Gambling firm allegedly paid blogs to link new mothers to its online games(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Gambling firm allegedly paid blogs to link new mothers to its online games
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/14/gambling-firm-allegedly-paid-blogs-to-link-new-mothers-to-its-online-games
104 comments
I'd suggest if you don't understand why this is outrageous you just take a step back away from this topic, rather than try to comment on a problem you don't understand.
You likely come from a culture that lets pharmaceutical companies advertise on TV. You likely come from a culture that doesn't restrict fast food companies from advertising during children's programming. You likely come from a culture that doesn't force all product placement to be clearly marked with an icon on the programme.
Advertising in the UK is much more heavily regulated than in other countries. We don't believe in the right for companies to advertise whenever or wherever they like.
Gambling is fully legalised, in part so that it is easier to regulate, including regulating when and where it is advertised. There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors.
This is, I think, a more mature approach than banning or heavily restricting online gambling and pretending it isn't a problem.
You likely come from a culture that lets pharmaceutical companies advertise on TV. You likely come from a culture that doesn't restrict fast food companies from advertising during children's programming. You likely come from a culture that doesn't force all product placement to be clearly marked with an icon on the programme.
Advertising in the UK is much more heavily regulated than in other countries. We don't believe in the right for companies to advertise whenever or wherever they like.
Gambling is fully legalised, in part so that it is easier to regulate, including regulating when and where it is advertised. There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors.
This is, I think, a more mature approach than banning or heavily restricting online gambling and pretending it isn't a problem.
I get that this is outrageous, then again I find it hard to be outraged right now, this seems predictable given the rise of ad targeting and our past experience, e.g.:
- Ads that follow new mothers even after miscarriage [1],
- Age discrimination in employment ads [2],
- Cambridge Analytica was also mostly about targeting,
- probably many more.
Perhaps we should explore some actual transparency in the context of ad targeting.
[1]: "How to stop pregnancy ads following you after a loss" https://www.tommys.org/about-us/charity-news/how-stop-pregna...
[2]: "Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook to Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads" https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimi...
- Ads that follow new mothers even after miscarriage [1],
- Age discrimination in employment ads [2],
- Cambridge Analytica was also mostly about targeting,
- probably many more.
Perhaps we should explore some actual transparency in the context of ad targeting.
[1]: "How to stop pregnancy ads following you after a loss" https://www.tommys.org/about-us/charity-news/how-stop-pregna...
[2]: "Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook to Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads" https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimi...
Obligatory reminder that advertising is a cancer on modern society?
It's getting funny - in a sad, tragicomic way - to see people getting so worked up about other people having biases against them, afraid that such people being allowed to publish/speak/exist will somehow, somewhen lead to bad thing for you and yours. At the same time, people are completely ignoring that there exists a whole industry that's actively malicious, that's harming you right now - one that doesn't even hate you, but rather denies you your humanity, and cares only about extracting some money off you. If you become poor, or sick, or die in the process? This group couldn't care less.
Yes, that's the advertising industry, and associated sales and marketing cultures.
I suppose the trick is, it's hard for people to realize who's consistently screwing with their lives - with tragic outcomes such as those hinted in the comments above - when the perpetrator controls the very means people use to communicate and learn about the world.
EDIT:
It's doubly hard because this means the perpetrators are among us - among our friends, among our families, even ourselves - many whose work involves either directly or indirectly, to a greater or lesser degree, attempting to screw over innocent strangers. It shows that, the way modern economy is structured, it's really hard for anyone to be fully innocent. It's very uncomfortable to think about, even more uncomfortable to talk about. It's much easier to focus instead on hypothetical others, somewhere out there, that are out to get us.
It's getting funny - in a sad, tragicomic way - to see people getting so worked up about other people having biases against them, afraid that such people being allowed to publish/speak/exist will somehow, somewhen lead to bad thing for you and yours. At the same time, people are completely ignoring that there exists a whole industry that's actively malicious, that's harming you right now - one that doesn't even hate you, but rather denies you your humanity, and cares only about extracting some money off you. If you become poor, or sick, or die in the process? This group couldn't care less.
Yes, that's the advertising industry, and associated sales and marketing cultures.
