But seriously what kind of predatory policy is that in the first place?
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2026
1609 points (99.8% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
42208 readers
4776 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Having worked in the industry, there's actually an explanation that is only half predatory.
Most of those addicted to gambling can't and won't shake it. They refuse to seek professional help, and the decision to quit only lasts the "temporary embarrassment" phase of losing all their money. Meaning: most gamblers who decide to quit (and we've got statistics on this), about 80-85% on average, is back to their favourite gambling service within 60 days.
At the company I worked at, the primary reasoning for having a cooldown period instead of instant deletion was the following:
Basically the idea is "if they're coming back anyway, we might as well make it easy for them".
Now the thing is, for all the regulations... Gambling services are unfortunately not responsible for the addiction they cause. In my opinion they should be, just as a doctor would be held responsible if they fed into a patient's painkiller addiction. And for all the regulatory crap... most people in gambling companies aren't interested in compliance that much. It's very much a "do it then say sorry and fix it in post" attitude from the leadership and higher management. So while the above might be the "official" explanation, I have zero doubt that the decision makers don't give a fuck and are specifically doing it to psychologically pressure people into coming back.
I mean gambling is shitty but we don’t hold folks that make alcohol responsible for folks getting addicted to alcohol.
I’m not familiar with legal gambling, but theoretically there is a percentage of users that partake casually for fun - yes? And others who get addicted. Same with booze.
Obviously the overall experience of gambling is more predatory/distasteful, but I’m not sure that means they should be legally responsible for the folks who get addicted. If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?
Booze makers aren’t using predictive algorithms to hook people that are trying to quit.
They for sure create targeted advertising towards likely repeat-spend customers. Big box liquor stores I’m sure use algorithms to encourage repeat purchases.
Again - not defending predatory gambling sites at all - just aware that almost every business model is about targeting big spenders and getting them to spend more. Example: micro transactions in gaming.
“Everyone does it” doesn’t make it ok, but if we don’t like that gambling sites care more about profit than the wellbeing of users? Certainly they are not alone in that.
Ok, but if we take a step back, is there any justification for this kind of gambling remaining legal, outside of a capitalist view?
Is there any justification in folks selling crap unhealthy junk food? It has any number of ingredients that are harmful to humans short and long term. It is addicting and habit forming. The health consequences on a macro level hurt society.
There are any number of sometimes pleasurable but undeniably harmful things sold for a profit. I’m not saying I think gambling should be legal, but I am pointing out that it’s a slippery slope re: what crosses the line?
I don’t spend money on gambling but I do sometimes spend money on other things I know are bad for me. Is the answer to outlaw unhealthy things?
It’s not just the capitalists that want to make money - there are people who WANT to gamble. Make it illegal it will still happen - just without regulation. Prohibition didn’t work.
Plenty of food additives are illegal, so we've already decided that to some extent regulation there is OK.
Going down that slippery slope, why are recreational drugs illegal? We've drawn plenty of lines already, and I've never heard anyone defend gambling with an argument that isn't "but my liberty" or "it's going to happen whether it's legal or not".
For the record, I believe in the legalisation of drugs that do not have: A) Massive addiction-causing traits and B) Enormous health detriments
As we've already done, the answer is to find the limit for what is acceptable and regulate based on that limit. The limit changes with time and society (see: pornography, cannabis), but I believe gambling as a corporate profit option should be outlawed.
If gambling must exist, allow non-profit gambling operators and ban the rest.
Non profit gamblers would be awesome - like all gambling proceeds go to addiction recovery services… emphasis on gambling addiction.
I do think if gambling was outlawed completely it would still happen - fewer people involved but likely more associated violence. I would 1000% support gambling only being available via not for profit companies.