The Guardian bans all gambling advertising
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
(They nearly got away with taking a bribe from Ecclestone to liberalize cigarette advertising, but people spotted that)
The US has a similar 'WTF' when it comes to pharmaceutical ads.
It's the most dystopian wtf moment I've experienced in my life. Dramatic music, documentary-like-voice as if about how someone will murder everyone you know, and the whole point is "don't vote for this person based on the feelings I just made you feel".
Politically influencing people through advertisements regarding who to vote for is plenty democratic and civilized. Those ads are actually very well curtailed by slander and libel laws. Any/everything said about another candidate is almost definitely true, albeit sensationalized.
And, whether or not something is covered by slander and libel laws is absolutely meaningless. You can convey the same emotional message without actually making statements, if what you want is just to scare people.
"Do you reaaally want to find out if your kids will be safe to walk home from school if X is elected for office? Imagine the phone call you receive from the police department when they ask you to identify the body. Don't wait for that phone call. Vote for Y, tough on crime...."
No statements here, no slander. Just a perversion of a democratic process.
The US is heading in a similar direction with gambling, if we aren't there already. Sports betting it feels like makes up half of the advertising and sponsorships you see when you watch professional sports these days.
>Environmental damage(transportation)
>Addiction
>Opportunity cost
>Celeb worship
and only partially related:
>Sports betting(and addiction to betting)
Its a hard pill to take, I habitually watch my university's football team. It is depressing since they lose and their expectations are high. Even the year they won, I can't help to think how many hours I wasted on useless feeder teams and previous seasons. There is a community aspect, but this is overblown because nearly every hobby has a community.
Nothing wrong with playing sports, but there is a reason for the phrase 'bread and circuses'.
Artificially and without any input from the user.
Just because the masses of population do something, doesnt make it good.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
But also, those are plenty of things to bond over. Watching sports to bond must be one of the most shallow types of bonding.
Anyway, I have yet to have a coworker get worked up about casual conversation and I don't watch sports anymore. Seems like a non issue.
Honestly, that's all many people are looking for in an office setting. They aren't looking to get into deep discussions about their dreams and fears, they just want to know the people they're working with are friendly and talk about something other than work for a bit.
It also provides an artificial sense of community where people celebrate the success of something in which they have no part. It's a vicarious form of community achievement which takes effort and money from real communities, like your neighbors and the city around you.
If you're addicted there is no fun. And to stop, you can't stop. Kind of an ridiculous slogan don't you think?
They don't really have an interest for their best customers to drink responsibly.
Same as the gambling industry is not interested that their best clients stop. Regardless if the fun stopped or not.
Then the whole industry was deregulated by the 2005 Gambling Act, and some extremely predatory companies moved in to exploit the new space. The 2008 GFC resulted in a lot of high street shops suddenly becoming empty, particularly in socio-economically poorer areas, and many were converted into betting shops. I understand it used to be the case that banks and bookmakers premises had the same planning designation and so, as banks unloaded their high street premises, they could be converted to betting shops without requiring planning permission.
The present UK government doesn't seem interested in effective regulation, and the legal review they announced in 2021 appears to be stalled. Meanwhile the industry continues to create endless misery.
There are some regulations or standard applied to alcohol ads though right? And not allowed for in content / showing people drink it TV shows as well?
I am for free speech.. so I hate to say ban ads.. but I can see 'no sexy models pushing alcohol / gamblin' - perhaps they should be words only and no imagery allowed.. still want optout option for google news and similar.. nice if can be opted out at an ip level - seeing those ads on chromecast and other devices, meh!
I applaud the move either way, but stopping doing something that's 0.1% of your revenue vs something that is 25% are two very different things.
> Guardian Media Group increasingly relies on contributions directly from readers, rather than advertising, for its income.
Which is no wonder they 'seem' to be continuously begging their readers to pay. Now after this, I should expect them to be begging even more aggressively, unless someone is funding them grants or what not, since they are still not telling us something or giving an exact figure.
Either way, one-sided publications like the Guardian is hardly worth paying for regardless.
There is hardly anything better left though and the Guardian is one of the very few independent major publications left which is something.
> begging even more aggressively
So you prefer a paywall or them being reliant on gambling ads, maybe a rich owner who definitely has no agenda buying it would be the best option?
We should speculate in every direction while considering the motivations of a person or company, and we should weigh the likelihood and potential costs of being right or wrong about our suspicions when choosing how to react to events. Blinding ourselves to motivations (actual or possible) is a losing game which will only make us easier to manipulate.
Totally disagree, especially for companies. Companies are usually thousands of people. Any action was probably hotly debated, and some agreed and some opposed. It's just silly to treat a company like an individual person who has good motivations and bad motivations.
You do you, but I don't think making up motivations and then acting like they're true makes anyone less easy to manipulate.
Although I see that's on the way out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65260002
And good riddance too
But obviously it does create a perception of conflict of interest...
An example is https://www.telegraph.co.uk/betting/casino-guides/blackjack/
It's just odd to have this on a trusted national newspaper. Feels very out of place.
https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/massachusetts-sports-bettin...
It kind of amuses me thinking of all the contracts I might consider whereas jobs for Gambling companies are an immediate 'Nope'.
Such a nasty industry.
Humans have almost no control over the reptilian part of the brain, this is the part that keeps people coming back to drugs and gambling. (There is a book Power of Habit, my number 1 book ever, that talks about how that reptile brain works, I'd pay $100k for that book)
If humans have no control over something, maybe there is a case for big brother stepping in. But not if having a black market actually improves the condition.
It encourages dumb behavior but brings in money for the state. Is it a net win or net loss… depends on how much the negative externality is valued—is lotto a gateway to more gambling or a substitute for other, costlier gambling?
There are plenty of people who argue that lotteries should be banned, which is fine, but that will result in fewer services or higher taxes.
You don't see lottery signs in the rich neighborhoods of Los Angeles. You only see them in the poor ones.
So that money that it generates? We're still paying for that, as those people now need more help to get around.
And I say 'we', but I'm out.
Like I can see a gambling ad without wanting to gamble, but other people have it SO BAD that the Guardian is avoiding showing me gambling ads, just to be on the safe side. it's shocking.
If you have a long term account with a bookie, you are a loser. (in monetary terms. :))
Not sure if it’s related to the fact thay they’re excluding state-sponsored gambling from the “ban”.
But the minority definitions are exactly why I added the “or” part.
but as a purchaser of insurance you're giving up a risk in exchange for a fixed loss, which is the exact opposite of gambling