6 ms·

You may have a cool product in the field of sports betting, casinos, or lotteries. But almost all social networks and search engines won’t let you adver

You may have a cool product in the field of sports betting, casinos, or lotteries. But almost all social networks and search engines won’t let you advertise without a license from the required jurisdiction. Good. You should face social stigma for creating products that literally ruin people's lives.

antonymoose 6mo ago
Not to mention the entitlement of startups to just flaunt laws and regulations. Still kills me to this day Uber and AirBNB running illegal billion dollar operations. I suppose one can at least say Uber mitigates drunk driving tendencies. As far as AirBNB goes, it can rot straight in hell. My hometown is now 20% AirBNB, they ran illegally for many years, and this completely prices out normal folks trying to live near their families.
- RHSeeger 6mo ago
  I don't have a problem with them actively choosing to break laws to protest the laws themselves; to try to get them changed. Civil disobedience is a long standing practice. However, part of doing that is facing the consequences of breaking those laws; being arrested, etc. Just because _you_ think the law isn't just doesn't mean it's not a law - it just means you think it should be changed. And the companies in question break the law and then whine and complain like they shouldn't need to face the consequences; like the law shouldn't apply to them because they don't think it's fair.
  - watwut 6mo ago
    Meh. What they are doing is NOT civil disobedience and protest. What they are doing is just normal breaking the law for profit thing. That being said, I also dont think that civil disobedience means you have to accept whatever harsh punishment whatever authoritarian is using. It is actually ok to avoid those.
    - mcmcmc 6mo ago
      Yep. This would be like saying illegal dumping of hazardous waste is the same as protesting environmental protection laws. It’s just for-profit crime.
  - Forgeties79 6mo ago
    >I don't have a problem with them actively choosing to break laws to protest the laws themselves Do you truly believe this is some protest action by Airbnb? Because I think most of us rightly characterize it as "intentionally breaking the law for profit" and little more than that. I'm not sure I like seeing their behavior compared to legitimate protests and activist work. That seems rather insulting to the people and organizations who actually take real risks for the public good. This is a silicon valley startup, a VC-funded profit machine disrupting communities around the world by breaking the law. To paint this as somehow altruistic is a novel take to say the least.
  - AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
    > However, part of doing that is facing the consequences of breaking those laws; being arrested, etc. This form of civil disobedience is effective against bad laws that nevertheless assign punishments proportional to the nominal offense. If "demonstrations without a permit" is punished by a week in jail and they won't give you a permit then you do the demonstration and spend the week in jail. A week later you're back out there demonstrating again. MLK Jr. was arrested 29 times in a span of 11 years. It doesn't really work in the modern system which is tuned for coercing plea bargains and full of three strikes laws, because then "pissing off the government" is an aggravating factor that causes them to stack more charges until you're facing years instead of days. Then you're not making a point through a willingness to spend a few nights in a cell before your next press conference, you're getting taken off the board. It also never really worked against bad economic rules because the nature of bad economic rules is to make good economic behavior uneconomical, like converting units to types in higher demand or funding new construction. The deleterious effect of the rule is that instead of it costing $50,000 to add a housing unit, it costs $500,000. But doing civil disobedience by building it anyway would catch you >$500,000 in fines and penalties, or carries penalties like demolition of the structure. So the bad law acts as an extremely effective deterrent against doing the good thing by making it uneconomical regardless of whether you follow the law or you don't. A bankrupt company can't continue to advocate for change or serve as an example of doing something good. And if they actually did pay the fines then instead of people saying "that's not real civil disobedience" they would be saying "look at these lawless corporations paying token fines as a cost of doing business" and arguing for the penalties to be increased to a level that would bankrupt them wherever that isn't already the case. So the remaining option is to break the law and then argue that the law is harmful and shouldn't be enforced.
- lopsotronic 6mo ago
