Comment by notepad0x90 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by notepad0x90 | Hacker News Reader

I don't gamble but it is batshit insane how it is regulated. Deceptive and fraudulent advertising I get that. but it is a most natural right for a person to be an idiot and ruin themselves by gambling away all their money. Governments have no right or authority to stop us from being idiots if we want to be idiots.

This isn't even about democracy and liberties. Even monarchies and communist regimes have no right. First, it is tax revenue, second it does not harm or directly affect anyone other than the gambler in a negative way, third anti-gambling laws incentivize and enable criminal enterprises. Secret betting rings are usually operated by organized crime.

"You might be homeless or dependent on welfare if you lose all your money"... ok but society helping homeless and impoverished people does not give it the right to police everyone else. Don't help those people if you think they're gambling addicts or don't help them at all. Needed help that comes with sacrificing freedoms is slavery.

"People gamble away their family's money"... ok, then their family sounds like it has a problem that doesn't need governmental meddling. How about we regulate people that aren't ambitious enough to support their family as well. Money left on the table is money lost after all.

Even if less gambling is better for society as a whole, it still does not give society the right to infringe on individuals' ability to be idiots. It is better if people get married for example, that's why tax breaks for that exist (which i disagree with) but society doesn't go around regulating unmarried people or people who refuse to have children (much more harm to society that way than any gambling outbreak could ever cause!).

> Governments have no right or authority to stop us from being idiots if we want to be idiots.

This sounds fine in theory but it ignores the fact that gambling today isn’t just about individuals making free choices in a vacuum. There’s an active, systemic push to get people hooked. Millions (billions?) are spent on ads, algorithms, and dark patterns designed to keep people hooked. That's not freedom - that's exploitation.

With modern tech like gambling apps on your phone, 24/7 internet access, social media tie-ins the problem multiplies. You don't have to go to a casino when you have one in your pocket. The same tricks that make people lose hours on TikTok are being weaponized to make them lose their money.

Freedom matters. But if the entire system is engineered to trap people in endless dopamine hits, then society has to step in. Not to ban choice, but to create a framework that tilts people away from predatory addiction loops and toward things that actually build resilience and meaning. Otherwise “freedom” just becomes another word for “you’re on your own while other people drain you dry.”

This article https://www.rosloto.net/en/how-vs-and-big-tech-investments-a... is very much on point — it shows how VC funds and global tech giants like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Apple are directly or indirectly investing in the online casino market

Those same traps and dark patterns you mentioned are used well beyond gambling. those things themselves should be regulated, not gambling. You're arguing against something unrelated to the topic here. It's fine to trap and addict people into gambling, and then punish them for getting addicted and trapped? how does that make sense? let people gamble if they want, but ban malicious and hostile practices of capitalism. Whether it is gambling,shopping addiction, social media addiction, porn or political influence campaigns, the practice and trappings are the same and should be heavily regulated. No argument there.

What do you think should governments get involved with?

I think it is the government's responsibility to protect those who can't defend themselves. Women beat by men. Employees being abused by their bosses. People getting robbed or conned.

I happen to be a somewhat big guy, at least compared to the average around where I live. Partially as a result of this I have never been mugged in my life. But that doesn't mean that I think that when someone gets mugged they don't need "government meddling". I know that other people are not like me. I don't call them "wimps" and say that "it's their right to be small" or that "they should have hit the gym more often".

Mental health issues are a bitch. Compulsive behavior issues suck. You sound like someone who doesn't have them. That's great! But hopefully you can understand that other people can have them. Calling them "idiots" is just a trick your brain does so that it can put a label on a problem so you don't have to think about it more deeply. I invite you to spend the 2 calories that it takes to look behind that label.

Hopefully you will find that gambling companies are naturally be incentivized to predate on people with mental health issues, who are a vulnerable group.

And that is why gambling needs to be heavily regulated, if not banned outright.

Can you please be any more dismissive and condescending?

