DraftKings is using AI to behaviorally target chronic gamblers
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
DraftKings is using AI to behaviorally target chronic gamblers
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
awbvious · · focus · HN ↗
DraftKings: Hi we're going to give you extra incentives! User: Hmm, sounds like I might like that. How do I get them? DraftKings: You have to lose constantly! And then when you start winning, we take them away! You like that, don't you? User: No.
Dark Pattern. No new rules needed. "Just" enforcement.
aesthesia · · focus · HN ↗
awbvious · · focus · HN ↗
"Coined in 2010 by user design specialist Harry Brignull, the term 'dark patterns' has been used to describe design practices that trick or manipulate users into making choices they would not otherwise have made and that may cause harm."
Not sure if this reference to a definition is the same thing as saying it's the legal definition, but this is at least in a document as /a/ definition on the Federal Trade Commission's website.
Are you asking me to see how this mechanism applies to this definition?
aesthesia · · focus · HN ↗
At the end of the FTC doc, there's this statement:
> Firms that nonetheless employ dark patterns, take notice: where these practices violate the FTC Act, ROSCA, the TSR, TILA, CAN-SPAM, COPPA, ECOA, or other statutes and regulations enforced by the FTC, we will continue to take action.
This implies that dark patterns themselves are not a cause for action and some other specific law or regulation needs to be violated in order for the FTC to act.
awbvious · · focus · HN ↗
If you haven't read Cory Doctorow's Ens*tification, then I highly recommend it. The EFF and Doctorow are of the opinion that when something is too broad, it's hard to enforce.
The EFF's "better" solution is to just cut data brokers off at the knees. Don't let them get the collect it, and they can't use it against you. And I agree we should pursue that approach /as well/. But Doctorow also makes a great point that you pursue from multiple angles at once tackling ens*tification (and monopolies). So while he would want something actionable through specificity (one example, make it required that you can offramp from social media platforms your contacts and messages, thus reducing switching costs), I doubt he'd be against broader approaches as well.
The FTC saying or even implying that they will go after bad actors that break multiple laws/regulations does not mean they have to go after only those, or only prioritize those. I think this is probably a clear example of a dark pattern, a possibly predatory one at that, so it could be worth pursuing by the FTC (you know, depending on the political climate--I, for one, hope for the wrath of Khan, the sequel we need if not deserve). Especially since this case /supposedly/ only involves data harvested within the system and not data brokers. It shows how dangerous and harmful data collection and use can be.
I don't think people should just throw up their hands though and give up, especially as there is no language that says explicitly that dark patterns also need to break other laws/regulations. Dark patterns are, possibly, a form of fraud, and fraud has levels of severity and mitigation. Approached appropriately, from that perspective, I do not think that first more laws/regulations need to be broken.
But, yes, that is an excellent point.
awbvious · · focus · HN ↗
Per the EFF link, <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/draftkings-using-ai-supercharge-harms-online-behavioral-advertising" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/draftkings-using-ai-su... : "Once found, DraftKings sends these customers targeted advertising designed to lure them back to the site to place more bets—bets that DraftKings thinks will be losing ones."
A good analogy might be asking if a restaurant has any "specials."
I've read that some unscrupulous restaurants will make the "special" whatever is not so fresh and they want to get rid of. And for some restaurants, that might mean something that is really starting to go rotten. Something no amount of sauce or spices will redeem it. In fact, just about anything else on the menu would be better.
But a scrupulous restaurant will make the "special" something that is really, well, special. A new recipe they just perfected and the ingredients are actually especially fresh and in season. And its because of these scrupulous restaurants that people still ask what the specials are.
A promo at a gambling site might actually be presented because they want you, the user, to have a good time. It could be ambivalent to whether you are doing good or bad at betting. These are "specials" that are actually special.
And, in fact, I think most people would prefer it was ambivalent. You almost certainly wouldn't like to know the site is happy in the fact that you lost money on your bets and now hopes you lose even more. Can you imagine if DraftKings said "Congratulations! You seem exactly like the kind of sucker and compulsive gambler that makes us the most money! Since you are losing so much money, we are giving you a promo on this bet that we think you are especially likely to lose money on! The more you lose the more we win! Please lose more by clicking here!" Since there is no such language, this is the rotten fish "special."
Similarly, social media's algorithms /could/ give make most prominent the posts that make you happiest and most contented. This would be "specials" that are special.
But we know they don't. They make prominent that which will make you angry and isolated and sad. They know this, and they don't put "PROMOTED: We think you'll hate this, and we want you to see it, because we think the more miserable you are, the more you'll use us!" This is the rotten fish "special."
It's all Dark Patterns. No new laws needed. "Just" enforcement.