  If you can figure out a Gig Economy way to get robot/remote/AI pilots into airline cockpits, you will make a mint. "What? I can save ten bucks on airfare if I accept a robot pilot? GIVE ME THAT TICKET" A mint we will then need to spend on bribes to ALPA. DoT is almost entirely captured now, so that's less of a problem. In fact, here's a much better get-rich app / scheme: use AI to find regulatory situations that are both easy to break and profitable to break and where enforcement is usually just done to poor people. The Ubermaker. Why dig a gold mine when you can sell the shovels.
  - b40d-48b2-979e 6mo ago
    This comment severely lacks second-order thinking. The regulations exist for a reason. Removing them because some billionaire wants to make a buck is not a good reason.
  - AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
    > In fact, here's a much better get-rich app / scheme: use AI to find regulatory situations that are both easy to break and profitable to break and where enforcement is usually just done to poor people. How about a less cynical alternative: Use it to find ways to defeat regulatory capture so that you can enter a large market which is currently locked up by incumbents, or make more in an ancillary market from doing "commoditize your complement" on the one which is currently captured.
- AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
  > My hometown is now 20% AirBNB, they ran illegally for many years, and this completely prices out normal folks trying to live near their families. If people are getting priced out, that implies that either the cost of a unit is more than the cost of construction, or that the cost of construction is unreasonably high. If it's the first one the higher demand should just lead to more construction instead of higher prices, because units that sell for more than they cost to build are profitable to build and supply expands until the price falls below the cost. If it's the second one, the actual source of your problem is high regulatory costs and NIMBYism rather than AirBNB.
- gosub100 6mo ago
  The taxi medallion racket in NYC was pretty bad. I do agree it must be regulated but their system was broken. I am interested in the legal maneuvering they employed to actually win in court, but I've never seen a breakdown. That said I mostly agree with your points. But why didn't cab companies innovate and provide us with the same service? A yellow spandex cover that converts any car into a cab, a points program giving discounts, a ride share app that carries 5 people who all ride the same route? They instead provided nothing, other than dirty cabs with bullet proof glass (in "gun free" zones nonetheless)
- Animats 6mo ago
  "Flout", not "flaunt".
nickflw 6mo ago
So true. I wish alcohol, tobacco, gun and insurance companies and their employees faced the same stigma.
- engineer_22 6mo ago
  I live in New York. A very old very famous manufacturer of firearms, Remington Arms, which employed hundreds of people and was the economic engine of its community was forced by the State of New York to shut down. That community cannot replace what was lost when the factory closed. Poverty, crime, drugs have moved in to the void. You may be right that guns are are corrosive to a democratic society, that's an open debate. But the people who depended on that factory had the rug pulled and real harm was done without any regard to their welfare. And not everyone who depended on the factory worked there, deli owners and dry cleaners, these types of legitimate businesses are damaged when a major employer closes doors. I suppose I relate this story to you just to show that, there are other people who think like you, guns are stigmatized, and it has a real human cost. We should not be flippant with our neighbor's well being, because we can't predict the turns of fate, one day it might be our turn.
  - malfist 6mo ago
    Your statement is not grounded in the truth. Remnington did not shut down because of government interference. They employed a grand total of 100 people in NY. Hardly the "economic engine of its community" They shutdown because they sold 7.5 million guns that could fire without someone pulling the trigger and 60 minutes exposed it. And you should know that their building is being converted into a 250,000 sqft AI data center. So it's not like employment is just lost in the area.
    - BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago
      > their building is being converted into a 250,000 sqft AI data center Haven't the locals suffered enough already?
    - usui 6mo ago
      What are you talking about regarding firing guns without pulling the trigger?
jmkd 6mo ago
There are plenty of other products that literally ruin people's lives: alcohol, tobacco, sugar, pharmaceuticals, credit cards, firearms, timeshares, junk food. Society has them all on very different parts of a stigma spectrum. Honest question: why is this line so clear for you?
- malfist 6mo ago
  Honest question, why isn't the line so clear for you? We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well.
  - embedding-shape 6mo ago
    > We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well. That's most of the products being sold today, you think the most for-profit companies sell things and services in order to improve the world? They're selling stuff because they want to make money, if they can make someone addicted + extract wealth from them, then in their world that's a no-brainer.
