In general, there is a bigger philosophical question.

Do we treat humans as

1) having full agency, and thus full responsibility for their actions

2) having less than full agency, and then to what extent must society/governments implement control over things that humans can't control within themselves

Because generally, if you subscribe to 1, there is nothing immortal from taking money from a human that that wants to hand it over, provided that human well knows what is at stake. So as long as these websites aren't defrauding the customers with fake stats, there really is nothing wrong.

If you subscribe to 2, then thats a much riskier line to walk because that affects a lot of things, not just gambling.

We clearly subscribe to option 2 in the United States. We don't allow access to medication based on your own volition. We don't allow access to medical procedures based on your own volition.

This framing is nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

You frame as if agency exists, then exploitive coercion doesn't exist.

We can respect the agency of folks to smoke or drink, while also criminalizing lying to entire populations about the known health effects of your products.

We can respect people as having agency, while also acknowledging that psy-ops like those run by Cambridge Analytica, or even normal psy-ops like mass market advertising, can influence groups of people through deceptive or manipulative ways in aggregate and cause massive harms.

We can respect personal agency while also acknowledging some folks have addiction problems, addictions problems be intentionally manufactured by products and platforms. There is a balance between allowing a poker game, and allowing the MGM Grand to plant a limo driver in a recovering addict's driveway.

We can respect agency while acknowledging those with large reach because of wealth can cause mass harm through media, influence and coercion if unregulated.

We can grant authorities to police and politicians without Qualified Immunity from consequences of their actions.

> So as long as these websites aren't defrauding the customers with fake stats, there really is nothing wrong.

This is a moral stance that not everyone agrees with.

You're treating the state as "we". It certainly claims to be "us", but that claim is - for most world states - partially, or entirely, invalid.

Also, on a semi-related note - there is the legality of gambling, the legality of running a gambling operation, and the legality of doing so for pecuniary gain, and it is possible for just part of these three to be illegal.

Do you know what an addiction is?

What about fallible, gullible, with full agency?

Do you honestly trust these companies to not mislead their customers