I suppose the trick is, it's hard for people to realize who's consistently screwing with their lives - with tragic outcomes such as those hinted in the comments above - when the perpetrator controls the very means people use to communicate and learn about the world.
EDIT:
It's doubly hard because this means the perpetrators are among us - among our friends, among our families, even ourselves - many whose work involves either directly or indirectly, to a greater or lesser degree, attempting to screw over innocent strangers. It shows that, the way modern economy is structured, it's really hard for anyone to be fully innocent. It's very uncomfortable to think about, even more uncomfortable to talk about. It's much easier to focus instead on hypothetical others, somewhere out there, that are out to get us.
> If you become poor, or sick, or die in the process? This group couldn't care less.
I was going to disagree with this, but then I was opening with a disclaimer along the lines of "other than the ones green washing the oil industry, and the ones who were encouraging people to smoke long after it was known to be dangerous, and the ones working for gambling companies, and the ones selling alcohol to alcoholics".
I used to work for a big ad agency, and while I'm not aware of any projects we took on which were actively harmful to quite that degree there was definitely a general culture of not really caring about whether or not what we did was worthwhile. Several projects I worked could only be described as redistribution of money from one company to another, because we all knew they'd have no real benefit to anyone - the people being advertised at didn't want the ads, and the company being advertised for wasn't going to get any sales from them. I was explicitly told on a few occasions not to add detailed analytics because then the client would have hard numbers on how useless the campaign was.
I was going to disagree with this, but then I was opening with a disclaimer along the lines of "other than the ones green washing the oil industry, and the ones who were encouraging people to smoke long after it was known to be dangerous, and the ones working for gambling companies, and the ones selling alcohol to alcoholics".
I used to work for a big ad agency, and while I'm not aware of any projects we took on which were actively harmful to quite that degree there was definitely a general culture of not really caring about whether or not what we did was worthwhile. Several projects I worked could only be described as redistribution of money from one company to another, because we all knew they'd have no real benefit to anyone - the people being advertised at didn't want the ads, and the company being advertised for wasn't going to get any sales from them. I was explicitly told on a few occasions not to add detailed analytics because then the client would have hard numbers on how useless the campaign was.
The Doonesbury comic featured Mike Doonesbury, an ad man, who invented the "Mr. Butts" character. It was too much, and he dropped out, to eventually become a successful software entrepreneur.
Oof, you appear to have struck a nerve there, friend. Have an upvote, as I agree wholeheartedly.
> take a step back away from this topic, rather than try to comment on a problem you don't understand.
I guess i understand the sentiment, but we shouldn't shame people away from discourse. Everyone should be allowed to be wrong, if comments are made in good faith.
I guess i understand the sentiment, but we shouldn't shame people away from discourse. Everyone should be allowed to be wrong, if comments are made in good faith.
I don't think it's shaming to suggest people take a beat and to offer relevant items for consideration. I thought the comment was well constructed and nonaccusatory.
It wasn't doing that. It was saying to not comment, and offer some stereotypes of the US as a little insinuation as to exactly who shouldn't be allowed to comment.
Those aren't so much stereotypes about the US as much as observations about the ways UK regulations might be different from people's expectations or experiences. I don't think they're saying "shut up Americans" as much as, "if you don't understand why this is a big deal for people in the UK, here is a list of things that might seem normal to you that seem bizarre to me." For what it's worth, I'm from the US, I took no offense.
I'm from the UK, but I just dislike that sort of thing. People should be able to speak without others pre-emptively discouraging them.
I just don't see the problem with politely asking people who've self identified as not understanding the issue from sounding off on it before they've given it due consideration. They're still free to do so, but frankly I don't think it would add to the conversation.
This isn't something to preach on a thread, though. It's how people should treat every discussion. Otherwise why aren't you pasting the same message into every comment thread on the site?
KyeRussell(2)
I don't understand the topic, I wouldn't comment anyway because I usually don't when I'm not interested or know too much about a topic. But I also didn't get offended by his suggestion because it left room for me to ask questions. Just because HN calls my question a comment is what's making you confused I guess.
I'm not offended, if I'm the person you thought was offended.
I would personally prefer a complete blanket ban on gambling and psuedo gambling online.
