zlacker

[return to "Legalizing sports gambling was a mistake"]
1. vitorb+UI1[view] [source] 2024-09-27 03:50:16
>>jimbob+(OP)
Unfortunately Brazil also legalized it in 2018, after Dilma was impeached using very sketchy arguments (many call it a legal coup).

It is spreading as a cancer. This month the central bank published a report saying that in August 20% of the Bolsa Família, the largest money transfer program for very poor Brazilians, was spent on these bets.

Out of the 20 million people that receive it, 5 million made bets during that month. This is 2 billion reais (about $450M) spent in a single month by the poorest Brazilians.

It's a cancer. Everywhere you go there are ads. The influencers, the biggest athletes and musicians are marketing it.

Although I tend to be liberal, this needs to be heavily regulated.

◧◩
2. oceanp+PK1[view] [source] 2024-09-27 04:18:30
>>vitorb+UI1
We’ve spent years conditioning an entire generation of kids on quick hits of dopamine from mobile phone apps. I personally believe that it’s a “glitch in the matrix” for a large enough segment of the population to cause societal chaos.

As a libertarian however, I break with the opinion of making consensual activities illegal even if they are self-harming. So I guess my stance is probably the same as addictive drugs. They could be legal, but come with the same labeling, warnings, ID requirements and age restrictions that come with a pack of cigarettes. We should probably be educating kids about the dangers of addictive apps like we once did with DARE on the dangers of drugs.

◧◩◪
3. imjons+hN1[view] [source] 2024-09-27 04:48:50
>>oceanp+PK1
Warnings do not really work in practice. What if these activities are not simply self-harming but destroy the families of the addict and large parts of the fabric of society? Even you mention societal chaos. How does the libertarian world-view accommodate that?
◧◩◪◨
4. Novemb+CN1[view] [source] 2024-09-27 04:54:17
>>imjons+hN1
I tend to believe that warnings are somewhat effective otherwise cigarette manufacturers wouldn’t be so opposed to them.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. dao-+4P1[view] [source] 2024-09-27 05:09:47
>>Novemb+CN1
Yes, they would still be opposed to them.

A measure could well be somewhat effective on its own, but then it would require the industry to get creative and work extra hard to still get people hooked, which they will do, but they'd rather not have to do it in the first place.

What's more, opposition to any type of well intended regulation is typical for harmful industries, even if the regulation might be ineffective. They do that on principle, as they don't want the precedent of getting regulated. The mere idea of having regulations for the benefit of society threatens their business models.

[go to top]