But seriously what kind of predatory policy is that in the first place?
Best thing I heard all day is this 😁
This predatory nature is going into my thesis on how gacha gaming led to the downfall of online porn
go on…
Can you give us a tease?
Spend $5 now to get 10 spins on the lucky wheel, and you just might win a tease!
I’m uncovering my calves… Ooo hot, right?
predatory policy
gambling site
same thing.
A gambling service has a predatory policy to make breaking an addiction as hard as possible. Yep that sounds about right
😎
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.
Basically the idea is “if they’re coming back anyway, we might as well make it easy for them”.
That sadly sums it up pretty well.
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.
Just because your company was slightly better than the rest it doesn’t mean all are equal…
And just because the regulator approved your entry to the market it doesn’t mean you’re always compliant.
While working on the mobile apps of my now ex-employer, I found multiple compliance bugs. The ones that were direct, obvious violations were fixed immediately, the others that were questionably breaking compliance? Those went straight for our backlog of issues that never got fixed in my ~2.5 year tenure.
And beyond that, most people from product side cared about how they can skirt regulations, how far they can go against the spirit of the law while keeping to the word of it. I pushed back on multiple features that were obviously predatory and enabling problem gamblers, going against our “responsible gambling” policies, and the response was that I should shut up and not stand in the way of profits.
…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!
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.
Thank you for saying it. I wanted to, but my brain isn’t working well, 'cause my untreated chronic pain is taking up all my brain power. Exactly because of what you mentioned. Even though I always did everything right and never would dream of abusing them. Life is hell now 🙃
It was a pretty small number of doctors who actually faced consequences for it. Personally, I put more blame on the companies pushing the drugs and releasing false information.
And, yes, there are many doctors who are currently afraid of getting in trouble and that sucks. It’s the classic thing where the well-meaning, rule-following types get overly terrified while shitty actors can keep doing whatever. Then that sucks for everyone who actually needs help.
And the medical schools. Even in the 90s students were taught that you couldn’t get addicted to opioids if you had legitimate pain.
Fuckin’ crazy. Feels like engaging critical thinking there might have helped.
Yeah, continuing an Adderall prescription is a pain in the ass thesedays, which really sucks when you need it to function.
Tbh the DEA should always have been subservient to the FDA
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.
No fines? Prison?
Loosing your whole license to practice is IMO almost as bad. What you gonna do? Get a new equal paying job? In a medical field? Lol yeah.
Why is an MD suddenly applyijg for a pharmacy assistant job. Amd a pharma company probably wouldnt touch the applicant witg a 10m poleSounds like one of them ran from the country. Since you don’t usually do that without extreme circumstances, I assume a longer stay in the tax-paid hotel was at least on the table
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?
Not OP but my thoughts are that maybe if they get back with their stats they won’t grind all the way back to their original stats potentially worsening the addiction?
Had to account hop as fedia.io is down…
The intent isn’t necessarily predatory. To explain it from business/product side, it boils down to two options:
- we keep the user’s account and they can easily log in once they’re back and continue spending money through us
- or we can delete the account at which point the user will think “hey if I have to re-register anyway, why not go to a competitor”, losing out on that business
Remember, that level of any corporation operates on a KPI based approach. They don’t see people, they don’t see individuals, they see profit per user, they see user retention after a long term break, they see user losses to competitors because “their company has features X Y and Z, while ours don’t”.
That’s why regulations are a joke. These very same people will go on about how preventing gambling addiction and general negative effects of gambling is good, then do the polar opposite. This is a big part of the reason why I left. Zero accountability of the people who make the decision while us peons were forced to do biannual compliance training and other BS, even though we never interacted with customers…
or we can delete the account at which point the user will think “hey if I have to re-register anyway, why not go to a competitor”, losing out on that business
Yup, that’s evil. That’s sick thinking that doesn’t respect your customers’ agency. Kind of unsurprising when your business is predating upon gamblers, but still evil.
Eh, no, customer retention isn’t inherently evil. After all that’s the goal of every company, to essentially “outbid” competitors for as many customers as possible.
They’re not customers, they’re users. And I didn’t mean to intimate that the competitors weren’t also evil in this racket.
That sounds pretty fucking predatory.
The intent isn’t necessarily predatory.
Proceeds to describe an extremely predatory business practice and the corrupt incentives that motivate it.
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?
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.
We made tobacco companies legally responsible to an extent. I don’t see why we can’t do the same to alcohol and gambling by making them do something like fund rehab programs.
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.
They for sure create targeted advertising towards likely repeat-spend customers. Big box liquor stores I’m sure use algorithms to encourage repeat purchases.
Again - not defending predatory gambling sites at all - just aware that almost every business model is about targeting big spenders and getting them to spend more. Example: micro transactions in gaming.
“Everyone does it” doesn’t make it ok, but if we don’t like that gambling sites care more about profit than the wellbeing of users? Certainly they are not alone in that.
Ok, but if we take a step back, is there any justification for this kind of gambling remaining legal, outside of a capitalist view?
