[HN Gopher] Gamblers behind half of abusive posts to tennis stars
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Gamblers behind half of abusive posts to tennis stars
        
       Author : gnabgib
       Score  : 25 points
       Date   : 2024-12-22 19:51 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
        
       | silexia wrote:
       | It is stunning to me that gambling is legal. It preys upon people
       | who are vulnerable to gambling addiction, most other people are
       | not interested. Laws need to change so that in America, even
       | tribes are not allowed to promote this family and person
       | destroying activity.
        
         | Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
         | I would agree 100%, but would pessimistically assume that money
         | talks.
        
           | silexia wrote:
           | Exactly right... hard to overcome the lobbying and propaganda
           | power of billions of dollars in gambling profits.
        
           | richrichardsson wrote:
           | Here in Croatia they passed a law last year that forbids
           | traders to open on Sundays except for 16 weekends of their
           | choosing. Betting shops and casinos are exempt!
        
         | chimpanzee wrote:
         | Why should tribal sovereignty be diminished yet again in order
         | to benefit the American state and people?
         | 
         | Edit: I see now that OP was specifically referring to
         | restricting the promotion of gambling. Such restrictions seem
         | reasonable where it doesn't infringe on the sovereignty of the
         | tribes.
        
           | ndriscoll wrote:
           | Assuming we're talking about online gambling, and taking for
           | granted that we ought to ban gambling, presumably sovereign
           | tribes should have the same rules as betting sites from any
           | other sovereign nation, which I think at least previously
           | meant that it would be illegal and payment processors weren't
           | allowed to facilitate it? Likewise it would make sense to ban
           | any advertising of casinos off of tribal land.
        
             | chimpanzee wrote:
             | Given that GP called out the tribes specifically, I figured
             | they were referring to the casinos on tribal land.
             | 
             | Online gambling restrictions are sensible in that "online
             | content/services" are a kind of import when accessed from
             | within non-tribal US territory (To me at least, but IANAL).
        
               | ndriscoll wrote:
               | They did say they shouldn't be allowed to promote it
               | (which I take to mean outside tribal land). A ban on
               | advertising gambling in places where it's illegal seems
               | reasonable to me. They could put a billboard right on the
               | border like some states have with e.g. fireworks.
        
               | chimpanzee wrote:
               | Ah I did miss the narrowing to "promote it". I have no
               | issue with that either, as ads presented within the
               | territory of the US, are again a kind of import.
               | 
               | Might need to narrow the wording further though, since as
               | you point out, billboards are advertising and could be
               | erected solely on tribal land and should probably be
               | protected for reasons of tribal sovereignty.
        
         | dgfitz wrote:
         | Gambling and alcohol destroy lives, every day. You can get a
         | 6-pack of beer and a lotto ticket at the corner store down the
         | street.
         | 
         | How did alcohol probation go? Why would gambling be different?
        
           | PittleyDunkin wrote:
           | > How did alcohol probation go?
           | 
           | In the context of fighting alcoholism, it was very effective.
           | I'm not sure what other metric would matter--you're never
           | going to be able to ban alcohol consumption (or gambling)
           | entirely. Presumably the point is harm reduction, not
           | absolute abstinence.
           | 
           | EDIT: I reworded the above; it's static now. I, however, also
           | would like to ban gambling again. I've watched multiple
           | people in my life have their lives consumed by gambling
           | apps(!?!) and I don't ever see them straightening their lives
           | out without assistance from the state.
        
           | f33d5173 wrote:
           | Gambling prohibition went fine. The laws were relaxed because
           | there was money to be made, not because they were causing
           | problems.
           | 
           | The GP outlines why alcohol and gambling are distinguished.
           | Alcohol is enjoyed by a majority of people, with a very small
           | minority abusing it. Gambling is enjoyed by a much smaller
           | portion of people, a larger portion of whom abuse it. This is
           | especially true with respect to where money is made off of
           | gambling. Since so much more money can be made off of single
           | person from gambling than alcohol, the portion of the money
           | made in gambling from abusers is much higher.
        
         | cellis wrote:
         | I guess you'll also need to ban the stock market and
         | cryptocurrencies as well, especially options and memecoins.
        
           | alephnerd wrote:
           | At least for the stock market, the difference is the barrier
           | to entry to being a "accredited investor" is significantly
           | higher, and risk mitigation offerings exist. And gamification
           | is regulated to a certain extent.
           | 
           | Meanwhile gambling laws are a patchwork of legacy state,
           | tribal, and federal laws.
        
             | sneak wrote:
             | You don't need to be accredited to trade in securities (or
             | derivatives!) in the US.
        
               | alephnerd wrote:
               | Ofc, but at scale you absolutely need to
        
             | theogravity wrote:
             | In the US, you can play the stock market with pennies. You
             | just can't day trade if you have less than $25k worth of
             | money / equity in your account.
             | 
             | It won't stop anyone from playing with options.
        
           | lokar wrote:
           | If you "win" trading in the stock market no one kicks you
           | off.
        
