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?
    UpsideDownRide · 1790744536 · focus · HN ↗
    To give you some perspective. When I was in drug rehab beside people addicted to substances there was a handful of people with gambling problems. And it was very clear that those are the same kind of issue even if delivery mechanism is different.
    Gambling rides on the same pathways that make substances fucking with dopaminergic system addictive.
    It's not "addictive", it's addictive.
    pfisch · 1790746099 · focus · HN ↗
    No. It isn't.
    They don't get physically ill if they stop gambling to the point of needing hospitalization for the extreme pain it causes.
    They don't have to gamble even when they don't want to in order to stave off getting very sick.
    medications that are addictive for real vs really wanting to play a game and feeling the dopamine urge....
    They aren't the same thing at all, because one of them is something you want to do, and one of them is something you maybe don't want to do but you need to do it because the consequences of not doing it are so extreme.
    mathgeek · 1790754644 · focus · HN ↗
    You’re drawing a line between physical and emotional/mental addiction. You are correct that they differ. That doesn’t imply one is not an addiction. It’s similar to comparing the levels of Maslow’s hierarchy.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.