Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The principle I’m generally in favor of “natural” consequences of actions being inescapable, for businesses and people, regardless of industry. The other principle is one of value creation being the only products that are allowed to be sold, particularly at scale on the broad market.

If you want to extract oil, you shouldn’t be able to escape the cost of climate change. Similarly, you shouldn’t get extra protection and subsidies from government to enable your business model and subsidies should be countered strongly with tariffs to ensure those subsidies aren’t skewing the global economy.

If you do sales of addictive products like alcohol, tobacco, or gambling you shouldn’t be able to offload the harm of that onto “personal responsibility”. Same goes with mobile phones and social media internationally trying to be addictive now that we understand this “attention grabbing” incentive really well.

And you can tell that gambling isn’t being an honest player because of the lip service these companies pay by claiming they ban people with legitimate gambling problems but the actual evidence is they don’t and instead actually treat these people like whales and keeping them engaged and only banning the people who aren’t costing them money.

But betting specifically is worse than alcohol in terms of destructiveness because the vast majority of people who engage with the product have a problem. At least the vast majority of people engage with alcohol without serious issues like that. And in terms of value creation, it s a cheap low value form of addictive entertainment at best, a step above slot machines. In the common case it’s harmful and the worst destructive.

PS: if you read what I wrote, I didn’t say that sports betting is the exception. Gambling like blackjack and banning card counters was similar.



You're arguing that gambling is bad and that externalities should be priced in.

Fine, but none of that has anything to do with why you think betting/gambling firms shouldn't be able to exclude highly unprofitable customers while basically every other industry can. That's the exception you seem to be calling for.


Can you give an example of other industries that are allowed to classify customers as “unprofitable” and exclude them?

And as a sibling noted, yes I think making that specific industry unprofitable is precisely how to resolve the problem of SCOTUS reversing a 26 year ban on the issue.


I gave three in my root comment. I'm not going to repeat myself.

And OK, if you want to ban gambling then argue for that. Don't argue for removing the freedom to choose who you do business with as a means to that. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


If someone wants to ban an industry then making it less profitable is a step in the right direction.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: