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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 11 minutes ago

It's the wild West meets end stage capitalism out there.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 53 minutes ago

    Man. I gotta say. Keeping my kids in a DMZ through their childhood while pretending this didn't see what they were doing paid off handsomely.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

    Fuck is a cooldown period?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 4 hours ago

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

    It's a gambling site.

    Gambling is inherently predatory. It's addictive. Gambling sites prey on this addiction. They're not gonna let you go so easily. The wait period is to see if you're really one of their best customers, unable to go cold-turkey.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    I swear, this has to be my soul twin.

  • source
  • [–] 139 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    My nephew fell for this trick. He's not a child, but he was gambling online on a European site as an American. He won big, tried to withdraw, they asked for a European passport. RIP his entire account.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 208 points 10 hours ago*

    predatory policy

    gambling site

    same thing.

  • source
  • [–] 132 points 9 hours ago (17 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 48 minutes ago (1 child)

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

    What exactly is the non-predatory half of that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 21 minutes ago

    There have been various stories in the Irish & UK press of people bombarded with enticements by the likes of Paddy Power to gamble even when they were obvious problem gamblers. This all comes out in court when the person ends up stealing from their employers but clearly for every prominent case there must be dozens, hundreds of less prominent ones.

    These companies obey the law but the law isn't strong enough so there is plenty of scope for them to abuse it, encouraging gambling addiction and not shutting down problem gamblers. There are plenty of ways it could be regulated effectively but governments don't have the stomach to do it. e.g. maintaining & enforcing an industry list of problem gamblers, putting limits on the amount anybody can bet, banning comps & perks, banning advertising & sponsorship, and heavy fines for failure to comply.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago

    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

    I've worked in gambling (they like to call themselves "gaming") as well and this isn't true. Before you can enter any market the local regulator has to approve you. Also for any changes you make after you are in. Exception are markets with lax regulators, which is often the case for online casinos.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

    ...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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 hours ago

    Bro, many doctors are terrified of catching the DEAs attention to the point where people who actually need them have trouble getting all controls, not just opioids.

    A bunch of doctors running pill mills did get busted for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 hours ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 hours ago (6 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 hours 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 child)

    Hilarious way to terminate an account very quick.

    Also shows that using automation for accounts administration.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 93 points 10 hours ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

    This feels more like a LifeProTip than a shitpost

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 hours ago

    That's genius

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 9 hours ago
    [–] 8 points 9 hours ago
    load more comments
    view more: next ›