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. jimbo808 · 1790701282 · focus · HN ↗
  > this company is full of people with absolutely no ethics whatsoever
  I believe this applies to any company which sells an inherently harmful, predatory, and addictive product or service
  1. qurren · 1790707960 · focus · HN ↗
    I feel like a much larger fraction of the economy is predatory than is made out to be in these gambling discourses. Examples:
    * FSA plans are designed to get you to gamble on how much medical expenses you will have; if you overestimate, you either lose the money or spend it on shit you otherwise wouldn't buy; if you underestimate, you pay taxes on stuff you shouldn't be paying taxes on. The healthy alternative would be: Cut the FSA, let people just tax deduct medical expenses at tax time, even small ones.
    * Extended warranty plans are baiting you to pay for something you are statistically unlikely to need. The healthy alternative would be: Just service things past warranty and charge a much more reasoanable price for it.
    * Insurances but co-insurances, deductibles, clauses: "We'll bait you into paying because you think we'll pay but we'll not actually pay because it says in the fine print"
    * Trip protection: Asking you to gamble on the probability of a mishap, instead of just covering mishaps out of the box
    rootusrootus · 1790715367 · focus · HN ↗
    > The healthy alternative would be: Cut the FSA, let people just tax deduct medical expenses at tax time, even small ones.
    That's an interesting rabbit hole. Some FSA types, but not all, have full funds available on day 1 of the year. And no provision for clawback if you terminate your employment before the end of the year. So when you forfeit due to overestimating the total, it does not go to the IRS, but your company. But the upside is the funds being available on day 1, with you having to wait until the next tax filing rolls around.
    qurren · 1790720111 · focus · HN ↗
    > no provision for clawback
    Unless you're planning on quitting jobs mid year every year I wouldn't really call that an advantage. On all other years you either end up buying piles of shit you don't need just to not lose your FSA dollars you gambled that you would use but didn't, or end up underestimating your medical bills. It's such a broken system that one even has to make guesses like this. There is no need to make people guess.
    > funds being available on day 1
    Most people with FSAs have higher disposable income so this isn't really an advantage either. Lower income folks typically have HSAs instead.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.