My country (Japan) likely has one of the highest rates of child gambling addiction in a developed nation.
The number of times I heard "I spent all my savings on the casino haha, gotta skip some meals I guess" was ludicrous.
That was in highschool. And now I see it in middle schools. (Siblings)
I have done my part ensuring my sibling doesn't get involved in that garbage.
My country (Japan) likely has one of the highest rates of child gambling addiction in a developed nation.
The number of times I heard "I spent all my savings on the casino haha, gotta skip some meals I guess" was ludicrous.
That was in highschool. And now I see it in middle schools. (Siblings)
I have done my part ensuring my sibling doesn't get involved in that garbage.
I feel like you are talking about gacha games and didn't say so, would make more sense than children physically going to casinos.
I know people of my generation that went to pachinko parlors at a very young age. They do not officially have a minimum age requirement.
It's just that the generation has moved onto gacha games with systems that are even worse. They tend to be better designed and more easily accessible.
It's just that the generation has moved onto gacha games with systems that are even worse. They tend to be better designed and more easily accessible.
Are children allowed into physical casinos in Japan, or are they gambling online and if so is that restricted at all?
Casinos are technically illegal.
So instead we have pachinko parlors. They do not have age restrictions.
We also have gacha games which heavily push gambling and incentivise the spending of money for png images.
So instead we have pachinko parlors. They do not have age restrictions.
We also have gacha games which heavily push gambling and incentivise the spending of money for png images.
it's a Pachinko parlor
Thanks. I guess since no gambling technically takes place, there's no reason to exclude minors.
What do you mean by casino here?
Pachinko parlors and gacha games.
The are all fundamentally designed around the same psychological hooks.
The are all fundamentally designed around the same psychological hooks.
It occurred to me (not recently) and maybe painfully obvious to others that pharmaceutical advertising on TV isn't really for the consumer. The whole "ask your Dr if this medication is right for you" is such a weird trope because that's not how prescription medication is supposed to be marketed.
Large advertising spends have pilfered a tremendous amount of pharmaceutical influence in mainstream media. So much so that much of the salary of mainstream news personalities is funded by drug companies. It has become exceptionally difficult to criticize or challenge drug companies on major tv and print outlets.
Large advertising spends have pilfered a tremendous amount of pharmaceutical influence in mainstream media. So much so that much of the salary of mainstream news personalities is funded by drug companies. It has become exceptionally difficult to criticize or challenge drug companies on major tv and print outlets.
Just because people have a different opinion does'nt mean they 'don't understand'.
Sure, yet I see more pharma, fast food and gambling ads on UK television than anywhere else. I've never seen a gambling ad on TV anywhere but the UK. How is that "heavily regulated"?
> I see more pharma, fast food and gambling ads on UK television than anywhere else
Even the USA? Prescription drug advertisements are illegal in the UK, except when aimed specifically at medical professionals. When I visit the USA, it throws me every time when I see prescription drugs advertised on prime-time TV.
Even the USA? Prescription drug advertisements are illegal in the UK, except when aimed specifically at medical professionals. When I visit the USA, it throws me every time when I see prescription drugs advertised on prime-time TV.
[deleted]
What are you counting as a pharma advert? UK has lots of ads for over-the-counter meds but should be none for prescription-only ones, unless you're reading things like The Pulse magazine.
Advertising is evil and UK law doesn't go nearly far enough. There is no good reason for advertising. It's all bad. It's silly to single out specific examples when the whole lot needs to go. Fuck advertising.
> There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors.
The shirt sponsor ban is a pre-emptive measure so that when the goverment comes after the Premier League they can point to the fact that betting companies have been banned from sponsoring shirts. Betting promotion in the form of pitchside displays / TV ads before & during games will still be allowed.
The shirt sponsor ban is a pre-emptive measure so that when the goverment comes after the Premier League they can point to the fact that betting companies have been banned from sponsoring shirts. Betting promotion in the form of pitchside displays / TV ads before & during games will still be allowed.
> Advertising in the UK is much more heavily regulated than in other countries.
Funny. Ads seems to absolutely everywhere in the UK. It feels very overwhelming. Reminds me of those famous crossings in New York and Tokio.
