4 ms·
I think this is more a function of the internet than purely the legality. Legal gambling wouldn't be nearly as damaging if it was limited to sportsbooks that o
by slg 1y ago
I think this is more a function of the internet than purely the legality. Legal gambling wouldn't be nearly as damaging if it was limited to sportsbooks that only allowed gambling on-site similar to how some places have handled gambling on horse racing for decades. The dangerous part is not simply the ability to bet on a sport, it's having a device in your pocket that allows you to gamble instantaneously at any time and (almost) any place.
I think the same thing applies to most vices. Any friction in engaging in the vice is a moderating influence. Someone is more likely to get dangerously drunk while drinking at home than at a bar in which you have to order every drink from a bartender. It was likely more difficult to fall into a porn addiction if you needed to look another human in the eyes when you rented that dirty VHS tape. It's easier to overeat if you're having the food delivered to your home than if you order every item from a waiter in a restaurant. When we all know an activity should be done in moderation, making it as easy to engage in that behavior as possible is probably a bad idea.
- hattmall 1y agoThat's interesting, but it's almost the opposite for me. I get way drunker in a bar because the environment is inviting and it's easier to order another drink at the bar than to get up and get it myself. The bartender typically sees when you are getting low and offers another drink. I would also spend way more money on gambling when at a location to do so. The desire to bet on sports on my phone is really low because it's boring so I won't do more than enough to make a game interesting. When I used to have to make an effort to get things that are now legal but previously illegal I would be much more compelled to make that effort to avoid having to do it in the future when I wanted the thing. Which inevitably would lead to more doing of the thing. Now that I know I can get it anytime I don't actually care about it.
- ElevenLathe 1y agoI've actually never seen a physical sportsbook where employees walk around asking for bets like a cocktail waitress. I assume there's some good reason because you're right that you would expect doing it that way would encourage more betting.
- pjc50 1y agoHorse racecourses have physical on site betting, because that's what the sport is for, but it's usually behind a desk rather than walking around. I'm not sure whether the old ambulatory bookies still exist.
- dendrite9 1y agoI think maybe you aren't the target market. Just like I don't understand my friends who somehow sink hours and hours into pay to win games. There are fake games, and even leagues, made specifically for people to bet on. To me there is no appeal, but I'd expect to someone gamblign there must be some appeal. See this article, there have been cases in cricket, but I know less about that game. https://josimarfootball.com/2024/10/21/childs-play/ https://josimarfootball.com/2024/10/21/childs-play/ I tend to agree with the parent that friction is useful for many 'sin activities' I might extend this to most drive through restaurants. For gambling having to go to a casino, a racetrack, or a bookkeeper who isn't legal all act as points where users drop out of the process. Having it on your phone is always available and the path of a user can be modified to get them to spend/bet more.
- brailsafe 1y agoI definitely agree, but I don't think all of those examples are apt. Particularly the drinking one, because I think that's fairly likely to be 50/50. Some other good examples (I think) are simply watching things. It doesn't need to be porn, think about how many people are chronically watching mindless trash content for hours at a time because we've made constant scrolling an immersive experience available all the time everywhere. I know I am. We've gone so far as to even eliminate the necessity to decide what to watch, the media companies have automated the process of turning what used to be customers into their products and delegated the friction to the telecom companies. When you think about your phone bill, really we should be paying basically nothing for it (and in some places it's nearly that cheap), but in expensive places we're paying like $80/month to engage with 5 free addictions that only take value away from our lives. They're charging us to sell ourselves to each other. Weed: I agree that it should be legal, but how many new customers have been created since a store opened in every available vacant commercial space within a legal jurisdiction? The pursuits of car and oil companies have literally re-shaped the built environment in the name of making it as easy as possible to be sedentary when you'd otherwise have to move—most significantly so in places that missed out on dense urbanization in the pre-industrial period—and now all we know how to do is get in our big SUV and drive to Costco, then to McDonalds, because otherwise there's a near-zero likelihood you have access to more economical healthy choices that are persuasively close to not drive to. Most North American cities effectively made it illegal to do anything else but sprawl, and concentrated as much wealth and power as possible in the hands of mega-franchise companies and private equity while we watched our wetlands get paved over for parking lots (we unironically should have listened to Joni Mitchell on this one). Good luck opening up a new corner store, those only go on the main avenues and shockingly someone owns that land already. Credit Cards: Obvious one, but if you obscure how much you've spent and eliminate the requirement to keep track of what's available to you, maybe even add a nice little ding sound when you tap your phone, you're going to buy a hell of a lot more.