Is there any justification in folks selling crap unhealthy junk food? It has any number of ingredients that are harmful to humans short and long term. It is addicting and habit forming. The health consequences on a macro level hurt society.
There are any number of sometimes pleasurable but undeniably harmful things sold for a profit. I’m not saying I think gambling should be legal, but I am pointing out that it’s a slippery slope re: what crosses the line?
I don’t spend money on gambling but I do sometimes spend money on other things I know are bad for me. Is the answer to outlaw unhealthy things?
It’s not just the capitalists that want to make money - there are people who WANT to gamble. Make it illegal it will still happen - just without regulation. Prohibition didn’t work.
Is there any justification in folks selling crap unhealthy junk food? It has any number of ingredients that are harmful to humans short and long term. It is addicting and habit forming. The health consequences on a macro level hurt society.
Plenty of food additives are illegal, so we’ve already decided that to some extent regulation there is OK.
There are any number of sometimes pleasurable but undeniably harmful things sold for a profit. I’m not saying I think gambling should be legal, but I am pointing out that it’s a slippery slope re: what crosses the line?
Going down that slippery slope, why are recreational drugs illegal? We’ve drawn plenty of lines already, and I’ve never heard anyone defend gambling with an argument that isn’t “but my liberty” or “it’s going to happen whether it’s legal or not”.
For the record, I believe in the legalisation of drugs that do not have: A) Massive addiction-causing traits and B) Enormous health detriments
I don’t spend money on gambling but I do sometimes spend money on other things I know are bad for me. Is the answer to outlaw unhealthy things?
As we’ve already done, the answer is to find the limit for what is acceptable and regulate based on that limit. The limit changes with time and society (see: pornography, cannabis), but I believe gambling as a corporate profit option should be outlawed.
It’s not just the capitalists that want to make money - there are people who WANT to gamble. Make it illegal it will still happen - just without regulation. Prohibition didn’t work.
If gambling must exist, allow non-profit gambling operators and ban the rest.
Non profit gamblers would be awesome - like all gambling proceeds go to addiction recovery services… emphasis on gambling addiction.
I do think if gambling was outlawed completely it would still happen - fewer people involved but likely more associated violence. I would 1000% support gambling only being available via not for profit companies.
They are, but in a more traditional sense.
Booze makers aren’t using predictive algorithms to hook people that are trying to quit.
The hell they aren’t. That’s called “Marketing”. You’re describing “Marketing”.
So the booze makers are pushing ads directly to people trying to quit? Because the gambling apps certainly do.
Of course they do. In Landman, where Michelob Ultra is prominently placed, the booze companies sponsor Billy Bob Thornton’s character as he says “I quit drinking, I’ll stick with beer.”
When told that drinking beer is still drinking, he replies “It’s a Michelob Ultra, there’s more alcohol in orange juice.”
That is the beer manufacturers telling the public that they don’t have to stop drinking beer when they “quit drinking”.
Recovering alcoholics caution that non-alcoholic beer is a major path to relapse, yet every manufacturer produces and markets a non-alcoholic version, designed and intended to keep people within the manufacturer’s sphere of influence, where they will receive marketing opportunities for real beer and other alcoholic products.
Manufacturers offer direct incentives to drinkers.
I realize these are traditional marketing techniques and not algorithmic targeting. However, these do indicate they are targeting recovering alcoholics.
They also sponsor drinking apps. They partner with retailers and social media companies to identify and directly target consumers. Retailers print custom coupons for specific customers based on their partnerships with alcohol producers. These are all algorithmic targeting.
If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?
Maybe they all should be.
“Basically the idea is “if they’re coming back anyway, we might as well make it easy for them”.”
Thats extremely predatory, you are leaving bait in a trap.
The responsible thing would be to delete and ban them since they have an addiction.
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.
There is actually a country level list of problem gamblers that the companies HAVE to ban. Problem is, these gamblers will find ways around the law to satisfy their addiction.
I do agree with the rest, regulation really needs to pick up. unfortunately most governments like the money they can make on gambling too much…
Problem is, these gamblers will find ways around the law to satisfy their addiction.
Problem is mental health care isn’t available enough
Just listen to Labour MPs talk about gambling companies. Politicians are really cheap to buy.
This feels more like a LifeProTip than a shitpost
you acknowledged the x-post potential
ball is in your court now
Jesus - that comms so dead I didn’t think it actually existed…
be the change
I can’t. My battery’s dead.
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.
other 8675309 partners
I’m seeing nothing but upside to this plan…
how likely is this, in reality? I’ve put tons of false information on accounts, and they probably could figure out my real age if they wanted to.
Obviously this is possible, I’m just curious if this would actually trigger an age check on say, a Discord account.
We’ve already established this is more a LifeProTip.
xhitler already wants my photo ID scanned from the full app installed on my personal mobile device
I’m confused by 24 hour self exclusion, followed by 90 day self exclusion. So 91 day self exclusion? Why not just say that?
