first steps on the slope to curtailing them. Warnings serve to ruin their image in the public eye, which makes opposing further control harder. As for gambling, there's a simple solution. Ban all advertising of it. If people really need to gamble, they'll find it on their own. This will dramatically shrink the problem overnight.
- nick_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tomcam 2y ago
    How so?
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
In most respects I would consider myself a libertarian, but when it comes to hard drugs or betting, I tend to be a lot more conservative. Pot is fine, actually better for you than alcohol, but drugs like cocaine are far too addictive. That addiction actively strips away one’s freedom due to their use, and thus I find it counterproductive to a libertarian society. I would argue most forms of betting fall within this category, and much like drug use disproportionately affects poorer areas.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Geee 2y ago
As a libertarian myself, I've come to the conclusion that anything addictive is not really consensual, because addiction can't be controlled. Thus, selling or providing addictive stuff violates consent of the buyer, and should either be illegal, or have high taxes. Maybe there should be different laws to those who are already addicted and those who are not. Drugs which are not addictive, should be legal, but have all the information about their negative effects on the label. Imo this should apply to addictive apps as well. The damage here is mostly the time that is wasted.

electronbeam 2y ago

Ban the advertising of betting, like cigarettes in many countries

stahorn 2y ago

I think it's similar with all things that hook into our dopamine centers, like alcohol, food, sugar foods, tobacco, gambling, drugs, games, ... It has to be regulated to the correct amount to benefit society. Outlawing them, like with prohibition in United States, just moves it all to black markets. Having them completely free, as has been the case with all of them at some point, also brings harm to society. Somewhere in between those two points is where it's correctly regulated. For example, maybe gamling can continue being legal but advertising for it be outlawed or severely restricted? Can gambling have the same sort of warnings as on cigarettes, maybe with children going hungry because the parent gambled away all the money for the month? Another way is that some part of the revenue from gambling could go to programs such as Bolsa Família that you bring up? Or to fight gambling addiction in some way? That's my pragmatic view of these types of thing: try to find what actually works and hurts society the least. You'll never find any perfect system with no harm anyway.

viccis 2y ago
>Outlawing them, like with prohibition in United States, just moves it all to black markets. Ok, good, fine. You should have to seek out a black market connect to gamble on sports.
- tyree731 2y ago
  Maybe a fine approach for the individual, but then the black market, and its general disregard for the law or the well being of others, comes along with them.
bbor 2y ago
I’m pretty happy with our “no murdering” setup, even though it makes some people happy (in the moment). IMO there’s plenty of room for hardline stances. Who cares if gambling goes to the black market? There’s a black market for every serious crime - doesn’t mean we should just okay it. And I’m not sure the USA’s halfhearted only-for-the-poor prohibition is proof that the concept of banning things is broken; if it proves anything unrelated to capitalism, it proves that you need societal buy-in and continued, consistent government pressure.

pants2 2y ago

I had the pleasure of visiting a town on the Amazon river a few times over the course of a decade. I watched as western culture and civilization creeped in and ruined their society. The first time I went, people were living off the land, fishing, gardening, children playing ball games, etc. Here's what I saw last time I went: Gambling, alcoholism, plastic waste, sugary drinks, public advertising, and kids glued to their smartphones. Forests being cleared to raise cattle because now everyone wants to eat burgers. They've managed to bring in the worst parts of modern society without the good parts (medicine, infrastructure, education, etc.) I do believe that without a modern education, these people are not equipped to deal with modern vices. They've never taken a math class let alone learned enough probability to know that gambling is a losing bet. They've never had a nutrition class to learn that Coca Cola is disastrous to your health.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> I do believe that without a modern education, these people are not equipped to deal with modern vices. This isn't limited to the third world. The reason sports betting becomes such a problem is that people don't have a solid foundation in basic statistics. People go bankrupt by thinking they can get out of a small debt by placing even larger bets at a negative expected value.
- exogenousdata 2y ago
  Martingale, baby!!!
- genewitch 2y ago
  Martingale is dumb, but i think that's the point, it's telling you what not to do because the only way to recover your initial lost bet is to have a larger bank than the house (and why casinos restrict max bets, $2000 max, $10000 max) - martingale fails. If you just gotta have a betting system because it helps quell the gambling anxiety or whatever, reverse martingale is fine. I made a video a long time ago about how it works[0] - but in essence, you only stand to lose your initial bet, and you have a bet schedule if you start winning. In "bet units" the way i do it is 1 unit until a win, then for each consecutive win: 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5 (etc). Everything after the first 3 unit bet is the casino's money you're gambling with, which is a good feeling. Note, this implies i consider each "round" that starts after a loss as separate from other rounds, obviously if you lose 20 times in a row and then win 3 games you're not suddenly in the green! There's no system guaranteed to make you winner, but there are systems to help you lose more slowly, and reverse martingale is my go-to [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwu-5g3q-2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwu-5g3q-2E

