Hey man I really like your vids but I think you should introduce the ad read as an ad read bc otherwise in a video about the ethics of online media deceitfully selling something to the viewers it can kinda come off a bit fishy if it’s not clear especially you’re suddenly saying “hey yeah gambling is kinda like stocks right (I agree) so instead put your money into this TOTALLY different not gambling thingy that’s paying to make this video” like i understand the difficulty of doing sponsor reads bc most people will just skip ahead a few seconds and I doubt that masterworks is actually trying to trick people (despite how sketchy it feels) but tbh it feels more deceitful to not intro the sponsor read as a sponsor till the last moment. Had I not looked at the timeline during that segment and say had I been a young child, the ad read feels more like an active personal endorsement as opposed to what it actually is
man that masterworks sponsorship left a bad taste in my mouth. Have the decency of telling us at the start of an ad read that it is ad read instead of it seamlessly being integrated in the video. Really disappointing especially in a video that is an ethical analysis on gambling livestreams
Yo. I loved the vid and the overall series. But something disturbed me : didn t I just saw one of the most well placed ad for investing in what seems like a kinda of a bet in some art dealing smack in the middle of the demonstration on how one may be lured again and again in making easy money by investing in ultimately losing objects? I mean, for a moment, I though that was part of the demonstration. But again, kudos to the serie and to you Duncan.
love the vid big D. you're philospher tierlist inspired me to get into reading philosophy. I now have a small collection of books due to you: Being and Nothingness, Either/Or, The Prince, Beyond Good or Evil, The Republic, Discourse on Method, and Meditations which I have read many times and is my personal favourite. Really enjoying your videos, thanks!
Nah, man you are a legend, that amount of hard text would take me a year to get through, man did it in a month, especially continental and existential....
Love the video man, you have a way of seamlessly editing the different parts of your discussion together that I'm gonna try an emulate lol. I just binged all your videos, I don't know how I hadn't been recommended any of this before.
Really good video Duncan your becoming one of those really rare youtubers like Vsauce or Aperture full of educational material dont stop making videos we need people like u
It’d be interesting to see some numbers for the viewership of these kinds of streams on Twitch, and the viewers that proceed to gamble on said sites (along with how much they spend on average).
I think a lot about relevance realization when I hear about moral dilemmas. It kinda seems like we’re making different affordances to different ideas as we try to realize what’s the right moral choice, and so we end up with contradictions and confused feelings. And so i think that means it all kinda ends up being subjective in the end, even as we try to get an optimal grip on these problems. I enjoyed the vid, but I’m not sure how I feel about the sponsoring of this video tho, especially in the context of gambling
The reason chicken were originally domesticated from forest dwelling fowl wasn't eggs or meat. Those could be had just by collecting or hunting in the wild. Rather it was for keeping them for rooster fighting and betting on the outcome.
Good vid but including an ad for a speculative investment platform on a video about the ethics of GAMBLING (and not even making it clear that it’s an ad till the very end) was definitely a choice…
A streamer ought to at some point ask what is the price for their integrity. It's a tough question because letting go voluntarily of a competitive advantage, even slightly, might be enough to lower their rank or popularity. Which indicates that viewers may inadvertently punish their favorite streamer in response to a good faith effort to set boundaries. So the balance you mentioned is likely true, it's not enough to be responsible for the viewer, the viewer must be responsible for themselves too. If, hypothetically, the streamer's source of income disappears the moment measures are put in place to ensure only adults viewed their content, then their profession wouldn't have been legitimate to begin with. Also from one Canadian to another, love your content and I hope your ad transitions have gotten more transparent since this video came out, as I found myself confused for a moment.
Very interesting video but that ad is questionable ethically. Art is not something I'd recommend people to invest in and you don't make it clear if it is your personal opinion or a paid ad.