    - malfist 6mo ago
      > That's most of the products being sold today That's just not true at all. The fruit I buy is designed to make my life worse? The vacuum cleaner? The lawn mower? The workout equipment? The standing desk for my office? The clothing I buy?
      - embedding-shape 6mo ago
        Yes, literally all those things are decreasing in quality because the companies producing and selling these want higher margins. Have you not noticed the sharp drop in quality and durability in made stuff compared to 20-30 years ago? Almost all those things are worse and lasts less today than they used to.
joosters 6mo ago
I think the more relevant point is: But almost all social networks and search engines won’t let you advertise without a license from the required jurisdiction. Which is a good thing! This is an area full of scammers, if you can't set up your business legally, I'm very happy to hear it's more difficult for you to advertise it.
- sigmoid10 6mo ago
  I mean, you also can't advertise illegal drugs either. Doesn't seem to curb demand though. It may actually be more beneficial to allow these things more broadly, because then social safety features can be wedged in between consumers and suppliers more easily and they don't have to deal with a gigantic shadow market that already gets stigmatised to death by the rest of the population. Just accept that a certain percentage of the populations has screwed up dopamine households and try to keep them away from gangsters as best you can. That would probably help society as a whole more than banning everything and pretending the problem goes away if you close your eyes.
  - VectorLock 6mo ago
    >Doesn't seem to curb demand though. Because its an addictive product. See also: gambling.
    - sigmoid10 6mo ago
      That's literally the content of this discussion? Or did you want to say something else?
      - VectorLock 6mo ago
        Is that what you meant by "dopamine households?"
        sigmoid10 6mo ago
        What did you think this means? It's not like this is a riddle or a metaphor.
bilekas 6mo ago
I was having this discussion the other day with a friend, I do believe as an adult you should be allowed to do anything you want providing you're not harming others. That said, there is a HUGE need for more regulation around advertising, cut off limits and companies recognising users with a problem. If you take a Bar for example, most barmen will notice you're already drunk as hell and cut you off, probably kick you out if not get you some water etc. It's actually a legal requirement to stop at some point in countries. Casinos on the other hand, if you are down 99,000 out of your 100,000 with zero hands of games won, that casino is going to plow you with a good time until it has that last 1,000. It's disgusting. I hate gambling , I've seen its effect on friends of mine and their families. But I would never stop an adult doing what they want, while knowing the risks.
- watwut 6mo ago
  Unlicensed casinos and betting apps harm others.
  - bilekas 6mo ago
    So would an Unlicensed Speakeasy, but I can't include them in the post or else everything would be destructive. I'm not defending Gambling at all, just highlighting there is a difference in how they are allowed to behave, which I also don't agree with. Asking a casino to behave better is never going to work, adding more regulations and stricter licensing might. The fact that betting companies are now allowed to advertise and sponsor sports is an incredible negative step.
    - hn_acc1 6mo ago
      Yes to that last part. It's made watching sports much less enjoyable to see/hear constant gambling ads. And it's not like they're charging any less for the product (mlb.tv, for example) - quite the opposite: they are making it harder to watch all the games by putting some of them on apple.tv, etc.
- Ylpertnodi 6mo ago
  Always keep 900 for emergencies.
is_true 6mo ago
*Won't let you DIRECTLY advertise, you need an extra step, create a property that is not "yours".
egorfine 6mo ago
[flagged]
- schubidubiduba 6mo ago
  Crippling gambling addictions are a well studied issue that has ruined many lives. It is not a "moral" problem.
mcmcmc 6mo ago
Same goes for every Meta employee then no? They built a defective product that led to kids killing themselves
tt24 6mo ago
Yawn. I think social networks and search engines can do whatever they like, but this kind of histrionic pearl clutching is getting old. If people choose to seek out entertainment that’s bad for them then there’s nothing wrong with providing a market for it. It’s on the consumer to know their own limits.
sophacles 6mo ago
So, incoming ban on ads for AI, cars, fast food and shoes?
quantified 6mo ago
More than one marriage has been saved/extended until the kids were grown because the dad could find adult release after the marital intimacy stopped.
harvey9 6mo ago
That's not social stigma it's just risk management. Once you have your license then you can advertise.