         | aithrowawaycomm wrote:
         | The primary reason American gambling has exploded in recent
         | years is the Supreme Court, which decreed federal restrictions
         | on sports gambling as unconstitutional:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_...
         | So "laws" aren't really enough.
        
           | gottorf wrote:
           | I don't know much about this, but based on your description,
           | it sounds like nothing stops state laws from restricting
           | gambling?
        
             | gwd wrote:
             | Then you get a "prisoner's dilemma" situation:
             | 
             | 1. No states allow gambling: Everything is normal
             | 
             | 2. One state allows gambling and its neighbor doesn't:
             | Gamblers in the non-gambling state use websites / travel to
             | locations in the gambling state, spending massive amounts
             | of money there. Both states experience the negative side
             | effects of gambling, but the one that allows gambling gets
             | a huge tax influx, and the one that forbids gambling loses
             | tax revenue.
             | 
             | 3. All states allow gambling: No state has a tax advantage,
             | but all states have the negative externalities of gambling.
             | 
             | Individual states probably don't have the authority, and
             | certainly not the clout, to do much about their citizens
             | going to the neighboring state to gamble. The federal
             | government used to have the authority, and certainly does
             | have the clout, to make a dent in inter-country gambling.
        
               | wbl wrote:
               | 4: states use the long arm statutes to go after sites
               | offering bets to their residents.
        
               | ndriscoll wrote:
               | The federal government still has the authority to
               | regulate/ban gambling transactions that cross state lines
               | (including online). Needing to cross state lines also
               | creates a large barrier for lots of people vs. having it
               | on your phone.
        
               | bdangubic wrote:
               | you are forgetting that gambling is an addiction...
               | crossing state lines for gamblers is not a large barrier
               | much like it isn't for sexual predator and other
               | deviants/addicts.
        
               | ndriscoll wrote:
               | It is a huge barrier for someone like a college student
               | that doesn't have a car, or if they did they'd have to
               | drive for hours. They'll never have an opportunity to get
               | started. It's wildly different from Disney (or their
               | university) advertising sports betting during games and
               | having them download an app.
        
               | bdangubic wrote:
               | I am thinking based on reading your words that you are
               | upstanding citizen who was raised well and never fell
               | into an addiction trap.
               | 
               | but trust me, for people with addiction traveling 1000
               | miles without a car is a non-issue (speaking from quite
               | personal experiences). some stuff might slow you down but
               | not prevent you from reaching a goal and quenching your
               | thirst
        
               | ndriscoll wrote:
               | The point is that vastly fewer people will become addicts
               | in the first place if you don't literally advertise it
               | during games and let them download an app and get going
               | in a couple seconds. Stopping 100% of addicts isn't the
               | goal. The goal is to discourage it, or at least not
               | _encourage_ it.
               | 
               | We don't need cartoons advertising cigarettes to kids. We
               | don't need Disney advertising gambling to everyone.
        
           | wbl wrote:
           | States can protect their residents.
        
       | recursivedoubts wrote:
       | i predict that within my lifetime (i've got about 40 years left)
       | a college football player will be killed due to a spread-related
       | mistake on the field.
        
         | darepublic wrote:
         | Is there any precedent for a killing like this in (I assume
         | American) college football?
        
           | idrios wrote:
           | Not yet but there's a precedent for incredibly perverse
           | incentives caused by sports gambling -- most iconically the
           | White Sox throwing the world series in 1919.
           | 
           | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal
        
       | naming_the_user wrote:
       | It's always confused me that (some) Americans, despite being so
       | pro-freedom in general, are rabidly against the idea of betting.
       | 
       | We've had it in the UK forever. The sky hasn't fallen in. Yes, we
       | have addicts, just as we have alcoholics, most people are, well,
       | normal.
       | 
       | You can just not. I like a bit of a play now and then. In fact, I
       | bet on the US election which was genuinely useful as a financial
       | hedge for me.
        
         | bdangubic wrote:
         | "pro freedom" obviously does not mean what you think it means.
         | "some" americans are against gambling but 1/2 of americans are
         | against woman's rights and 1/2 of americans are for putting
         | bibles in schools and 1/2 americans are against clean air...
         | you name it - whatever political parties tell you to be against
         | americans will be against.
         | 
         | what you should be wondering more than this is why a country
         | that is half-conservative and another almost-half-conservative
         | (farthest "leftist" in america would be centrists-leaning-right
         | in many european countries) allow something like gambling at
         | all to begin with... and answer is simple, too much money to be
         | made in gambling that is kicked back to politicians in one way
         | or another...
        
         | kevingadd wrote:
         | I'm against lots of antisocial behaviors and one of the
         | antisocial behaviors I oppose is exploiting addicts by running
         | a casino. I value the safety of my fellow citizens (the many)
         | over a few businessmen's wealth accumulation.
        
         | rawgabbit wrote:
         | I don't speak for all Americans. I do hate gambling as I have
         | seen it destroy families while not have any redeeming
         | qualities. I can give justifications for sports, hunting, and
         | drinking. But I see gambling as purely destructive. And yes the
         | puritan in me sees Las Vegas as a city built to prey on
         | gamblers and a way for the mafia to launder money.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-12-22 23:01 UTC)