What even is “self-exclusion”. Are you supposed to not log in for 91 days? Not sure what they’re saying here.
I believe that “self exclusion” is a feature where you tell the gambling company you don’t want them to do business with you for the specified period. Then they won’t do business with you during the period, even if you try to come back to them later.
In some jurisdictions this kind of voluntary blacklist can also be done at the gambling regulator, in which case it would apply to all gambling establishments in the jurisdiction.
By the sound of it, it’s them saying if you want your account permanently closed, you have to voluntarily not use it for 91 days, basically giving you a chance to let addiction suck you back in, and thereby preventing people from immediately closing their accounts when they have a moment of clarity or big loss.
Otherwise a lot of people would immediately nuke their accounts when they have a really bad losing streak, and that would be real bad for business.
I thought it meant you had to opt-in to be blocked for 24 hours, after which you could opt-in to be blocked for 90 days, making it take more manual steps
That’s probably it, that would also explain why it’s two seperate exclusion periods.
So marginally less predatory than letting you keep access to your account and requiring you to not use it for 91 days just through willpower. Only marginally though
no incentive to make it easier or less complicated I suppose
At least for us that are clever, can use tactics like this while we can.
Pretty sure we just don’t make accounts on gambling sites in the first place
It’s not so simple. This shit plays into our psychology. It won’t take hold of everyone but it still grasps some more clever people.
See: Norm MacDonald
Easy…just be like me and have a father that blew their entire retirement at casinos both online and in person forcing mother to have to work years longer. Then it’s super easy to be super fucking disgusted at any gambling establishment.
…easy
Ayyy another newbie! Hi it’s my first day here
How can you tell that my account is new?
Also its a new account, I was here a few years ago.
Voyager has an emoji next to new accounts with the age of the account.
Yup, this
fucking hell they are really playing on people’s gambling addiction aren’t they
Super illegal in 95% of jurisdictions
they should 100% be put in jail for this
That’s what casinos are!!
fair enough…
If you’re an addict, gambling will prey on you.
Also, OnlyFans will prey on you. Doordash will prey on you. Clash of Clans will prey on you. The stock market will prey on you. Your church will prey on you.
You have two choices. Control yourself (only you can do it) or be a sucker
How does onlyfans prey on you exactly? Perhaps for some people it does but I feel the porn addiction thing is pretty overblown. I don’t doubt some have it but the internet will have you think everyone who watches porn is an addict.
I think they’re referencing the app/engagement model.
Being pornography is… tangential, sort of. But part of what makes OF and all those other services so addictive is the way they’re structured. Living on your phone, pinging you, targeted personalized offers, FOMO, and engineering the app to form parasocial relationships in particular.
That’s different than randomly watching porn on the Internet, IMO.
One other common factor is the “primal” addictiveness hook, e.g. gambling, food craving, or the draw of porn.
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
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.
For any finincial anything always do a round trip with a $10 too see if it’s possible.
He was putting in thousands, about $5,000 USD. They were letting him withdraw a few hundred here and there. Then he won something like $10k that’s when they did a Know Your Customer check. Which he failed, obviously. They kept his principal and his winnings, lol.
Hopefully he took it as a lesson. Not much else he can do. They said on their terms of service Americans were explicitly forbidden. Not much recourse.
That’s not a trick, that’s a legal requirement. They have to do KYC on a few grand and AML once it gets bigger. I had to go through this with Wise when I received a life insurance payout from another continent and I had to phone customer support to get it cleared.
I’m not saying it was illegal or anything, just that they probably make a lot of money turning on the KYC after big wins. They’ll never do one to a losing customer.
I’m that sense, I do believe it’s a bit tricky.
Hmm…
I’d wager KYC applies either way (anyone placing a bet should be known, not just who ends up winning) and not paying out wins is a clear breach of contract.
So very clearly doubly illegal. First they let any rando gamble, and then they don’t pay out wins.
I’ve heard of scammers paying out small amounts deliberately to reel in more money so this still doesn’t guarantee it’s real.
Even legitimate gambling websites do this, I was able to cash out £150 fine but a few weeks later when I tried to cash out at £700 I had to supply id. I was still able to deposit more money from the same card though, supplied my id, cashed it all out, told them to delete all of my details and account and never looked back
Legal requirements, KYC doesn’t kick in from 0, but it does after a few hundred or thousand
But surely it would stop me from giving them money aswell as taking it? If it was actually a safeguard
So the trick is to find a bunch of scammers to try this on
Yup, this has been going on since the very early days of online casinos. A buddy of mine get screwed out of a few thousand playing one of those Caribbean poker sites because the Caribbean “bank” which handles the deposits didn’t participate in the US banking system, and he’d checked a box which certified that he was a citizen of St Lucia or something. Whoops.
I remember a few people complaining about being permanently banned from online games for lying in the in-game chat about being very young.
So you have to abstain for 91 days to be able to close your account??? Fucking slime
I think it might be 114+. People with compulsion/addiction issues aren’t allowed to leave.