First, I chose "idiots" carefully, if a person has a pre-existing condition or some other weakness, "idiot" excludes them as you've so obviously noted and they should be protected. However, if they chose to enter a life of addiction, fully being informed that even gambling once will addict them, they fall under the "idiot" category, although there are better terms to use and I'm being lazy with my wording there.

Your rant about the government protecting people and you not getting mugged has nothing to do with what I'm saying,that's false equivalency.

I have every right to enter a life of addiction and ruin myself, as do you. i have every right to get addicted and live a miserable and short life. it isn't a great idea, but it is none of your business either.

As I stated very clearly, banning and regulating harmful and deceptive practices by gambling companies is something I support fully. What insane is you thinking you have a right to prevent me from doing something that doesn't affect you in the least because you want to force yourself to being everyone's caretaker. There should be a term for this sickness, perhaps "hostile and performative empathy"?

Help those who can't help themselves and ask for help! You don't get to decide who can't help themselves unless they can't make decisions or communicate on their own. Sane adults can speak up for themselves and tell you if they need help. And your idea of help? what is it? throwing people in prison? that's what you're advocating, you understand why that's insane right? Short of murdering a person, that is the worst thing you can do to them, do you get that? When you say "banning" it must be enforced somehow. Or perhaps you think it will be a small fine, even if that was the case, what happens when gamblers who lost all their money can't pay a fine, other than imprisonment? Loan sharks to pay your fines, and a life of crime to pay the loansharks? Either way, it ends up in people being forced to participate in worse and worse crime and thus causing actual harm to others because of your unending empathy.

I return your invitation to spend a little more than 2 calories and think about what we're discussing here. Your nanny state beating people until they die for their own good.

> "idiot" excludes them as you've so obviously noted and they should be protected

Ok. Glad that we have some common ground there, then. If not by regulating gambling companies, how do you propose these people should be protected?

I think having some data would help. Here's my first hit from a google the first hit I got:

https://worldmetrics.org/online-gambling-addiction-statistic...

From there, I highlight 2:

- 2% of global population suffers from gambling disorder

- Approximately 25% of online gamblers are classified as problem gamblers based on clinical screening tools

> You not getting mugged has nothing to do with what I'm saying,that's false equivalency.

Why, exactly?

> I have every right to enter a life of addiction and ruin myself, as do you.

Yeah here is the thing. You don't know if I have a mental health disorder. Assuming that I do, gambling companies will use any trick they can to hook me into giving them all my money.

> A right to prevent me from doing something that doesn't affect you

I agree the government doesn't need to "prevent you from anything". What I'm saying is that I want them to prevent gambling companies from doing things to me - a hypothetical gambling addict.

I, as a potential person with compulsive behavior, will have gambling companies showing me ads on the street. Tagging me up and showing me adds in Youtube or any other website that uses ads. Offering customized "free samples" to entice me. I don't want them doing that to me and I can't make them not do that to me - only the government can.

So going back to my first question, which you didn't answer - what do you think the government should get involved with?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't have problems restricting and regulating gambling companies and their practices. I do have a problem with the government preventing or banning gambling companies which is effectively preventing individuals from gambling in groups. The government should absolutely do something about malicious and hostile business practices, but not on just gambling but every other business as well. If you have food addiction, how should mcdonalds filter you out? Plenty of diabetics and heart-attack risks out there thanks to that, and I hope you don't think that's less of a problem. Don't pick and choose vices.

If we agree on that last point and you agree that gambling companies should exist and sane people who are well informed have the right to gamble at those places, then we agree on all important points.

Glad that we see some common ground. I think we agree on the essentials.

> If you have food addiction, how should mcdonalds filter you out?

Debatable. Let's go back to this statistic:

- Approximately 25% of online gamblers are classified as problem gamblers based on clinical screening tools

That is not insignificant. I don't know how it is at McDonalds, but I doubt 25% of their customers are food addicts. What is a tolerable range? We do have rules and restrictions for alcoholic drinks and tobacco.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com