Thread

DraftKings is using AI to behaviorally target chronic gamblers

570 points · 432 comments · paimapi

tedivm · 1790700196 · 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://www.propublica.org/article/draftkings-sports-gambling-problem-vip-fanduel" rel="nofollow">https://www.propublica.org/article/draftkings-sports-gamblin...
1. WheelsAtLarge · 1790703876 · focus · HN ↗
  People in companies that are a negative public good are by definition unethical. I'm not surprised by anything they do. The real problem is how we've let these companies infiltrate so much of our society so fast. I can't consume any ad supported media without getting some ad about them. This company really defines the phrase "money talks"
  1. stronglikedan · 1790706321 · focus · HN ↗
    Many people enjoy gambling, and relatively few have a "problem", so "negative public good" is doing a lot of work there. DraftKings may indeed by unethical, but that doesn't mean that all or even most others are.
    SaucyWrong · 1790707230 · focus · HN ↗
    In my state (Massachusetts), the number of people who call in to the state’s gambling problem hotline doubled after online sports books became legalized. That is, by definition, a negative effect on the public good. The net number of people seeking help for gambling problems increased by 100%.
    pbronez · 1790708376 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s definitely bad that twice as many people have a gambling problem. However to assess the NET impact you also have to count how much value/fun/whatever the non-problem-gamblers are having, plus whatever tax revenues you get, increased economic activity from more attention on sports, etc.
    Personally I think these companies suck. Just need more work to make a strong good faith argument about it.
    vintermann · 1790710613 · focus · HN ↗
    I think an important question to ask is: how much of a company's income comes from harmful use?
    Gambling (and some other industries, in particular alcohol) come out so bad on this metric, you can practically let the industry define excessive use themselves. In order to claim most of their money comes from "healthy normal entertainment use" or similar, they'd have to claim absurd things, such as that drinking a bottle of whisky per day or spending your entire paycheck each month on slots can be healthy, normal use.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.