Funny. Ads seems to absolutely everywhere in the UK. It feels very overwhelming. Reminds me of those famous crossings in New York and Tokio.
The regulation is more about the content rather than the distribution.
So advertisements can and are everywhere so long as they are not misleading, targeting kids or grossly offensive (I imagine)
So advertisements can and are everywhere so long as they are not misleading, targeting kids or grossly offensive (I imagine)
I don't see the comments that this is supposed to be a response to, which ones did you have in mind? Or was this meant preemptively?
Probably refers to dead comment at the bottom.
lynx23(1)
Let me rephrase this "Mom Blogs put links to Gambling Sites to get their readers, especially new Mothers, hooked to Gambling"
Sure, BIG Gambling Company is bad. But the so called 'mom blogs' have no ethics and decency for doing this.
If I were a reader, I might not trust the Gambling Company but I have a relationship ( as a reader ) with the Mom Blog owner. And it's that person who has abused our relationship.
The outrage should be directed more at these women ( I assume ) who are basically predators preying on new mothers who might be at an emotionally vulnerable stage of their lives.
Sure, BIG Gambling Company is bad. But the so called 'mom blogs' have no ethics and decency for doing this.
If I were a reader, I might not trust the Gambling Company but I have a relationship ( as a reader ) with the Mom Blog owner. And it's that person who has abused our relationship.
The outrage should be directed more at these women ( I assume ) who are basically predators preying on new mothers who might be at an emotionally vulnerable stage of their lives.
Of course "mom blogs" has no ethics.
But when you bait/pay/bribe people to do bad things, it's surprising how many "good people" turn bad. The real perpetrator is of course the one who pays people to do bad things.
But when you bait/pay/bribe people to do bad things, it's surprising how many "good people" turn bad. The real perpetrator is of course the one who pays people to do bad things.
Both are guilty.
Are we sure that they were "mum blogs". Hooke have lost the SEO game to such an extent that it's almost always stack overflow clones rather than stack overflow.
I would not be surprised to discover that these "mum blogs" were nothing if the sort.
I would not be surprised to discover that these "mum blogs" were nothing if the sort.
As mentioned in the article, it's regular blackhat consisting of buying unmarked links to rank better on Google. If you own a blog, you usually get those messages weekly or even daily offering to pay $150-400 for it. Regardless of niche. Gaming affiliates are notorious for it.
It should be shunned but the headline kinda makes it seem like something it isn't, although correct. They aren't primarily after the blog audience but rather Google.
It should be shunned but the headline kinda makes it seem like something it isn't, although correct. They aren't primarily after the blog audience but rather Google.
Yes, plain old link building. But the article stated its parental bloggers who played along, so their audience was targeted in the same time.
I'd agree with the notion suggested in the article it may not even be about getting mothers to gamble as much as it is an attempt at blackhat SEO. Recruiting a few new gamblers is small potatoes compared to redirecting a large amount of web traffic for gambling-related keywords on Google.
Several gambling firms are aggressively throwing money at the problem of trying to manipulate PageRank-like algorithms. I've seen examples of them sponsoring open source projects, ostensibly in order to purchase a link from a high ranking website.
Makes sense though when basically your entire budget goes to marketing.
Several gambling firms are aggressively throwing money at the problem of trying to manipulate PageRank-like algorithms. I've seen examples of them sponsoring open source projects, ostensibly in order to purchase a link from a high ranking website.
Makes sense though when basically your entire budget goes to marketing.
Remember the Target scandal way back when? [0]
They had done the sciencing and found that there are only handful of life events where a large change of behavior can be made relatively easily.
Graduation, marriage, giving birth to a child.
The angle as I see it is to sneak in through that window and make gamblers out of those young mothers permanently.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
They had done the sciencing and found that there are only handful of life events where a large change of behavior can be made relatively easily.
Graduation, marriage, giving birth to a child.
The angle as I see it is to sneak in through that window and make gamblers out of those young mothers permanently.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
Target is one of my favorite stories. I think I talked about this example at like few different universities.
That sounds like a more plausible explanation, they're trying to juice up.
Plus, there's plenty of mobile games that are borderline gambling, look up monopoly go, it has all the hallmarks of creating addiction/gambling loops.
Plus, there's plenty of mobile games that are borderline gambling, look up monopoly go, it has all the hallmarks of creating addiction/gambling loops.
A lot of those mobile games are arguably worse. At least at a casino a small fraction of people actually walk away winners.
Even Disney was engaged in stealth marketing, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if a less reputable industry such as gambling is engaged in stealth marketing.
Disney Puts Some ‘Frozen 2’ Promotions on Ice After Twitter Flap https://archive.is/RFsLV
Disney Puts Some ‘Frozen 2’ Promotions on Ice After Twitter Flap https://archive.is/RFsLV
I'd spin this the other way round, even in the US it is unlawful to not disclose that you are advertising:
From your link:
> In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission said in 2017 that influencers on social media sites such as Twitter and Instagram “should clearly and conspicuously disclose” any paid work to promote a product or service.
Sponsored posts should be clearly labeled, at the very least
From your link:
> In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission said in 2017 that influencers on social media sites such as Twitter and Instagram “should clearly and conspicuously disclose” any paid work to promote a product or service.
Sponsored posts should be clearly labeled, at the very least
Anecdotally, the "conspicuously" provision is not enforced, and the FTC no longer has any contact/reporting channel for regular citizens to report violations, other than the specific case of being scammed.
I get anywhere from 50 to 100 emails every month asking me to put gambling/casino links on my site.
Let’s say the average is 75. Lets deduct another 25 because it’s probably the same guy.
At 200$ per link (low end) thats 10k per month.
50 blog posts with each one linking to a gambling site is kind of unrealistic though. But the numbers (and the demand) is there. I am sure the actual market is in the hundreds of millions for this kind of a scheme.
And even though it is easy money, I think Google probably has a good grasp on identifying that a mommy blog is linking out to a gambling network.
Let’s say the average is 75. Lets deduct another 25 because it’s probably the same guy.
At 200$ per link (low end) thats 10k per month.
50 blog posts with each one linking to a gambling site is kind of unrealistic though. But the numbers (and the demand) is there. I am sure the actual market is in the hundreds of millions for this kind of a scheme.
And even though it is easy money, I think Google probably has a good grasp on identifying that a mommy blog is linking out to a gambling network.
IME a lot of these people are middle men -- though it looks like it, they aren't actually offering to buy a link; they'll just add you to the list of sites willing to sell links that they hawk around to other site operators (via spam, natch)
Also, when I see prices mentioned, they tend to be in the $10-$50 range. But that could just be the tier my sites are in, I guess.
All that aside, it's an absolute no from me. Lie down with dogs, get fleas.
Also, when I see prices mentioned, they tend to be in the $10-$50 range. But that could just be the tier my sites are in, I guess.
All that aside, it's an absolute no from me. Lie down with dogs, get fleas.
I've actually jerked a lot of them around, I don't do it much anymore as I had my fun, but you're right. A lot of them will start with extremely lowball offers. I've had one guy email me once and I played with him for a while, he went from $25 per link to around $300 over the course of 5-6 emails.
For him, the middleman, it makes no sense to start with the real offer because in his mind he is thinking, "If I go as low as possible below the baseline, I get to keep the rest.".
Yeah, it's a no from me also. I mean it would not make any sense for me to write an article like that on my site even though it is about tech. It would be like lighting a fire in my living room and asking, "What's wrong?".
For him, the middleman, it makes no sense to start with the real offer because in his mind he is thinking, "If I go as low as possible below the baseline, I get to keep the rest.".
Yeah, it's a no from me also. I mean it would not make any sense for me to write an article like that on my site even though it is about tech. It would be like lighting a fire in my living room and asking, "What's wrong?".
So basically they have to do this manually like that because they are shut out from traditional ad networks?
No, they pay for placing do-follow links to their (or their customers) site, something you can't do with ad networks per se.
I would never, ever sell out to link farming but I am kind of insulted that I have never been offered that kind of money for a link. What is the point of principles if you never have the opportunity to test them?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact nobody reads my blog.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact nobody reads my blog.