If the viewer is watching the stream purely for entertainment aren’t they also using the streamer as a means to an end in the same way the streamer is using the viewer as a means? The gambling corporations paying the streamers also seek human means. If each aspect of the system is using in this way can the system be moral? I get that intention matters but I don’t think that the streamers intention should be the only one questioned. A part of the attraction of these things is to gawk at the risk of the gamblers, their failure just as their reward = entertainment for the viewer. Especially with a public figure and known rich person like Drake, I feel like it might be disingenuous to assume the viewers emotional attachment to the streamer. Not to say that any feelings the viewer has positive or negative toward the streamer are immoral I don’t believe that whatsoever, just in that sense the streamer is also being used as a means. I don’t mean to sound snarky or anything I agree with you and good video and everything just something fun to think about :))
I disagree with the comparison of gambling streams and alcohol propaganda. The fact that to consume alcohol you need to go out and buy it, you physically make a transaction and need to pour the licor into your body. With online gambling you don’t understand most of the times that your real money is going away because it’s all digital. The comparison would make total sense if the streams were a propaganda for real life casinos like the ones in Vegas. I don’t disagree with your point, I just don’t think it was the best comparison. Loved the video tho, congrats again!
I know I'm throwing money out the window by playing the lottery. But just the fun of dreaming about winning is worth 5$ a week to me. Were I could win/be excited 3 times a week.
It's a nice balance. I don't get the lows because my highs aren't really that high. I know I won't win (other than small amounts now and then), but I can really afford to waste 5$ weekly to cover all my "gambling needs"
@@kmann100500 Thanks for advice, I've been investing most of my earnings for 10 years now. My 5$ weekly, is literally my gambling budget at the cost of a coffee or two.
@jesus walks It's solid advice, I already have invested the majority of my earnings over the last decade like I told the other guy here. In both individual stocks, index funds, property market and crypto. 100% of your budget can't go to practical use. You also need some fun in life. Besides, I can actually win something. Unlike if I bought a 5$ beer.
Moral realism isn’t identical to the claim that morality will necessarily be discovered. There could be actual morality who’s verifications and/or specifications are unjustifiable to limited minds
But I find it hard to believe that in a world that at least seems to be physical, that there should be such things as objective moral truths. Would you agree?
@@Opposite271 I can’t. For if I would agree, I would have to perform an action that has no physical manifestation. Which is agreement. Also in a purely physical universe there isn’t any ruling out of the option for intelligent beings to just not encounter this or that entity despite experiencing their effects, such as the plant that grows from light originating in a different spot in space time. Existential comics has a funny one about mathematical platonists encountering the idea of the number 5 in a forest and messing up taking its picture like it was Bigfoot.if we take the joke seriously we could say the platonic forms are located in unobserved locations. If we do not we can laugh about mental concepts taking physical space. Either option enables the existence of mental phenomena such as morality existing outside of our cognition
@@benzur3503 Couldn’t it be that what we call „agreement“ is just an oversimplification of something physical? A mereological Nihilist would for example argue that cats don’t exist and instead there are just simples arranged cat-wise. In other words the concept of „cats“ are just an oversimplification of what is in reality just simples arranged a certain way. Would you agree that every assumption is a possible source of error and that therefore a moral theory with fewer assumptions has a higher probability of being true? Would you then agree that there are moral theories that are more likely to be true then moral realism because moral realism contains the additional assumption that the world has objective moral features?
@@Opposite271 if you consider it a simplification of something else, I’ll be interested to hear what simple parts could consist of “agreement”. I could answer the same to the meteological nihilist- it lacks an explanation of why such an arrangement is considered to be catlike- or why minds consider some things as arrangements of a certain types and others as not. If we simply chart out basic particles into forms for our own conception, there should be a reason we can’t simply inscribe a certain form out of air via focusing only on the catlike arrangement inside the mesh of oxygen particles surrounding us for example. The mereological nihilist owes me an explanation of why I am not entirely surrounded by cats. I don’t agree that more assumptions=less true, and I don’t consider likelihood as a measure of truth. Only as a measure of assumption regarding incomplete knowledge. The simplest explanation for any phenomena is “god willed it, and anything that god wills necessarily occurs.” The simplicity of this explanation does not make it any less or more true. It’s just easier to comprehend. I’m regarding arguments about existence as such, not about existence as perceptible and comprehensible to the human mind.
@@benzur3503 It could be argued that „God willed it“ is not the only simplest explanation and we could also just say „the simples did it through interaction“. Of curse this would bring the question of how exactly the simples did it. But „God willed it“ would also bring the question of why he willed it. A mereological Nihilist would probably answer that it has an evolutionary advantage to categorize our environment in a certain way. If we categorize the air around us as „predator“ then we would constantly running away. So do you believe it is impossible to know anything outside our perception? Why do fewer assumptions not mean that it is more probable true?
Frankly, I’m unable to understand the appeal of slots and gambling streams. Gambling and playing slots yourself, with your own money at stake; I get how people could get addicted with the rush in adrenaline. Watching someone else deal with the consequences makes me feel indifferent.
I'm so glad you touched on moral relativism. As a leftist I constantly hear other leftists saying things such as someone being evil or a bad person etc and bringing a spiritual aspect into morality discussions instead of just saying that what another person, ideology etc represents is disagreeable to me/us. There is no objective morality and even science can't be fully objective (what I mean by this is that as Hume pointed out we can only know causation and not definitive results i.e. we know that the sun has risen trillions of previous times so we assume that it will again but we don't know that for sure, we are just presuming that it will, the only objective thing that we can say about that is that the sun has risen trillions of times not that it will for sure tomorrow).
Yes there is no objective morality, however, in order to have significant and useful moral discourse you have to accept some axioms as true. People are justified in saying things are 'bad' and 'evil' in a social context, because despite there being no objective moral facts -- in a community or society there are moral axioms that are implied to be objectively true (even if they aren't in reality).
@@LAN2D „In a community or Society there are moral axioms that are implied to be objectively true“ Do most societies not have subgroups with different moral axioms? So would you agree that the closest thing you can get to a set of axioms are the laws of the society? So doesn’t that mean that morality equals legality?
Great video, although i HATE the sponsorship, because in this context it is very manipulative feeding on people crisis or desperation. "Gambling sucks, your money is losing value, go here, for safe investment: "
Gambleing streams are not wrong unless the one streaming says its profitable. Just make them have something akin to a open wallet on the side at all times that track all the money thats gone in and out from winning and losses through gambleing. Punish the ones that tinker with it BIGTIME. Most of humanity nowadays misstake wisdom and knowledge for the same thing and goes for the fast more emotional thinking to soak up the "damage" that keeps pileing up behind them. And as society is starting forgive anyone for negligence instead of teaching them early on how to avoid conartists and let thier own bad judgement be the biggest cause in future missfortunes that might befall them. Simply show the facts and odds for people and if they want to take the chance then no cries or bailout after a loss. If they never want learn I see no value in someone that honestly just think of thier own possible profits before anyone/thing else no matter of the promises of castles when they hit it big. Edicate helpless people that bandits dont care about your fair naive views if there is money on the line (sadly enough) ^^'
If any kid is watching a live stream for 18+, that's neither the streamer's nor twitch's fault, the role of controlling what the kid is exposed to rests with the parents.
I think it gets murky because these streamers have cultivated a following before the gambling sponsors, a following that they know consists largely of impressionable teens and young adults, by making content targeted to that demographic, on a platform targeted towards that demographic. In this context, the idea that the live stream is for 18+ is technically correct, but not correct in spirit. And then moral questions continue their relevance to the conversation
No it's not the role of the parent. It's the role of the website and streamer to ensure they are providing a service that isn't actively harmful to their userbase. It is the website's job to regulate the streamers' behaviour, and if they can't/won't do that, then it's the government's job to regulate the website. Putting the responsibility on the individual is a recipe for disaster.
@@wilianwwr Do you understand that in a capitalist system companies are actively encouraged to *exploit* their userbase for profit? You saw in the video that we are literally programmed by our psychology to succumb to gambling temptation, meaning that the individual is already useless at preventing this exploitation to themselves. Who else can force companies to act ethically other than the government? I'm not saying it will happen, because the government is a slave to capitalism too, but that's what *should* happen.
Always remember “90% of gambling addicts quit right before they’re about to hit it big”
Hey man I really like your vids but I think you should introduce the ad read as an ad read bc otherwise in a video about the ethics of online media deceitfully selling something to the viewers it can kinda come off a bit fishy if it’s not clear especially you’re suddenly saying “hey yeah gambling is kinda like stocks right (I agree) so instead put your money into this TOTALLY different not gambling thingy that’s paying to make this video” like i understand the difficulty of doing sponsor reads bc most people will just skip ahead a few seconds and I doubt that masterworks is actually trying to trick people (despite how sketchy it feels) but tbh it feels more deceitful to not intro the sponsor read as a sponsor till the last moment. Had I not looked at the timeline during that segment and say had I been a young child, the ad read feels more like an active personal endorsement as opposed to what it actually is
This video actively mocks the sponsor by putting it in this theme of video. You should just know better
What a fitting sponsorship lmfao.
man that masterworks sponsorship left a bad taste in my mouth. Have the decency of telling us at the start of an ad read that it is ad read instead of it seamlessly being integrated in the video. Really disappointing especially in a video that is an ethical analysis on gambling livestreams
Great video, terrible ad read with no upfront disclosure
Yo. I loved the vid and the overall series. But something disturbed me : didn t I just saw one of the most well placed ad for investing in what seems like a kinda of a bet in some art dealing smack in the middle of the demonstration on how one may be lured again and again in making easy money by investing in ultimately losing objects? I mean, for a moment, I though that was part of the demonstration. But again, kudos to the serie and to you Duncan.
love the vid big D. you're philospher tierlist inspired me to get into reading philosophy. I now have a small collection of books due to you: Being and Nothingness, Either/Or, The Prince, Beyond Good or Evil, The Republic, Discourse on Method, and Meditations which I have read many times and is my personal favourite. Really enjoying your videos, thanks!
Great picks! And kudos for diving into those difficuly texts
Nah, man you are a legend, that amount of hard text would take me a year to get through, man did it in a month, especially continental and existential....
bro just said gambling bad btw heres my gambling sponsor
LULW
Love the video man, you have a way of seamlessly editing the different parts of your discussion together that I'm gonna try an emulate lol. I just binged all your videos, I don't know how I hadn't been recommended any of this before.
It's kinda surprising that It took this long for internet gambling to become more popular
That was a smooth ass transition to ad read
JUST GOT DUNC’D ON!
Just found Your channel and I love it! Keep up the good work man
A different approach from the million gambling debates on youtube, very nice video!
Your videos are awesome man! Can't wait to see more from you.
Really good video Duncan your becoming one of those really rare youtubers like Vsauce or Aperture full of educational material dont stop making videos we need people like u
No idea who you are or when I subscribed to you, but I like the editing here. Keep it up
Yo I just gained 2 IQ
Awesome video dude! Super nice flow and visuals
Great video!
It’d be interesting to see some numbers for the viewership of these kinds of streams on Twitch, and the viewers that proceed to gamble on said sites (along with how much they spend on average).
POG new video
really good content
The Masterworks ad read left a bad taste in my mouth.
good vid as always
I think a lot about relevance realization when I hear about moral dilemmas. It kinda seems like we’re making different affordances to different ideas as we try to realize what’s the right moral choice, and so we end up with contradictions and confused feelings. And so i think that means it all kinda ends up being subjective in the end, even as we try to get an optimal grip on these problems. I enjoyed the vid, but I’m not sure how I feel about the sponsoring of this video tho, especially in the context of gambling
Investing and gambling are completely different
seems like with twitch new ban policies this debate might be more relevant than ever
What theories of ethics would justify pushing the Masterworks art scam in the middle of your video?
Great content mate
underrated channel
Very nice, my brother in Christ!
The reason chicken were originally domesticated from forest dwelling fowl wasn't eggs or meat. Those could be had just by collecting or hunting in the wild. Rather it was for keeping them for rooster fighting and betting on the outcome.
Wow!
For the algorithm🙏🏽
MY BOI DUNCAN IS BACK!!!
You integrated that ad read so well. I resent you for it, but I gotta admit it was smooth
Good vid but including an ad for a speculative investment platform on a video about the ethics of GAMBLING (and not even making it clear that it’s an ad till the very end) was definitely a choice…
A streamer ought to at some point ask what is the price for their integrity. It's a tough question because letting go voluntarily of a competitive advantage, even slightly, might be enough to lower their rank or popularity. Which indicates that viewers may inadvertently punish their favorite streamer in response to a good faith effort to set boundaries. So the balance you mentioned is likely true, it's not enough to be responsible for the viewer, the viewer must be responsible for themselves too. If, hypothetically, the streamer's source of income disappears the moment measures are put in place to ensure only adults viewed their content, then their profession wouldn't have been legitimate to begin with.
Also from one Canadian to another, love your content and I hope your ad transitions have gotten more transparent since this video came out, as I found myself confused for a moment.
Very interesting video but that ad is questionable ethically. Art is not something I'd recommend people to invest in and you don't make it clear if it is your personal opinion or a paid ad.
If the viewer is watching the stream purely for entertainment aren’t they also using the streamer as a means to an end in the same way the streamer is using the viewer as a means? The gambling corporations paying the streamers also seek human means. If each aspect of the system is using in this way can the system be moral? I get that intention matters but I don’t think that the streamers intention should be the only one questioned. A part of the attraction of these things is to gawk at the risk of the gamblers, their failure just as their reward = entertainment for the viewer. Especially with a public figure and known rich person like Drake, I feel like it might be disingenuous to assume the viewers emotional attachment to the streamer. Not to say that any feelings the viewer has positive or negative toward the streamer are immoral I don’t believe that whatsoever, just in that sense the streamer is also being used as a means.
I don’t mean to sound snarky or anything I agree with you and good video and everything just something fun to think about :))
I disagree with the comparison of gambling streams and alcohol propaganda.
The fact that to consume alcohol you need to go out and buy it, you physically make a transaction and need to pour the licor into your body.
With online gambling you don’t understand most of the times that your real money is going away because it’s all digital.
The comparison would make total sense if the streams were a propaganda for real life casinos like the ones in Vegas.
I don’t disagree with your point, I just don’t think it was the best comparison.
Loved the video tho, congrats again!
For the algorithm
I know I'm throwing money out the window by playing the lottery. But just the fun of dreaming about winning is worth 5$ a week to me. Were I could win/be excited 3 times a week.
i'm sure the 3 highs are followed by 3 lows. when are you gonna step off the roller coaster buddy?
It's a nice balance. I don't get the lows because my highs aren't really that high. I know I won't win (other than small amounts now and then), but I can really afford to waste 5$ weekly to cover all my "gambling needs"
Invest that money instead and you could retire $36000 richer.
@@kmann100500 Thanks for advice, I've been investing most of my earnings for 10 years now. My 5$ weekly, is literally my gambling budget at the cost of a coffee or two.
@jesus walks It's solid advice, I already have invested the majority of my earnings over the last decade like I told the other guy here. In both individual stocks, index funds, property market and crypto. 100% of your budget can't go to practical use. You also need some fun in life. Besides, I can actually win something. Unlike if I bought a 5$ beer.
Moral realism isn’t identical to the claim that morality will necessarily be discovered. There could be actual morality who’s verifications and/or specifications are unjustifiable to limited minds
But I find it hard to believe that in a world that at least seems to be physical, that there should be such things as objective moral truths.
