It’s not the betting, it’s the business machine that delivers the betting. This looks the same for any business that makes most of its money only through exploiting some human vulnerability whether it’s social media; shorts, gambling, nicotine, alcohol. Legislation needs to target the industrialization of the delivery not the act itself.
I think perhaps removing this from mobile devices would address some of the problem. Increasing effort required to participate (when someone might already want to quit) seems like it might work. It could be opt-in: “disallow gambling apps from my phone” setting that takes 10 days to unset.
Legislation is agression, so do you claim that agression does not create harm? Do you claim agression prevent harm? Or probably you might argue that legislation is not an agression?
I don't argue that sports betting per se creates more harm than benefit.
I argue that agression per se creates more harm than benefit. The thing is in controlling that requires funds (taxes) and what is more importand abolishing of privacy.
What are your arguments for disagreeing to consider legislation as agression?
Well, it is theft, by way of taking advantage of humans with a specific brain configuration. Is one free to harm and impoverish one's self? I suppose, assuming robust societal systems exist to house and get said human back on their feet if their addiction takes them down that path. But when it impacts your partner (through domestic/intimate partner violence) and supporting your kid(s) (see my citations in my top comment in subthread), we step in to limit this system from taking advantage of the human not wired to defend against it.
Sports betting is a systemic vacuum in the pockets of two cohorts; those who can afford to lose and able to stop (ie "entertainment"), and those who cannot stop, or when faced with losses, harm others. Regulation, in this context, is to better protect the latter cohort, because otherwise the sports betting system is privatizing the economic gains while socializing the losses on the rest of us.
Just as I like taxes, with which I buy civilization, I like regulation, as it protects humans who need protection, even if that means some impairment to what I might consider my own "liberty." "Do unto others."
*I'm going to preface this as a take that is a generally unpopular view whose intent tends to be misunderstood.
At what point do we see our culture of envy or cheap "wins" or the replacement/conflation of present, active, and involved role models with the fast-fashion idol worship of celebrities/sport stars or tech-bro/influencer billionaire as helping to wire the brain in a way that rewards fast money thoughts like gambling.
When we grow up modestly and have this glamorous fast money jet-setting lifestyle of people who mostly lucked into right time/place/genetics thrown in our face at 30-60 second intervals every 10+ mins everyday of our lives (worse with social media), it's not the betting that we are not wired to defend against.
If there's a solution to course correct the culture of needing hyper-excessive things & external-validation to feel worthy I dont know what it is -- but if it involved its prohibition I would be against it as being an extension of the problem. There is a correlation between sports events and incidences of domestic violence[0], if we care about sports betting causing violence to others and wish to stop it, then by that logic stopping sports altogether solves even more harm. But cutting the sickly branches of a live oak is not the way to prevent oak wilt from spreading through the community
Betting is benign in itself, but when the belief becomes that $_thing can quickly solve all of life's problems, people get creative in their pursuit of it. Crypto itself benign, but a tool for quick money; large swaths are harmed financially and some physically (not whataboutism, its related root causes). The war on drugs didn't do so well in their protecting of others either. Targeting bets to shield people from misuse will push it back underground where the most "vulnerable" addicts have 3 problems now. (gambling, law, broken limbs) It also inadvertently reinforces the culture that they are not whole in themselves, enabling them to continue to skirt their part in being responsible for their own life and feelings of worthiness.
The top comment* here is, imo, one of the more balanced takes in terms of time to impact and coverage over the calls for hamfisted prohibition type regulations. It also minimizes harm by still treating adults as adults but also by sending the message that the predatory behaviour (e.g., gamified mobile betting, betting adverts on Premier League kits) won't be tolerated.
It’s not the betting, it’s the business machine that delivers the betting. This looks the same for any business that makes most of its money only through exploiting some human vulnerability whether it’s social media; shorts, gambling, nicotine, alcohol. Legislation needs to target the industrialization of the delivery not the act itself.
I think perhaps removing this from mobile devices would address some of the problem. Increasing effort required to participate (when someone might already want to quit) seems like it might work. It could be opt-in: “disallow gambling apps from my phone” setting that takes 10 days to unset.
What exactly are you responsible for to their families?
