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. pfisch · 1790711713 · focus · HN ↗
    Is any form of entertainment or art a social good?
    People can get "addicted" to practically any type of entertainment in that they spend a massive chunk of their time on it to the point it stifles their development.
    Is sports gambling worse than f2p games? Are f2p games worse than regular video games? Is someone addicted to video games worse than someone addicted to reading fantasy novels? What about smutty novels?
    I'm not sure is disagree with you but I think it is hard to start drawing these lines without saying you are now the arbiter of good art and bad art and you can ban some forms of art if you don't like them and have decided they are bad.
    Now are you just banning things you don't like because you point to the societal harms as a fig leaf defense that could be applied to the art you do like as well?
    Is it the % of people who show addictive tendencies to a piece of art/entertainment how we define if it is good or bad?
    Is the morality of a form of entertainment defined by how many users show problematic consumption habits, such that in some populations an entertainment product is a moral good and in others it isn't? Is morality that flexible?
    intended · 1790716589 · focus · HN ↗
    Heck no. This is a version of the slippery slope fallacy.
    People can’t get addicted to practically any type of entertainment. There is a range of susceptibility to gambling, amongst “people”.
    We have an extensive range of rules and regulations that apply to gambling, and to things that have odds and payout schedules.
    It took a while, but eventually lootboxes in games were recognized as a blight, and regulation is addressing their impact.
    Generalizing entertainment from gambling is a huge stretch.
    pfisch · 1790747678 · focus · HN ↗
    It's really not a slippery slope, we just don't recognize addictions as such when we see them.
    People engage with social media in an addictive manner every day. People sit around watching tv for 5+ hours a day. People do the same with videogames.
    There are even people who cluster themselves away reading books in a way that is harmful to their lives and well being.
    The only reason we recognize gambling is because the impact is so much more intense and visibly harmful.
    All of these things are addictions though, so is qanon and conspiracy rabbit holes and those do have serious and rapid effects, and even that gets a pass.
    You can see serious addictions in tons of people, even workaholics, and we just look the other way because it is less immediately harmful to society. Not because any of these addictions are more or less immoral.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.