Thread

Brazil Bans Online Betting

92 points · 51 comments · bratao

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

swingandamiss · 1790382997 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
1. onemoresoop · 1790383045 · focus · HN ↗
  Social media to some extent too…
  1. swingandamiss · 1790383153 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. It's destroying the minds of our youth.
    onemoresoop · 1790401692 · focus · HN ↗
    Adults and especially seniors as well. Grandmas and grandpas are glued to their feeds ignoring their own needs and often doing the same for the very young they care about. This is a cancer to society that doesn’t seem to be fixable anymore.
2. alexgieg · 1790383229 · focus · HN ↗
  Betting causes clear social issues. People go bankrupt and their families with it.
  What issues do porn cause?
  1. mitxela · 1790391467 · focus · HN ↗
    Unrealistic expectations. Weird mind games that benefit neither party. Sexual exploitation of the actresses. Computer viruses.
    alexgieg · 1790593985 · focus · HN ↗
    Are there men who fail at relationships because they expect their soon-to-be ex-gf to perform like porn actresses? I imagine there may be some, but not at scale. Are there studies on this?
    The mind games are from red and black pill communities, and before that from the PUA community. As far as I know those are not related to porn directly, or even indirectly.
    Actresses aren't exploited, they're usually the ones who earn the most, work on it voluntarily, can quit at any time, and most, from the interviews I've seen, enjoy working in the field quite a bit. I've also read field studies with sex worker and the vast majority of women working on it, nowadays at least, do like it and feel empowered by doing so, since they set their own rules. Do you have examples of it being exploitative? And how prevalent are those?
    The last two I can agree with.
  2. andai · 1790400895 · focus · HN ↗
    Makes loneliness easier to tolerate, so you can go for decades without actually solving deep issues in your life.
    That actually applies to the other things listed here, too.
    alexgieg · 1790593613 · focus · HN ↗
    Those issues need therapy. The problem there isn't porn, it's that porn is free or very cheap, and therapy is expensive.
3. p-e-w · 1790383581 · focus · HN ↗
  Also infidels, gays, short skirts, bad books, parties on Sundays, and beer. We can achieve that healthy society if we try hard enough!
  1. mzajc · 1790383782 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't forget "asexual acts"! <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/q/115110" rel="nofollow">https://law.stackexchange.com/q/115110
4. PorciiVorbesc · 1790383597 · focus · HN ↗
  >should all be banned for a healthy society
  >porn
  China and a lot of islamic and east-asian countries also banned porn and guess what, they're some of the biggest porn watchers in the world because VPNs are a thing and people are hooked for lack of better alternatives because their lives are not amazing and beating their meat to porn is one of the few cheap escapisms they have. If it's legal, at least it's a problem we can openly admit, talk and address through official programs.
  >Betting
  Same as above, it's escapism for desperate people. People gamble more when the economy and their lives are FUBAR, even if it's banned. You're focusing on the effect instead of the cause.
  >onlyfans
  That's the digital version of the world's oldest profession and it survived for thousands of years for a reason. Good luck banning it, I'm sure you can somehow end something that's been prevalent since the dawn of humanity.
  Like I agree with you in principle, that those things are bad and ideally should not exist, but the thing is that all of the above are effects of a decaying morally and financially bankrupt society full of atomized people chasing money to survive, that lack opportunities, families, strong communities, strong support networks and a fabric tying them together(in the past it used to be religion). They indulge in vices because they have nothing better to live for. Banning those vices won't fix this, they'll just find new hedonistic way to ruin their lives. The true solution is addressing the cause, not the effect.
  1. mitxela · 1790391569 · focus · HN ↗
    Could banning forms of escapism lead to more confrontation of the things being escaped from?
    LargoLasskhyfv · 1790393661 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure. Enforced by mandatory daily confessions to the 'Televisor', running AI according to the party lines rules. If some treshold is reached, escalate to a personal cup of tea in the next police station, with the possible outcome of retraining and reeducation in some closed to public institution for a while.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790443120 · focus · HN ↗
    Banning all forms of escapism will lead to confrontations with the entity banning them(ie the gopverment)
5. dofm · 1790384142 · focus · HN ↗
  Also karaoke.
  It doesn’t harm people. It’s just cringe.
  1. PorciiVorbesc · 1790384688 · focus · HN ↗
    Ban public live streamers too. Also for cringe.
    dofm · 1790385379 · focus · HN ↗
    And playing boogie woogie on public pianos in airports and railway stations.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1790385673 · focus · HN ↗
    > why do you have a public piano if you can't play boogie woogie on it?
    > we have it for profiling reasons; we also have the Pet Shop Boys and Seal
    IFKYK
    dofm · 1790396649 · focus · HN ↗
    A gentleman is someone who can play boogie woogie on the public piano but doesn't.
