‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

DraftKings is using AI to behaviorally target chronic gamblers

570 points · 432 comments · paimapi

  1. tedivm · · focus · HN ↗
    ProPublica had one of their reports work with gambling addition experts to see how DraftKings would respond to someone presenting signs of a gambling problem. It's a hell of a read, and makes it clear that this company is full of people with absolutely no ethics whatsoever.

    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.propublica.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;draftkings-sports-gambling-problem-vip-fanduel" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.propublica.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;draftkings-sports-gamblin...

    1. WheelsAtLarge · · focus · HN ↗
      People in companies that are a negative public good are by definition unethical. I&#x27;m not surprised by anything they do. The real problem is how we&#x27;ve let these companies infiltrate so much of our society so fast. I can&#x27;t consume any ad supported media without getting some ad about them. This company really defines the phrase &quot;money talks&quot;
      1. stronglikedan · · focus · HN ↗
        Many people enjoy gambling, and relatively few have a &quot;problem&quot;, so &quot;negative public good&quot; is doing a lot of work there. DraftKings may indeed by unethical, but that doesn&#x27;t mean that all or even most others are.
        1. frumplestlatz · · focus · HN ↗
          Gambling is extractive by definition, so I’m not particularly convinced that it’s not a problem for most of the people that “enjoy” it.
          1. ekholm_e · · focus · HN ↗
            I mean, it depends. Gambling in moderation is fine, and it can be fun. Aside from concerns about supporting casinos&#x2F;gambling companies (which I&#x27;ll acknowledge are real), I don&#x27;t see any difference between paying $200 to play blackjack for a couple of hours and paying $200 for some other form of entertainment (e.g. attending a live show).
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.