I was going to upvote this comment but changed my mind because I think although we both see gambling ads as a scourge, we could not be more far apart in our reasons.

I could give two shits about the "public health crisis". People have agency, they can choose what to do with their lives and their money and I'm okay with the reaping and sowing lining up together.

I'm concerned in that I find the focus on gambling presented so prominently to be offensive, period. That is, I am offended. This is Just Wrong. I enjoy watching (some) sports, I appreciate the drama, I love the moments of superhuman feats and the balance of luck and skill and strategy and tactics and grand strategy and analysis and all of the things that it presents.

A friendly wager is fine, going by a sports book is fine once in a while. Even betting on an outcome on an online sports book is fine. It is a vice, sure, but who among us does not enjoy stepping outside the bounds of "proper" behavior. But this pervasive push to treat it as a normal and expected and typical thing offends me. It is a vice, and it should be done with the appropriate amount of shame and friction that we tolerate of almost all vices. It should not be normalized and it should not be glorified.

▲

pixl97 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>People have agency, they can choose what to do with their lives and their money and I'm okay with the reaping and sowing lining up together.

Heh, I wonder how this fits in with how AI thinks about it.

>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50197313

>Every AI model has the same “controversial” take on humans

You have far less agency than you think you do. We are automatons in so much of our behavior. You do what your parents tell you, your parents do what the church tells them, and you all buy ice cold Coca-Cola because the TV tells you to. In bulk we are statistically predictable. This is why we have laws against particular drugs, huge numbers of us will high ourselves to death and collapse the society around us. Society itself is a remover of agency. Animals can do whatever they want, humans are constrained socially in what we're allowed to do.

We really do have a false idea of who we are.

	▲	andrewla 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You have far less agency than you think you do I guess it's possible, but you have no idea how much agency I think I have. To focus on one example you give, "Society itself is a removed of agency. Animals can do whatever they want, humans are constrained socially in what we're allowed to do." -- this is a clear misunderstanding of what agency is, or at least how I am using it. You CAN do anything you are physically capable of doing, even in violation of society's rules. Complete agency! People desire things that are only obtainable through conformance with society's rules, or, more sociopathically, only obtainable through the appearance of conformance with society's rules. That society survives is in effect dependent on this fragile web of incentives and expectations and social consequences and martial consequences You can choose not to drink Coke! That people statistically choose to drink Coke does not mean that people lack agency. If you think the reason people drink Coke is because TV tells you to, then I encourage you to create your own beverage and advertise the shit out it and then get super rich! The problem is that there is a feeling that you have written out here: that manipulation of people's desires is somehow mechanistic or predictable. That you can follow some script and get people to do something. But it only appears that way because you are looking at the survivors of the vicious evolution, red in tooth and branding. All the ads in the world didn't make Crystal Pepsi a winner (or frankly make Pepsi a winner). The combination of factors that makes one thing successful and another not cannot be easily replicated or copied from one domain to another or even within one domain. If there were a mechanism then someone would be using it; everyone would be using it; and there would be no winners and everyone would be a winner. It's a self-contradictory view that doesn't match reality in any way.

▲

ambione 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

May you or your loved ones never become afflicted with an addiction, lest you have to reassess your understanding and stance regarding addiction.

▲

randlet 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I could give two shits about the "public health crisis". People have agency, they can choose what to do with their lives and their money and I'm okay with the reaping and sowing lining up together.

"I could give two shits about the "public health crisis".

Have you thought about this for longer than a fraction of a second? Hope you don't bother to use any of our public education, health care, or other support systems.

Addiction to drugs, alcohol, and gambling is expensive for all of us in Canada.

▲

andrewla 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Drugs and alcohol, for sure, I can see it. They are a disproportionate drain on the public health apparatus compared to individuals that live a healthy lifestyle. Use of drugs, alcohol, driving motorcycles, eating too much fatty food, participating in dangerous sports, all have a public health components.

I'm not seeing it for gambling. How is that expensive for anyone but the person doing the gambling?

	▲	nkrisc an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Gambling easily ruins more lives than just the gambler’s. It can be as effective as drugs or alcohol in that regard.
	▲	adhamsalama 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's expensive for their families as well.
	▲	arbitrary_name 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		uhhh, try being the child or family member of a problem gambler. almost as consequential as drugs or alcohol in my experience.