antonymoose 6mo ago

Not to mention the entitlement of startups to just flaunt laws and regulations. Still kills me to this day Uber and AirBNB running illegal billion dollar operations. I suppose one can at least say Uber mitigates drunk driving tendencies. As far as AirBNB goes, it can rot straight in hell. My hometown is now 20% AirBNB, they ran illegally for many years, and this completely prices out normal folks trying to live near their families.

RHSeeger 6mo ago
I don't have a problem with them actively choosing to break laws to protest the laws themselves; to try to get them changed. Civil disobedience is a long standing practice. However, part of doing that is facing the consequences of breaking those laws; being arrested, etc. Just because _you_ think the law isn't just doesn't mean it's not a law - it just means you think it should be changed. And the companies in question break the law and then whine and complain like they shouldn't need to face the consequences; like the law shouldn't apply to them because they don't think it's fair.
- watwut 6mo ago
  Meh. What they are doing is NOT civil disobedience and protest. What they are doing is just normal breaking the law for profit thing. That being said, I also dont think that civil disobedience means you have to accept whatever harsh punishment whatever authoritarian is using. It is actually ok to avoid those.
  - mcmcmc 6mo ago
    Yep. This would be like saying illegal dumping of hazardous waste is the same as protesting environmental protection laws. It’s just for-profit crime.
- Forgeties79 6mo ago
  >I don't have a problem with them actively choosing to break laws to protest the laws themselves Do you truly believe this is some protest action by Airbnb? Because I think most of us rightly characterize it as "intentionally breaking the law for profit" and little more than that. I'm not sure I like seeing their behavior compared to legitimate protests and activist work. That seems rather insulting to the people and organizations who actually take real risks for the public good. This is a silicon valley startup, a VC-funded profit machine disrupting communities around the world by breaking the law. To paint this as somehow altruistic is a novel take to say the least.
- AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
  > However, part of doing that is facing the consequences of breaking those laws; being arrested, etc. This form of civil disobedience is effective against bad laws that nevertheless assign punishments proportional to the nominal offense. If "demonstrations without a permit" is punished by a week in jail and they won't give you a permit then you do the demonstration and spend the week in jail. A week later you're back out there demonstrating again. MLK Jr. was arrested 29 times in a span of 11 years. It doesn't really work in the modern system which is tuned for coercing plea bargains and full of three strikes laws, because then "pissing off the government" is an aggravating factor that causes them to stack more charges until you're facing years instead of days. Then you're not making a point through a willingness to spend a few nights in a cell before your next press conference, you're getting taken off the board. It also never really worked against bad economic rules because the nature of bad economic rules is to make good economic behavior uneconomical, like converting units to types in higher demand or funding new construction. The deleterious effect of the rule is that instead of it costing $50,000 to add a housing unit, it costs $500,000. But doing civil disobedience by building it anyway would catch you >$500,000 in fines and penalties, or carries penalties like demolition of the structure. So the bad law acts as an extremely effective deterrent against doing the good thing by making it uneconomical regardless of whether you follow the law or you don't. A bankrupt company can't continue to advocate for change or serve as an example of doing something good. And if they actually did pay the fines then instead of people saying "that's not real civil disobedience" they would be saying "look at these lawless corporations paying token fines as a cost of doing business" and arguing for the penalties to be increased to a level that would bankrupt them wherever that isn't already the case. So the remaining option is to break the law and then argue that the law is harmful and shouldn't be enforced.
lopsotronic 6mo ago
If you can figure out a Gig Economy way to get robot/remote/AI pilots into airline cockpits, you will make a mint. "What? I can save ten bucks on airfare if I accept a robot pilot? GIVE ME THAT TICKET" A mint we will then need to spend on bribes to ALPA. DoT is almost entirely captured now, so that's less of a problem. In fact, here's a much better get-rich app / scheme: use AI to find regulatory situations that are both easy to break and profitable to break and where enforcement is usually just done to poor people. The Ubermaker. Why dig a gold mine when you can sell the shovels.
- b40d-48b2-979e 6mo ago
  This comment severely lacks second-order thinking. The regulations exist for a reason. Removing them because some billionaire wants to make a buck is not a good reason.
- AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
  > In fact, here's a much better get-rich app / scheme: use AI to find regulatory situations that are both easy to break and profitable to break and where enforcement is usually just done to poor people. How about a less cynical alternative: Use it to find ways to defeat regulatory capture so that you can enter a large market which is currently locked up by incumbents, or make more in an ancillary market from doing "commoditize your complement" on the one which is currently captured.
AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
> My hometown is now 20% AirBNB, they ran illegally for many years, and this completely prices out normal folks trying to live near their families. If people are getting priced out, that implies that either the cost of a unit is more than the cost of construction, or that the cost of construction is unreasonably high. If it's the first one the higher demand should just lead to more construction instead of higher prices, because units that sell for more than they cost to build are profitable to build and supply expands until the price falls below the cost. If it's the second one, the actual source of your problem is high regulatory costs and NIMBYism rather than AirBNB.
gosub100 6mo ago
The taxi medallion racket in NYC was pretty bad. I do agree it must be regulated but their system was broken. I am interested in the legal maneuvering they employed to actually win in court, but I've never seen a breakdown. That said I mostly agree with your points. But why didn't cab companies innovate and provide us with the same service? A yellow spandex cover that converts any car into a cab, a points program giving discounts, a ride share app that carries 5 people who all ride the same route? They instead provided nothing, other than dirty cabs with bullet proof glass (in "gun free" zones nonetheless)
Animats 6mo ago
"Flout", not "flaunt".

