Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

History will I believe judge the Roberts court harshly for all the negative effects and misery it has caused in the 2010s. The gutting of campaign finance reform means politicians are effectively owned by PACs and corporations now. Gutting the Civil Rights Act because "we don't need Federal preclearance anymore" (followed quickly by 20+ states quickly enacting the kinds of voting restrictions the Civil Rights Act was intended to curb). And of course the accessibility of gambling in the form of sports betting.

It should be clear that gambling is really bad for some people. Gambling addicts have the highest rate of suicide of any addicts [1].

Most people either don't gamble or can gamble responsibly. What kept this system in check was that gambling was relatively inaccessible in our daily lives. That provided a useful barrier to entry. It's simply too convenient for people who can gamble on their phones while waiting for their Starbucks.

This became an issue on Twitch last year with the rise of gambling (ie slots) streams. Some streamers defended it as entertainment (never mind that they're getting paid millions of dollars). But we restrict access (or at least convenient access) to many activities that can become more problematic if they're too convenient. Liquor licensing, age restrictions, locations of venues, that sort of thing.

We've seen this in Australia with poker machines ("pokies" aka slot machines). In the Eastern States social clubs, pubs and the likes can have them. And they make a fortune. This creates huge gambling problems and has for decades. By comparison, Western Australia does not have pokies and is better off for it.

Sports betting is gambling really no different to slot machines. It's slightly better because there's not the immediate feedback loop and there is some skill but it is gambling and easy access to it is bad for many people.

[1]: https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/problem-gambl...




>The gutting of campaign finance reform means politicians are effectively owned by PACs and corporations now.

Whoah now, you're saying that documentaries critical of Hillary Clinton shouldn't be able to be legally distributed? Because that was the origin of Citizens United


It’s a non-sequitur to lead from the cause of the case to the decision handed down. The Court always has the ability to moderate its opinions. One can simultaneously believe that a documentary should be able to be distributed within range of an election and also that money is not a form of speech, or that corporations do not have the same speech rights as people.


Pace people who believe oral arguments don’t make any diffence because justices just read the brief (ahem Thomas), Paul Clement’s terrible performance in the oral argument for the government pretty much sealed the fate of Citizens United.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: