Ask Lemmy

26707 readers

1853 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics.

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What are legitimate arguments for legalization of gambling? (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Question inspired by the news that Dave and Busters is supposed to be adding gambling to their games. And of course there are the sports betting apps.

I get that all things being equal we should let people do what they want to do. But I don't see much of a benefit, and a lot of downside to allowing the spread of gambling.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I agree there is a balance. It's repeatedly stepped on.

What you described is creating awareness and accountability to the accuracy of what is being sold. Akin to being told the odds of winning and ensures a level of accuracy where an individual needs to be highly educated and/or wealthy to verify themselves.

What is proposed here is not accuracy. It's telling adults what they can and can't do because people feel all sad because there are idiots and people with addictions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Well in my example there is also someone with the power to say "this product exceeds x threshold for harmfulness so it's illegal to sell"