4 ms·
I'll be the first to admit that it's one step above gambling (you do actually have control over if you 'win' or not, if you're willing to spend until you do - t
by jraines 17y ago
I'll be the first to admit that it's one step above gambling (you do actually have control over if you 'win' or not, if you're willing to spend until you do - this is why it's legal and not a raffle).
But you just said you're OK with gambling, so I don't get the outrage. Swoopo pushes it as "entertainment shopping", which I think is fair.
And if you want to really get cynical, separting the idiotic from their money is a public service insofar as they can't spend it on things with negative externalities, like US Weekly</joke>.
- SwellJoe 17y agoI never said my feeling about this was outrage. But, I do consider it unethical, and it's something I would not take part in. I'm OK with honest gambling...payouts of 85% to 95%, as found in Las Vegas. I'm not OK with lotteries (which are legal, and in fact operated by the government, but I consider them unethical for the same reason...they prey on those least able to understand the odds and the costs, and those who most desperately need money). At least in the case of lotteries it contributes to some sort of common good (states usually say it is for schools; "think of the children!"). Swoopo is contributing to nothing but filling the pockets of the founders.
- jraines 17y agoMaybe they donate to charities. I would, I promise! Also, what actually made me start building it was that I would have a twist where losers would be given the chance to still buy the product at a discount (ensuring a profit margin by taking into account revenue from bids and % of people who usually would take the 'consolation' offer).