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?
    standardUser · 1790714124 · focus · HN ↗
    The difference between gambling and any other compulsion or addiction is that only gambling can leave you broke and destitute in a single day, without regard for starting wealth. Maybe findom, but going completely broke is generally not the purpose.
    The difference between drugs and other addictions is that (certain) drugs greatly increase the risk of death.
    So I say let's divide it in two - addictions that can kill you or leave you in financial ruin in a single evening, and those that cannot.
    pfisch · 1790714679 · focus · HN ↗
    f2p games and tv shopping network addictions absolutely leave a significant number of people destitute.
    There are many other hobbies/forms of entertainment that can easily consume significant resources and leave some % of their userbase in serious financial trouble/ruin their lives.
    Also you seem to want to define whether a hobby/form of entertainment is moral or immoral based on how expensive it is. So if a slot machine had a lower max bet it would become moral?
    tavavex · 1790716039 · focus · HN ↗
    F2P games can absolutely be made to exploit the same mechanics as real gambling, and are often designed to do so. But no matter what they do, they're just not as potent as real money gambling. The pull isn't the same when it's not done with real cash, they tend to be less ruthless and it seems that a smaller proportion of people is potentially susceptible to F2P addiction compared to real gambling. For the right people, they can be very wallet-draining but it doesn't seem many go into homelessness like with gambling.
    What's a "TV shopping network addiction"? I tried searching it, and I can only find isolated news articles from 5-15 years ago that report on it purely because of how unusual this is. Going to file this under 'people can get behaviorally addicted to anything', what a strange example. Do you even know anyone who has bought anything from a TV shopping network, let alone a 'significant number' that are left destitute?
    The reason why people disagree with you is because the hair-splitting between different types of addictions seems very pedantic. Clearly people think that gambling addiction is not even on the same scale of addiction than the other examples. If F2P games are cocaine, then gambling is heroin. There is a reason why gambling is taking over Western economies so rapidly, but not any of those other things - it's just too good at exploiting people's brains. So when gambling addiction is so potent that it goes off the chart compared to any of the dozens of other things that can be psychologically addictive, people aren't particularly interested in finding the exact point where it's too much for society to bear - they just know that gambling is far beyond that point.
    pfisch · 1790747210 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_addiction" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_addiction
    I'm not splitting hairs. It seems like we are just talking about outlawing things if we decide too large a % of the population engages with something in a problematic way.
    This is certainly pragmatic, but not a framework based on morality or freedom. We're just being a nanny state forbidding the vast majority of people from doing something because a small minority of people don't have self control.
    Maybe that sounds harsh, but it is accurate.
    I'd prefer people were honest about it instead of trying to wrap it in the clothing of morality, when it has nothing to do with any kind of morality that makes sense.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.