Harm reduction through legislation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X2...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4938642
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/08/opinion/sports-betting-ad... | https://archive.today/yrHtp
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/07/how-gambling-affects-the...
Legislation is agression, so do you claim that agression does not create harm? Do you claim agression prevent harm? Or probably you might argue that legislation is not an agression?
> Legislation is aggression
We disagree, that's all. Sports betting creates more harm than benefit, based on the evidence, and therefore is worthy of aggressive regulation.
Americans increasingly see legal sports betting as a bad thing for society and sports - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/02/americans... - October 2nd, 2025
I don't argue that sports betting per se creates more harm than benefit.
I argue that agression per se creates more harm than benefit. The thing is in controlling that requires funds (taxes) and what is more importand abolishing of privacy.
What are your arguments for disagreeing to consider legislation as agression?
> Legislation is agression
Does that apply to laws against murder, rape, theft, etc? Why or why not?
In anarcho-capitalist ideology preventing of all you have numbered and scam is something that no human will tolerate.
But I notice that we are talking not about murder, not about rape and not about theft.
Well, it is theft, by way of taking advantage of humans with a specific brain configuration. Is one free to harm and impoverish one's self? I suppose, assuming robust societal systems exist to house and get said human back on their feet if their addiction takes them down that path. But when it impacts your partner (through domestic/intimate partner violence) and supporting your kid(s) (see my citations in my top comment in subthread), we step in to limit this system from taking advantage of the human not wired to defend against it.
Sports betting is a systemic vacuum in the pockets of two cohorts; those who can afford to lose and able to stop (ie "entertainment"), and those who cannot stop, or when faced with losses, harm others. Regulation, in this context, is to better protect the latter cohort, because otherwise the sports betting system is privatizing the economic gains while socializing the losses on the rest of us.
Just as I like taxes, with which I buy civilization, I like regulation, as it protects humans who need protection, even if that means some impairment to what I might consider my own "liberty." "Do unto others."
> Is one free to harm and impoverish one's self?
YES.
Get your aggression out of my body.
> Well, it [bets] is theft
NO.
I know the government people will happily do anything to increase their domination, to do even more agression in future, that is all the story.
*I'm going to preface this as a take that is a generally unpopular view whose intent tends to be misunderstood.
At what point do we see our culture of envy or cheap "wins" or the replacement/conflation of present, active, and involved role models with the fast-fashion idol worship of celebrities/sport stars or tech-bro/influencer billionaire as helping to wire the brain in a way that rewards fast money thoughts like gambling.
When we grow up modestly and have this glamorous fast money jet-setting lifestyle of people who mostly lucked into right time/place/genetics thrown in our face at 30-60 second intervals every 10+ mins everyday of our lives (worse with social media), it's not the betting that we are not wired to defend against.
If there's a solution to course correct the culture of needing hyper-excessive things & external-validation to feel worthy I dont know what it is -- but if it involved its prohibition I would be against it as being an extension of the problem. There is a correlation between sports events and incidences of domestic violence[0], if we care about sports betting causing violence to others and wish to stop it, then by that logic stopping sports altogether solves even more harm. But cutting the sickly branches of a live oak is not the way to prevent oak wilt from spreading through the community
Betting is benign in itself, but when the belief becomes that $_thing can quickly solve all of life's problems, people get creative in their pursuit of it. Crypto itself benign, but a tool for quick money; large swaths are harmed financially and some physically (not whataboutism, its related root causes). The war on drugs didn't do so well in their protecting of others either. Targeting bets to shield people from misuse will push it back underground where the most "vulnerable" addicts have 3 problems now. (gambling, law, broken limbs) It also inadvertently reinforces the culture that they are not whole in themselves, enabling them to continue to skirt their part in being responsible for their own life and feelings of worthiness.
The top comment* here is, imo, one of the more balanced takes in terms of time to impact and coverage over the calls for hamfisted prohibition type regulations. It also minimizes harm by still treating adults as adults but also by sending the message that the predatory behaviour (e.g., gamified mobile betting, betting adverts on Premier League kits) won't be tolerated.
*"Legislation needs to target the industrialization of the delivery not the act itself." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45581785
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10087409/
It's not limited to men either. Women can also have gambling addictions. There are many different things to gamble on.
If you need help, get to a meeting: https://gamblersanonymous.org/