6. asdfasvea · 1790386915 · focus · HN ↗
  And left handed people.
  According to my dad the Catholic Church tried when he was in elementary school, but he brags that Satan was too strong with him.
HyperL0gi · 1790383223 · focus · HN ↗
Recipe for winning: introduce a problem, watch society get destroyed by it while you profit from it, then when a big portion of the poor population has too much debt because of the problem you legalized, ban it and offer a solution a couple of months before the election. Save the people, get elected. Win win
1. llagerlof · 1790383623 · focus · HN ↗
  I mean, they even cancelled a few taxes that they themselves had approved in the past, just before the elections. What a coincidence!
2. cassianoleal · 1790383708 · focus · HN ↗
  If only that actually matched history...
  The so called "bets" were authorised to operate in Brazil in 2018 via law 13.756/2018, in the first year of Jair Bolsonaro's presidency.
  Jair Bolsonaro, who was found guilty of Federal crimes and is paying his sentence under house arrest due to frail health, is the father of Flávio Bolsonaro, main adversary of incumbent President Lula da Silva.
  So it is in fact the opposite of what you described.
  1. HyperL0gi · 1790384867 · focus · HN ↗
    Since you conveniently stopped at the beginning of the story, let me finish it for the sake of clarity.
    In 2018, the president was Michel Temer, not Bolsonaro. Temer had been Dilma Rousseff's vice president and took office after she was impeached in 2016. Dilma, by the way, was Lula's handpicked successor. That December, Temer signed Law 13.756, which legalized sports betting but left the regulation for later.
    That regulation came under Lula: on December 29, 2023, he signed Law 14.790, which set a licensing fee of up to R$ 30 million and authorized betting companies to operate legally in Brazil.
    So, technically speaking, it started with a president elected on Dilma's ticket and was sealed by Lula.
    tpresa · 1790386688 · focus · HN ↗
    Lula, Dilma and their party were opposition to Temer's government, so I don't think you can fairly attribute its legalization of sports betting back to Dilma and or Lula
    carraes · 1790387309 · focus · HN ↗
    > Lula, Dilma and their party were opposition to Temer's government
    lmao, this is amazing...
    owebmaster · 1790412232 · focus · HN ↗
    How amazing? Are you saying they Dilma supported Michel Temer? That would be insane.
    matheusmoreira · 1790828437 · focus · HN ↗
    Of all the alleged brazilian coups, Dilma's impeachment was by far the most democratic.
  2. ___msh___ · 1790384897 · focus · HN ↗
    Lies. This was not signed into law in Bolsonaro's term, but rather Temer's.
    And since you mentioned Bolsonaro's prison term in relation to basically nothing in the original comment, I think it's fair to mention Lula has also served a substantial prison term for what is probably the most massive corruption scheme in all of history, and had been released so he could run again though judicial maneuvering by a corrupt supreme court.
    piva00 · 1790454447 · focus · HN ↗
    > substantial prison term for what is probably the most massive corruption scheme in all of history
    It was definitely not the most massive corruption scheme in all of history. That's a lot of hyperbole or just you parroting the old propaganda used at the time.
    Nonetheless, Brazilian politics is all incredibly corrupt and nothing will improve about it in the foreseeable future, it's only getting worse.
    matheusmoreira · 1790827904 · focus · HN ↗
    "Getting worse" is quite the understatement. The unelected supreme court was exposed as the true seat of power back in 2022. By now the situation has degenerated to the point president Lula is literally calling supreme court judges for support in public.
    People called me crazy back then.
  3. cassianoleal · 1790419169 · focus · HN ↗
    I can't edit my comment, so replying here. To the 2 people who corrected me, thank you for the correction.
    In 2018 the president was indeed Michel Temer, who was Dilma Roussef's vice-president. Temer led a coup against his President.
    In any case, Temer was opposition to Lula and Dilma's Worker's Party so the main point stands.
3. namelessindivid · 1790383934 · focus · HN ↗
  "Betting" was made legal by Temer (2018), the Bolsonaro administration (2019-2022) should have regulated it, but they refused to do so. Lula (the current president running for reelection) did finally regulated them back in 2023 (i.e., made them finally pay taxes and introduced a few protection mechanisms and data sharing obligations), however it was still a societal problem as you put it, which they finally fixed today by banning. Your comment makes it seem like the current administration allowed bets in the first place. That didn't happen.
  1. ___msh___ · 1790385106 · focus · HN ↗
    As per your own words, they did allow it in the same measure as Bolsonaro's government did. Also, if Lula had indeed "regulated" it as you claim, perhaps things wouldn't have gone downhill to the current woeful state eh?
    vitorgrs · 1790488952 · focus · HN ↗
    The problem with the regulation it's that it made safer for TV and clubs sign sponsor/ads. So after regulation the ads got insane.
