Thread

1. ecshafer · 1790700742 · focus · HN ↗

   Legalizing sports betting and online gambling was such a massive mistake. They are sleazy immoral industries that profit on suffering.

   1. ActorNightly · 1790704798 · focus · HN ↗

      In general, there is a bigger philosophical question.

      Do we treat humans as

      1) having full agency, and thus full responsibility for their actions

      2) having less than full agency, and then to what extent must society/governments implement control over things that humans can't control within themselves

      Because generally, if you subscribe to 1, there is nothing immortal from taking money from a human that that wants to hand it over, provided that human well knows what is at stake. So as long as these websites aren't defrauding the customers with fake stats, there really is nothing wrong.

      If you subscribe to 2, then thats a much riskier line to walk because that affects a lot of things, not just gambling.

      1. IncandescentGas · 1790707014 · focus · HN ↗

         This framing is nonsense. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;False_dilemma" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;False_dilemma

         You frame as if agency exists, then exploitive coercion doesn&#x27;t exist.

         We can respect the agency of folks to smoke or drink, while also criminalizing lying to entire populations about the known health effects of your products.

         We can respect people as having agency, while also acknowledging that psy-ops like those run by Cambridge Analytica, or even normal psy-ops like mass market advertising, can influence groups of people through deceptive or manipulative ways in aggregate and cause massive harms.

         We can respect personal agency while also acknowledging some folks have addiction problems, addictions problems be intentionally manufactured by products and platforms. There is a balance between allowing a poker game, and allowing the MGM Grand to plant a limo driver in a recovering addict&#x27;s driveway.

         We can respect agency while acknowledging those with large reach because of wealth can cause mass harm through media, influence and coercion if unregulated.

         We can grant authorities to police and politicians without Qualified Immunity from consequences of their actions.

         1. ActorNightly · 1790708512 · focus · HN ↗

            You are mixing 3 separate issues into 1.

            1. If someone knows all the information, but still chooses to make the wrong decision.

            2. Someone is being told wrong or incomplete information, leading them to make the wrong decision

            3. Someone is being forced by external means into making an wrong decision.

            Two and three are already illegal, under fraud and coersion.

            Im solely talking about 1. Because if you don&#x27;t believe people have full agency in that regard, you have to prove to what extent can you determine what is deception. You can&#x27;t just willy nilly say that something feels immoral, and therefore should be banned.

            1. lordnacho · 1790712882 · focus · HN ↗

               Well I agree that 2 and 3 are settled matters, but 1 is simply hiding an unexamined definition of what choice is.

               So, what does it mean to choose something with full agency?

               1. ActorNightly · 1790785040 · focus · HN ↗

                  It means that you assume that the person is capable of rationally analyzing a situation, and making the best choice for themselves. And if that choice is financial ruin, than that is what they want, and if doesn&#x27;t affect anyone else, they should be able to make that choice.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.