6 ms·

There's basically no redeeming value to online gambling. When gambling was legalized in my area in 1990s it brought at least some working-class jobs and tax do

There's basically no redeeming value to online gambling. When gambling was legalized in my area in 1990s it brought at least some working-class jobs and tax dollars. Now, those tax dollars were funded by people with an addiction, but they at least went somewhere local. And you can still go gambling occasionally and get a good meal and some drinks and maybe see a show. Worst comes to worst, at least in my state, you can sign an affidavit banning yourself from the casino floor. Online gambling is just a Skinner box designed to take money out of severely addicted people's pockets. That's it. You can speed run racking up losses because the games are shorter and can be done faster. The sites operate out of jurisdictions that have loose regulations on the games. For all you know they could be making it not only unlikely, but impossible, to win. Watch a few YouTube docs on a streamer named BossManJack if you want to see just how consuming it can get.

skippyboxedhero 1y ago
There is redeeming value: it is fun and harmless for most of the population. The same people that I have seen rage against other people gambling will also argue in favour of legalising drugs which are more addictive and can cause psychosis. In addition, making it illegal does not stop actual addicts gambling. You can go offshore and get completely unregulated services, that comply with no regulators on harm prevention. The US was the largest sports betting market in the world when it was illegal in every state bar Nevada. Also, online providers maintain lists of self-excluded people with state regulators (to be clear, the state holds the list, people put themselves on the list and are banned everywhere). Casinos are significantly less regulated in this area because, due to the nature of the product, is not possible to put in limitations to the product (for example, reality checks, loss limits, giving you access to data on your usage). All regulated sites have third-party verification of their games by specialist testers and state regulators. Every change to every line of code that touches a regulated service is reported. It is not possible for operators to lose at casino games because of the scale, and you think they are willing to destroy it all to get your $10 faster? The issue with online gambling is: some people cannot resist telling what other people (usually people poorer than them) what to do, and some people have not thought the alternatives through.
- EnPissant 1y ago
  If you knew for a fact that gambling was a significant net negative to society (ie, even when you take into account illicit gambling etc), would you support its ban?
  - skippyboxedhero 1y ago
    That is like saying if you knew heroin was good then would you support giving it to children? Asking this question is a sign that you aren't interested in the answer.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    I believe that alcohol and tobacco are significant net negatives to society. Yet, I do not support a ban on alcohol and I suspect that an outright ban on tobacco would be worse than simply having high taxes on it. Sports betting is probably closest to alcohol in this regard: lots of people get moderate enjoyment from it from time to time and some people have their lives significantly harmed or even ended, meaning the overall net is negative, even though many people experience a small positive. I wouldn’t ban sports betting for the same reason I wouldn’t take away your glass of red wine with dinner.
  - coolestguy 1y ago
    There are a lot of things that are a net negative to society but since we're not slaves, we're allowed to do things that can be fun but -ev if we choose to
    - EnPissant 1y ago
      Are you opposed to any or all of the following things? - Seat belt laws - Prescription requirements for drugs (whether that be Oxytocin or blood pressure medication) - Building codes - Minimum wage
      - sokoloff 1y ago
        I wear my seatbelt and insist my family does the same, but am opposed to seat belt laws. I’m in favor of building codes for commercial and public buildings but not for detached private residences (or not at the current level anyway). I’m opposed to minimum wage laws. For oxytocin, I think people derive pleasure and overall significantly benefit from it and naturally encourage people to seek it out, despite it having a positive feedback loop in its mode of action. Used under a doctor’s care and oversight, for patients where a prescription is indicated, benefits are well in excess of side effects. Maintaining the requirement for a prescription is fine. Medicines for blood pressure management are likewise overwhelmingly beneficial, and so I want them to also be highly available to anyone for whom they’re indicated, though I think having a doctor in the loop to monitor is appropriate and needing a prescription is therefore fine.
delichon 1y ago
It facilitates the flow of capital from less to more intelligent, disciplined and foresighted allocators.
Der_Einzige 1y ago
My favorite kind of "brainrot" content is "gamer rage" videos where you watch people destroy their setups (or attack mannequin dummies like Pchooly) after getting wrecked on a video game. BossManJack and his reactions are still worse - because he's built a whole twitch/discord empire around it with his "juicers". When he was in rehab he'd spend the 1 hr with his phone he was allowed per day streaming and losing money online.
triceratops 1y ago
I remain amazed that we managed to ban tobacco advertising but alcohol and gambling, also harmful and addictive vices, continue to be advertised. Both have very little societal value, other than alcohol's traditional role as a lubricant of social interaction, and there's no reason to actively promote them. FWIW I love alcohol. I don't gamble because I don't enjoy it, but I have nothing against gambling.
- Wobbles42 1y ago
  Tobacco because a trendy social cause. Alcohol did once too but that was 100 years ago or so.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    Prohibition banned alcohol not ads, a clearly terrible idea. And tobacco remains legal to sell and consume.
- fuzzfactor 1y ago
  When I was growing up, advertising tobacco was still widespread, I remember quite well watching Fred & Barney smoke Winstons during the Flintstones first TV season. But for things like legal services, medical procedures, and pharmaceuticals which were fundamentally unethical to advertise to the public, they were still forbidden for that reason. That surely changed one day. Bless their hearts, they just wanted the kind of love that people have given to tobacco since they got a hold of it. Or it got a hold of them :\