4. harrisoned · 1790390517 · focus · HN ↗
  Being down-voted for speaking facts tells a lot about Brazil's current climate.
  This was introduced and regulated as a way, i assume, to get taxes from those betting business, and everything was in fact legalized and regulated in the current government that was struggling with money. I saw a lot of people spending all of their money on that stuff and get broke. I have not heard a single thing about prohibiting that until very recently, and it's a great example of how the short-term memory of people can be exploited for social engineering (or political campaigns, they are very similar). It would be great if that was, in fact, enabled in the previous government so the current one would have prohibited years ago but we all know that this isn't what happened. At least it is going away and it's a net positive, but do not forget those who wanted to profit from it.
5. cvjcvjcvj · 1790392173 · focus · HN ↗
  Not the same goverment.
rhoads · 1790383762 · focus · HN ↗
The same government that approved them now decides to ban them with 2 weeks until the next election. Wtg champs!
kyleee · 1790383781 · focus · HN ↗
Brazil should ban motorcycles; I see the craziest vids from Brazil of people on motorcycles robbing and killing people. Wild place
nightsd01 · 1790383904 · focus · HN ↗
Honestly this is a good thing, and we should ban online sports and casino betting in the US too. They add absolutely zero value to society, they just cause harm.
Studies have shown that most of the profit from online sports gambling for example comes from people with gambling addictions. These companies are just greedily sucking away money from vulnerable people. These companies really do ruin lives and destroy families.
I can see that maybe prediction markets might offer at least SOME value to society, so if I were made global dictator tomorrow, I wouldn’t ban them right away, but I’d definitely want to see more studies doing a risk benefit analysis.
1. ___msh___ · 1790385877 · focus · HN ↗
  Agreed. But as usual you gotta see it in the light of the upcoming elections only 9 days away, meaning they had over 3½ years to do something about the snowballing societal crisis and never lifted a finger. Quite the opposite actually, as Lula's deeply corrupt government actually issued the pending regulatory decree for betting sites and thus effectively cleared them to operate legally in the country
  1. piva00 · 1790454250 · focus · HN ↗
    Bolsonaro was the one who opened the floodgates for betting sites after Temer's law though.
2. ikidd · 1790458042 · focus · HN ↗
  And the algos they use to drive people harder to gamble are particularly pernicious. It isn't just putting slot machines in their way when they're walking to the washroom. It's high-pressure psychological tactics that are hard for non-addictive people to ignore, let alone gambling addicts.
  It's utterly evil, and destroys lives and families. This shit needs to go.
3. vitorgrs · 1790488867 · focus · HN ↗
  Another problem, at least here in Brazil, it's just it created a bubble in ad market. TV, soccer clubs are all betting. Nothing more. Even news channels have betting ads.
  This imo totally distort the ad market, and you have companies with smaller capital (like retail) or younger companies who can't compete with bet money. This hurts real economy SO bad.
  Cimed (Brazilian pharma) CEO just said today that he is going to sponsor soccer clubs now.
  Let alone how it made a lot of people in debt, and this is hurting consumption a lot. The retail market was heavily favorable to the ban because of this.
  Oh, there's also "cartels" like PCC and CV that are involved with it.
DivingForGold · 1790385684 · focus · HN ↗
Good luck enforcing that ...
shmeeed · 1790386655 · focus · HN ↗
I'll go get some popcorn for this thread.
kikoreis · 1790387800 · focus · HN ↗
Wow, that is one badass move! Possibly the last time something like this can be attempted before bet money is so ingrained into power it's a non starter.
I was just starting to get bored going into October. It's going to be enlightening to see society now grind it out to decide whether it really wants to get rid of the industry.
1. mitxela · 1790391365 · focus · HN ↗
  Didn't we already get rid of the industry and then bring it back, a few times?
2. baranul · 1790420717 · focus · HN ↗
  Think that's a very valid statement. Had they waited a bit longer, the number of politicians and judges that were bought off or sold out, would make such an action near impossible.
3. vitorgrs · 1790488619 · focus · HN ↗
  Worth to point out it's a "Provisional Measure". Basically a decree with law power as soon as President signs it. But congress need to vote in the next 6 months or else it it goes null.
  The congress (and justice) it's where lobby power is right now, so it will be a very problematic long months...
penguin_booze · 1790453417 · focus · HN ↗
Related: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgYnjB2es2s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgYnjB2es2s.
4d4m · 1790460932 · focus · HN ↗
Bold move! I love freedom to do what I like on my device, but sometimes I wonder if there is ANY level of regulation that will stop an addicted gambler from themselves.
Access at home vs a casino or racetrack really doesn't move the needle if you have to gamble, you will.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.