But seriously what kind of predatory policy is that in the first place?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 156 points 1 month ago (31 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    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...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    ...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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    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 pole

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    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 🙃

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    "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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent