But seriously what kind of predatory policy is that in the first place?

  • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    4 hours ago

    be this site

    advertise to kids using discord servers

    if they win from gambling, ban them bc they’re underage

    if they lose, it’s their loss anyway

    double your profits with a simple trick

  • fonix232@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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:

    • the cooldown period can already be linked with our lockout service which blocks the person from using the service for X days, so if they REALLY wanted to, they could block themselves for the entire time (and it surprisingly is being offered as part of the cooldown period)
    • if there’s a regulatory block (meaning you got formally diagnosed by a doctor, and that doctor, with your consent, reached out to the local regulatory body and requested a blacklist entry for you), the service is blocked either way
    • the users who do come back, don’t want to lose their “stats” - their previous bets, wins, losses, etc. would all be gone with a new account. In fact, the number one complaint from returning users was that their data was gone.

    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.

    • pidgey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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?

      • marighost@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        41 minutes ago

        If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?

        True, but we do hold those who serve alcohol responsible for over-serving customers (at least in the US). Though I’m not sure how we’d even begin to regulate gambling services in a similar manner. A bartender can be held legally responsible if they serve alcohol to someone who is very visibly intoxicated, then that person drives home and kills a family of 4.

      • W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Booze makers aren’t using predictive algorithms to hook people that are trying to quit.

          The hell they aren’t. That’s called “Marketing”. You’re describing “Marketing”.

      • can@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?

        Maybe they all should be.

    • nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 hours ago

      …just as a doctor would be held responsible if they fed into a patient’s painkiller addiction.

      Yeah! Like all those doctors who got in trouble for the opioid crisis!

      • foodandart@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 minutes ago

        Oooh, I saw a part of that firsthand.

        Relatives in Maine, three at the same address, got hooked up with a pill-mill in Biddeford.

        One sold all his Oxycontins each month, made a grand off of it.

        How he passed his mandatory “pill count” every week was to get the balance of pills he needed from his other relatives. They all had the same prescription. Would go in, be one pill over or under (“I felt good last week and forgot…” or “yaah, it was rotten for the pain so I popped an extra…”) and skirted the system for a couple of years.

        Coasted along fine UNTIL the Feds went and busted a Walgreen’s Pharmacy Warehouse in Florida that was the source of the pills…

        The next day, 4 of the 7 MD’s at the pill mill disappeared into the ether. A few months later the grapevine relays that two lost their licenses one got some sort of penalty and one likely left the country never to be seen again.

        Fucking crazy times.

    • can@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Basically the idea is “if they’re coming back anyway, we might as well make it easy for them”.

      That sadly sums it up pretty well.

  • Mr Fish@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    6 hours ago

    A gambling service has a predatory policy to make breaking an addiction as hard as possible. Yep that sounds about right

  • Siethron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This predatory nature is going into my thesis on how gacha gaming led to the downfall of online porn

  • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Hilarious way to terminate an account very quick.

    Also shows that using automation for accounts administration.

  • srasmus@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I’m confused by 24 hour self exclusion, followed by 90 day self exclusion. So 91 day self exclusion? Why not just say that?

  • adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 hours ago

    site now pairs an age of 12yo with the name and identity, that spreads out to data brokers, and the other 9384575 ‘partners’ they have… and soon enough, facebook, xhitter, reddit, google, microsoft, sony, nintendo, steam… all start demanding proof of id or no access.