erfgh 2y ago

The figures you state are misleading. Money bet is not money lost. For example, roulette payout is 97.3% and sports betting payout can be as high as 99% or even 100% (done to attract players so that they open an account).

nullc 2y ago
Pop quiz: What's better for your wallet? a game with a 66% expected payout that you will play twice before you lose interest, or a game with a 97.3% payout that you'll play 31 times on average? The comparison needs to be in terms of typical use, otherwise engineering for addictiveness gets a free pass because it often hinges on frequent small rewards and can have a near unity return on a single shot basis yet be a big money maker for the house. Of course there are probably 'safer' forms of gambling that some addicts are presumably able to use to maintain their addiction at a level which isn't disruptive to their life. ... but single shot EV isn't the right metric. Some weekly state lottery usually has pretty poor EV, yet is seldom ruining anyone.
jjice 2y ago
I'm not sure I'd call them misleading because they didn't say the money was gone, just that it was spent (not implying it didn't come back). The fact that that much money was bet at all for an aid program is astonishing and unfortunate. Sure, not all of that money was lost, but I'd call any of those returned "winnings" an investment by the sports betting companies to secure clients for life.
- titanomachy 2y ago
  I'm curious which statistic they actually used (spent vs lost). If you're playing a quick game with 99% payout, you could earn $1k of income in a month and "spend" $10k on gambling. It seems like money lost would be an easier figure to compare.

definitelyauser 2y ago

> The influencers, the biggest athletes and musicians are marketing it The government is marketing it. Public concerts hosted by the municipality will have gambling ads posted all over, sponsored by the latest scam. Sample size: Alagoas/Pernambuco. Cannot say anything about the gambling ads in the other states.

yas_hmaheshwari 2y ago

Same thing is happening in India. For a poor country like India, Sports betting app that shows advertisements that you can make this much money should be banned. It is literally taking money from the poorest and most gullible Indians to the owners.

hei-lima 2y ago

There is simply no reason why this should not be better regulated here in Brazil. It ruins families and the sport. They can advertise themselves freely.

afh1 2y ago

The impeachment has zero relation with this topic, you are using this space to drop in a political and highly controversial statement in order to try and gain visibility to your highly contentious POV. How is this not removed yet? Flagged.

leonidasv 2y ago

I'd argue that sports betting is not the biggest concern. What we saw was the rise of online cassinos after a new law in 2023 classified them as "sports betting" too. Betting your team will win the tournament has a very delayed reward: the game needs to play out for hours/minutes before you know if you have won. Only hardcore gamblers experience instant rewards and becoming a 'serious' sports gambler is no easy task: you have learn about the sport, then teams, the players, the outcomes, the time of the matches, etc. Cassinos, on the other hand, are just an app with a lever that provides instantaneous rewards and thus hook your brain with much more intensity in a shorter time span. A lot of people who don't care about sports or just won't be hooked by sports betting are now trapped in those online cassinos. It's a shame.