I think a lot of them use tools like Ahrefs and Semrush to scan the "authority" of a website. The bigger the number (these tools go to 100) the higher the likelihood that you'll get pestered with these emails. For one of my domains, the one I was talking about, my rating is 70 and I have very good incoming links from various reputable sites.
I'm an "easy" target in that regard.
I'm an "easy" target in that regard.
Sometimes I get curious to see what these tools think of my site but they always want me to sign up. Fair enough, I guess, but I don't care enough to give them an email address.
> At 200$ per link (low end) thats 10k per month.
10k for one month. Then nobody will want to read you blog anymore.
10k for one month. Then nobody will want to read you blog anymore.
If you have a popular blog or social media account on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube, you may receive marketing emails from various brands, big or small, asking you to include links to their products or low-quality VPN services. The internet is essentially a colossal marketing machine. While some people on HN believe that Reddit reviews are authentic because they are created by humans, there is a possibility that they are also paid (although I do not have any evidence to support this claim).
Wow fuck the bloggers who played along with this.
I get daily requests to put up free articles on my site and I tell these folks that I pre-screen all links, no matter what. Crypto and/or gambling? Always a hard no.
I get daily requests to put up free articles on my site and I tell these folks that I pre-screen all links, no matter what. Crypto and/or gambling? Always a hard no.
In principle I agree with you, but will add: morality is cheap when ones belly is full.
"A principle isn't a principle until it costs you something." - Bill Bernbach
Counterpoint: morality only matters when you have something to lose, otherwise it's free.
Counter-counter-point: this only matters if you're doing this for social signalling purposes, and/or to boost your self-esteem, which is... kind of missing the point, and itself not too moral.
Something being "the right thing to do" is independent of whether, for you, it's something you're doing by default, or it's something cheap, or it's something requiring immense personal sacrifice. Either way, it's the right thing to do.
The way it matters in practice is that, if the society is structured so that doing the right thing is an act of great personal courage, very few people will do the right thing. If the society manages to make that cheap/free/default, nearly everyone will do the right thing. In this sense, morality is like working on stage lighting or sound during concerts, or being a sysadmin - if people can notice you doing work, you're doing it wrong.
(At least that's the more abstract take. Humans being what they are, if they don't feel recognized for their personal sacrifice, they'll just stop, as the need to belong is stronger than conscience.)
Something being "the right thing to do" is independent of whether, for you, it's something you're doing by default, or it's something cheap, or it's something requiring immense personal sacrifice. Either way, it's the right thing to do.
The way it matters in practice is that, if the society is structured so that doing the right thing is an act of great personal courage, very few people will do the right thing. If the society manages to make that cheap/free/default, nearly everyone will do the right thing. In this sense, morality is like working on stage lighting or sound during concerts, or being a sysadmin - if people can notice you doing work, you're doing it wrong.
(At least that's the more abstract take. Humans being what they are, if they don't feel recognized for their personal sacrifice, they'll just stop, as the need to belong is stronger than conscience.)
Yes, that's true, if it is done well it is likely done quietly.
But I've seen some very impressive acts of altruism happen near me that by their sheer impact would never have gone unnoticed.
But I've seen some very impressive acts of altruism happen near me that by their sheer impact would never have gone unnoticed.
How is this a counterpoint? It's literally the same point they made. Morality is easy if you have a full belly - you can easily choose to dismiss advertisers like these because your financial wellbeing doesn't depend on getting their money. There's nothing to lose by dismissing them. If you are struggling financially then there is a lot to lose by not accepting their offers.
Well some people will do horrible things to go from good to great. That's much worse than doing horrible things to stay afloat.
Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't it be one of these 2 instead?
Morality is cheap when one's belly is empty.
Morality is easy when one's belly is full.
Morality is cheap when one's belly is empty.
Morality is easy when one's belly is full.
Depends if you are the buyer or the seller
It took me a couple minutes to work that out... But now I see what you aresaying. Thanks!
To put it in perspective, our company works with a casino that wants to target women in marketing efforts, but that extends as far as stock photos and general language, not telling mothers gambling is a stress reliever or financial solution. The headline of this article should be updated because it's not illegal to advertise gambling to mothers or to pay for ads or blogs. It's illegal (in some places) to pretend gambling is risk free to relieve stress and financial burdens.