nickflw 6mo ago

So true. I wish alcohol, tobacco, gun and insurance companies and their employees faced the same stigma.

engineer_22 6mo ago
I live in New York. A very old very famous manufacturer of firearms, Remington Arms, which employed hundreds of people and was the economic engine of its community was forced by the State of New York to shut down. That community cannot replace what was lost when the factory closed. Poverty, crime, drugs have moved in to the void. You may be right that guns are are corrosive to a democratic society, that's an open debate. But the people who depended on that factory had the rug pulled and real harm was done without any regard to their welfare. And not everyone who depended on the factory worked there, deli owners and dry cleaners, these types of legitimate businesses are damaged when a major employer closes doors. I suppose I relate this story to you just to show that, there are other people who think like you, guns are stigmatized, and it has a real human cost. We should not be flippant with our neighbor's well being, because we can't predict the turns of fate, one day it might be our turn.
- malfist 6mo ago
  Your statement is not grounded in the truth. Remnington did not shut down because of government interference. They employed a grand total of 100 people in NY. Hardly the "economic engine of its community" They shutdown because they sold 7.5 million guns that could fire without someone pulling the trigger and 60 minutes exposed it. And you should know that their building is being converted into a 250,000 sqft AI data center. So it's not like employment is just lost in the area.
  - BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago
    > their building is being converted into a 250,000 sqft AI data center Haven't the locals suffered enough already?
  - usui 6mo ago
    What are you talking about regarding firing guns without pulling the trigger?

jmkd 6mo ago

There are plenty of other products that literally ruin people's lives: alcohol, tobacco, sugar, pharmaceuticals, credit cards, firearms, timeshares, junk food. Society has them all on very different parts of a stigma spectrum. Honest question: why is this line so clear for you?

malfist 6mo ago
Honest question, why isn't the line so clear for you? We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well.
- embedding-shape 6mo ago
  > We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well. That's most of the products being sold today, you think the most for-profit companies sell things and services in order to improve the world? They're selling stuff because they want to make money, if they can make someone addicted + extract wealth from them, then in their world that's a no-brainer.
  - malfist 6mo ago
    > That's most of the products being sold today That's just not true at all. The fruit I buy is designed to make my life worse? The vacuum cleaner? The lawn mower? The workout equipment? The standing desk for my office? The clothing I buy?
    - embedding-shape 6mo ago
      Yes, literally all those things are decreasing in quality because the companies producing and selling these want higher margins. Have you not noticed the sharp drop in quality and durability in made stuff compared to 20-30 years ago? Almost all those things are worse and lasts less today than they used to.

