> If a customer waves too many red flags, she said, the company will proactively close the account. But when I asked how often this actually happens, DraftKings wouldn’t say.
DraftKings will also ban your account if you're too good at betting. The perverse thing about sports betting is that it's technically a game of skill, but the sports gambling companies really, really would rather it not be one.
> Ms. Kalani said that company leaders made a “collective decision” not to use predictive technology for problem gambling. “We evaluated that it wasn’t evidence-based,” she said.
Expected. I'm always surprised that virtue signals like "gamble responsibly" or "corporate social responsibility" or the usual greenwashing campaigns work. People are seemingly very gullible.
Freedom includes being free to self regulate and to make mistakes.
But freedom also includes recognizing problems and acting responsibly to minimize the adverse affects to society at large. The problem being pointed out here is that some may be placing obstacles in the paths of those who are having trouble self regulating.
Gamblers aren't free in any meaningful sense. That's what a compulsion is - the inability to do otherwise.
Being free to self-regulate makes sense when a person has the capacity to self-regulate. It's nonsensical and Procrustean when applies to a person who lacks the ability.
> If a customer waves too many red flags, she said, the company will proactively close the account. But when I asked how often this actually happens, DraftKings wouldn’t say.
DraftKings will also ban your account if you're too good at betting. The perverse thing about sports betting is that it's technically a game of skill, but the sports gambling companies really, really would rather it not be one.
Matt Levine discussed this relevant NY Times article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/19/business/draftkings-ai.ht...
Pull quote:
> Ms. Kalani said that company leaders made a “collective decision” not to use predictive technology for problem gambling. “We evaluated that it wasn’t evidence-based,” she said.
Did you mean to link to the actual bloomberg article?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-09-22/who... (scroll down to "Gambler identification")
Related:
DraftKings Uses A.I. To Target the Gamblers Likeliest to Lose
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49765288
Expected. I'm always surprised that virtue signals like "gamble responsibly" or "corporate social responsibility" or the usual greenwashing campaigns work. People are seemingly very gullible.
those arn't greenwashing. They're carveouts by Corporations to prevent liability from acruing.
I have no idea what bridge you live under, but ignoring regulatory capture seems pretty obtuse.
I agree with your sentiment here, but was the bridge comment necessary?
Ban all gambling in my opinion
It’s pretty commonly accepted that gambling is an addiction, the OP’s comment comes off as dismissive (people being gullible).
We don’t talk about alcoholics being gullible - why gamblers? It’s pretty clear how unregulated the industry is, especially in the current climate.
We also don't talk about banning alcohol.
Freedom includes being free to self regulate and to make mistakes.
We had two amendments to the constitution about exactly that lmao. Alcohol is highly regulated.
Freedom includes being free to self regulate and to make mistakes.
But freedom also includes recognizing problems and acting responsibly to minimize the adverse affects to society at large. The problem being pointed out here is that some may be placing obstacles in the paths of those who are having trouble self regulating.
Gamblers aren't free in any meaningful sense. That's what a compulsion is - the inability to do otherwise.
Being free to self-regulate makes sense when a person has the capacity to self-regulate. It's nonsensical and Procrustean when applies to a person who lacks the ability.
[dead]