skippyboxedhero 1y ago

There is redeeming value: it is fun and harmless for most of the population. The same people that I have seen rage against other people gambling will also argue in favour of legalising drugs which are more addictive and can cause psychosis. In addition, making it illegal does not stop actual addicts gambling. You can go offshore and get completely unregulated services, that comply with no regulators on harm prevention. The US was the largest sports betting market in the world when it was illegal in every state bar Nevada. Also, online providers maintain lists of self-excluded people with state regulators (to be clear, the state holds the list, people put themselves on the list and are banned everywhere). Casinos are significantly less regulated in this area because, due to the nature of the product, is not possible to put in limitations to the product (for example, reality checks, loss limits, giving you access to data on your usage). All regulated sites have third-party verification of their games by specialist testers and state regulators. Every change to every line of code that touches a regulated service is reported. It is not possible for operators to lose at casino games because of the scale, and you think they are willing to destroy it all to get your $10 faster? The issue with online gambling is: some people cannot resist telling what other people (usually people poorer than them) what to do, and some people have not thought the alternatives through.

EnPissant 1y ago
If you knew for a fact that gambling was a significant net negative to society (ie, even when you take into account illicit gambling etc), would you support its ban?
- skippyboxedhero 1y ago
  That is like saying if you knew heroin was good then would you support giving it to children? Asking this question is a sign that you aren't interested in the answer.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  I believe that alcohol and tobacco are significant net negatives to society. Yet, I do not support a ban on alcohol and I suspect that an outright ban on tobacco would be worse than simply having high taxes on it. Sports betting is probably closest to alcohol in this regard: lots of people get moderate enjoyment from it from time to time and some people have their lives significantly harmed or even ended, meaning the overall net is negative, even though many people experience a small positive. I wouldn’t ban sports betting for the same reason I wouldn’t take away your glass of red wine with dinner.
- coolestguy 1y ago
  There are a lot of things that are a net negative to society but since we're not slaves, we're allowed to do things that can be fun but -ev if we choose to
  - EnPissant 1y ago
    Are you opposed to any or all of the following things? - Seat belt laws - Prescription requirements for drugs (whether that be Oxytocin or blood pressure medication) - Building codes - Minimum wage
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      I wear my seatbelt and insist my family does the same, but am opposed to seat belt laws. I’m in favor of building codes for commercial and public buildings but not for detached private residences (or not at the current level anyway). I’m opposed to minimum wage laws. For oxytocin, I think people derive pleasure and overall significantly benefit from it and naturally encourage people to seek it out, despite it having a positive feedback loop in its mode of action. Used under a doctor’s care and oversight, for patients where a prescription is indicated, benefits are well in excess of side effects. Maintaining the requirement for a prescription is fine. Medicines for blood pressure management are likewise overwhelmingly beneficial, and so I want them to also be highly available to anyone for whom they’re indicated, though I think having a doctor in the loop to monitor is appropriate and needing a prescription is therefore fine.

delichon 1y ago

It facilitates the flow of capital from less to more intelligent, disciplined and foresighted allocators.

Der_Einzige 1y ago

My favorite kind of "brainrot" content is "gamer rage" videos where you watch people destroy their setups (or attack mannequin dummies like Pchooly) after getting wrecked on a video game. BossManJack and his reactions are still worse - because he's built a whole twitch/discord empire around it with his "juicers". When he was in rehab he'd spend the 1 hr with his phone he was allowed per day streaming and losing money online.

triceratops 1y ago

I remain amazed that we managed to ban tobacco advertising but alcohol and gambling, also harmful and addictive vices, continue to be advertised. Both have very little societal value, other than alcohol's traditional role as a lubricant of social interaction, and there's no reason to actively promote them. FWIW I love alcohol. I don't gamble because I don't enjoy it, but I have nothing against gambling.

Wobbles42 1y ago
Tobacco because a trendy social cause. Alcohol did once too but that was 100 years ago or so.
- triceratops 1y ago
  Prohibition banned alcohol not ads, a clearly terrible idea. And tobacco remains legal to sell and consume.
fuzzfactor 1y ago
When I was growing up, advertising tobacco was still widespread, I remember quite well watching Fred & Barney smoke Winstons during the Flintstones first TV season. But for things like legal services, medical procedures, and pharmaceuticals which were fundamentally unethical to advertise to the public, they were still forbidden for that reason. That surely changed one day. Bless their hearts, they just wanted the kind of love that people have given to tobacco since they got a hold of it. Or it got a hold of them :\