joosters 6mo ago

I think the more relevant point is: But almost all social networks and search engines won’t let you advertise without a license from the required jurisdiction. Which is a good thing! This is an area full of scammers, if you can't set up your business legally, I'm very happy to hear it's more difficult for you to advertise it.

sigmoid10 6mo ago
I mean, you also can't advertise illegal drugs either. Doesn't seem to curb demand though. It may actually be more beneficial to allow these things more broadly, because then social safety features can be wedged in between consumers and suppliers more easily and they don't have to deal with a gigantic shadow market that already gets stigmatised to death by the rest of the population. Just accept that a certain percentage of the populations has screwed up dopamine households and try to keep them away from gangsters as best you can. That would probably help society as a whole more than banning everything and pretending the problem goes away if you close your eyes.
- VectorLock 6mo ago
  >Doesn't seem to curb demand though. Because its an addictive product. See also: gambling.
  - sigmoid10 6mo ago
    That's literally the content of this discussion? Or did you want to say something else?
    - VectorLock 6mo ago
      Is that what you meant by "dopamine households?"
      - sigmoid10 6mo ago
        What did you think this means? It's not like this is a riddle or a metaphor.

bilekas 6mo ago

I was having this discussion the other day with a friend, I do believe as an adult you should be allowed to do anything you want providing you're not harming others. That said, there is a HUGE need for more regulation around advertising, cut off limits and companies recognising users with a problem. If you take a Bar for example, most barmen will notice you're already drunk as hell and cut you off, probably kick you out if not get you some water etc. It's actually a legal requirement to stop at some point in countries. Casinos on the other hand, if you are down 99,000 out of your 100,000 with zero hands of games won, that casino is going to plow you with a good time until it has that last 1,000. It's disgusting. I hate gambling , I've seen its effect on friends of mine and their families. But I would never stop an adult doing what they want, while knowing the risks.

watwut 6mo ago
Unlicensed casinos and betting apps harm others.
- bilekas 6mo ago
  So would an Unlicensed Speakeasy, but I can't include them in the post or else everything would be destructive. I'm not defending Gambling at all, just highlighting there is a difference in how they are allowed to behave, which I also don't agree with. Asking a casino to behave better is never going to work, adding more regulations and stricter licensing might. The fact that betting companies are now allowed to advertise and sponsor sports is an incredible negative step.
  - hn_acc1 6mo ago
    Yes to that last part. It's made watching sports much less enjoyable to see/hear constant gambling ads. And it's not like they're charging any less for the product (mlb.tv, for example) - quite the opposite: they are making it harder to watch all the games by putting some of them on apple.tv, etc.
Ylpertnodi 6mo ago
Always keep 900 for emergencies.

is_true 6mo ago

*Won't let you DIRECTLY advertise, you need an extra step, create a property that is not "yours".

egorfine 6mo ago

[flagged]

schubidubiduba 6mo ago
Crippling gambling addictions are a well studied issue that has ruined many lives. It is not a "moral" problem.

mcmcmc 6mo ago

Same goes for every Meta employee then no? They built a defective product that led to kids killing themselves

tt24 6mo ago

Yawn. I think social networks and search engines can do whatever they like, but this kind of histrionic pearl clutching is getting old. If people choose to seek out entertainment that’s bad for them then there’s nothing wrong with providing a market for it. It’s on the consumer to know their own limits.

sophacles 6mo ago

So, incoming ban on ads for AI, cars, fast food and shoes?

quantified 6mo ago

More than one marriage has been saved/extended until the kids were grown because the dad could find adult release after the marital intimacy stopped.

harvey9 6mo ago

That's not social stigma it's just risk management. Once you have your license then you can advertise.