This is "just" the usual, paying influencers to push products. The product is legal, advertising via influencers is legal. Except this time it's not teenagers and hand creams but new mothers and gambling.
The gambling companies are likely in the clear. They are allowed to advertise to everyone one (maybe over 18 which mum blogs mostly cover).
So I guess it's bad but I'm not sure which part of the chain is the weakest link. Is advertising gambling the bad thing? Maybe. Or advertising via influencers? This should certainly be more regulated.
I struggle to be outraged by people doing legal things, I'd rather think about what is wrong with the law itself.
The gambling companies are likely in the clear. They are allowed to advertise to everyone one (maybe over 18 which mum blogs mostly cover).
So I guess it's bad but I'm not sure which part of the chain is the weakest link. Is advertising gambling the bad thing? Maybe. Or advertising via influencers? This should certainly be more regulated.
I struggle to be outraged by people doing legal things, I'd rather think about what is wrong with the law itself.
I was a professional gambler for several years. I eventually gave up because it wasn't hard to find lines that had been mispriced and profitable gamblers get cut off quickly. Coral in particular ran a very simple algo, once you were up £1000 they cut your maximum bet by 90%.
I became convinced that bookmakers strategy was to entice those with a predilection to addiction and then take all their money.
I became convinced that bookmakers strategy was to entice those with a predilection to addiction and then take all their money.
No one going to a mommy blog looking for baby food recipes ends up signing up or online gambling somehow. This is a story about SEO/ search engine ranking but that wouldn't get clicks. Whatever you think about online gambling, the narrative presented here is really distorting the truth.
While horrifying, not too surprising at this point.
Good god! A business advertising! What will they think of next.
I agree, if this disgusts you and makes you feel angry, try Flinton's Mild Cigars, a man's time to relax!
I suppose you're being tongue in cheek but if you want to smoke cigars go for it.
You only live once it you think smoking improves quality and you're welling to cut down quantity. Go for it.
You only live once it you think smoking improves quality and you're welling to cut down quantity. Go for it.
Sounds like your beliefs are aligned with individual freedoms and responsibility, probably something like libertarian where the government had minimal influence? This is a guess.
Anyway I disagree with this point of view because large corporations, thanks to the law are like defacto governments with a lot of power, and there needs to be something with the muscle to stand up to them (the slap on wrist fines we read about means there probably isn't enough muscle, but better than none).
Remember the large corps have all the data (the new oil) the cash (billions) and control the technology. Statistically if you temp a million people to try gambling some will get addicted there is no way to avoid this, even though you could say those that got addicted it was there own fault, and not the fault of the large corps hiding tempting messages in areas of the internet they trust.
Anyway I disagree with this point of view because large corporations, thanks to the law are like defacto governments with a lot of power, and there needs to be something with the muscle to stand up to them (the slap on wrist fines we read about means there probably isn't enough muscle, but better than none).
Remember the large corps have all the data (the new oil) the cash (billions) and control the technology. Statistically if you temp a million people to try gambling some will get addicted there is no way to avoid this, even though you could say those that got addicted it was there own fault, and not the fault of the large corps hiding tempting messages in areas of the internet they trust.
It’s not uncommon for authorities to ban advertising by industries whose mission is to make the world worse. Eg tobacco ads are banned where I live. This here may be legal now but I interpret the article as in favour of a ban on gambling ads, which sounds like a good idea to me.
I guess I agree with the premise, but not the deciders.
As far as I'm concerned, probably 80 to 90% of advertising is for things that make the world worse.
As far as I'm concerned, probably 80 to 90% of advertising is for things that make the world worse.
So, when will Google be fined for the blatantly fraudlent ads they are allowing on YouTube? Scam all over the place.
[flagged]
Okay but is there a reason to believe this is whataboutism rather than pointing out an additional problem we might discuss? If it were whataboutism I'd expect to see an implication that this excuses the gambling industry, but I don't see it.
A business advertising a potentially harmful product in a way that contravenes the rules.
Commercial advertisement comes with many regulations and ethical requirements in every nation. Even in the capitalist hell of the US you are typically not allowed to brazenly lie to consumers to their face. Deception for financial gain is fraud.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs." -Banksy