Would you agree?
@@Opposite271 I can’t. For if I would agree, I would have to perform an action that has no physical manifestation. Which is agreement. Also in a purely physical universe there isn’t any ruling out of the option for intelligent beings to just not encounter this or that entity despite experiencing their effects, such as the plant that grows from light originating in a different spot in space time. Existential comics has a funny one about mathematical platonists encountering the idea of the number 5 in a forest and messing up taking its picture like it was Bigfoot.if we take the joke seriously we could say the platonic forms are located in unobserved locations. If we do not we can laugh about mental concepts taking physical space. Either option enables the existence of mental phenomena such as morality existing outside of our cognition
@@benzur3503
Couldn’t it be that what we call „agreement“ is just an oversimplification of something physical?
A mereological Nihilist would for example argue that cats don’t exist and instead there are just simples arranged cat-wise. In other words the concept of „cats“ are just an oversimplification of what is in reality just simples arranged a certain way.
Would you agree that every assumption is a possible source of error and that therefore a moral theory with fewer assumptions has a higher probability of being true?
Would you then agree that there are moral theories that are more likely to be true then moral realism because moral realism contains the additional assumption that the world has objective moral features?
@@Opposite271 if you consider it a simplification of something else, I’ll be interested to hear what simple parts could consist of “agreement”. I could answer the same to the meteological nihilist- it lacks an explanation of why such an arrangement is considered to be catlike- or why minds consider some things as arrangements of a certain types and others as not. If we simply chart out basic particles into forms for our own conception, there should be a reason we can’t simply inscribe a certain form out of air via focusing only on the catlike arrangement inside the mesh of oxygen particles surrounding us for example. The mereological nihilist owes me an explanation of why I am not entirely surrounded by cats. I don’t agree that more assumptions=less true, and I don’t consider likelihood as a measure of truth. Only as a measure of assumption regarding incomplete knowledge. The simplest explanation for any phenomena is “god willed it, and anything that god wills necessarily occurs.” The simplicity of this explanation does not make it any less or more true. It’s just easier to comprehend. I’m regarding arguments about existence as such, not about existence as perceptible and comprehensible to the human mind.
@@benzur3503
It could be argued that „God willed it“ is not the only simplest explanation and we could also just say „the simples did it through interaction“.
Of curse this would bring the question of how exactly the simples did it.
But „God willed it“ would also bring the question of why he willed it.
A mereological Nihilist would probably answer that it has an evolutionary advantage to categorize our environment in a certain way.
If we categorize the air around us as „predator“ then we would constantly running away.
So do you believe it is impossible to know anything outside our perception?
Why do fewer assumptions not mean that it is more probable true?
Came in thinking I'd hate it, but I like how in depth you get with all the elements surrounding gambling. Thanks for adding to the conversation. xqcL
Had to stop in the middle of the vid, that ad was pretty scummy
It hurts to see how few views you have on this vid. RUclips algorithm really is kinda similar to casinos
I have a colleague that always watches such gambling streams while working. I still don't get it. I hope he doesn't gamble himself, though.
Duncan, are you trying to tell me we aren’t friends?
Frankly, I’m unable to understand the appeal of slots and gambling streams. Gambling and playing slots yourself, with your own money at stake; I get how people could get addicted with the rush in adrenaline. Watching someone else deal with the consequences makes me feel indifferent.
Just watch and don't gamble 4head
No, but I'm excited to hear your take.
duncan i love your videos but the masterworks sponsor was awful
That was the most seamless sponsor segment I’ve ever seen lol
I'm so glad you touched on moral relativism. As a leftist I constantly hear other leftists saying things such as someone being evil or a bad person etc and bringing a spiritual aspect into morality discussions instead of just saying that what another person, ideology etc represents is disagreeable to me/us. There is no objective morality and even science can't be fully objective (what I mean by this is that as Hume pointed out we can only know causation and not definitive results i.e. we know that the sun has risen trillions of previous times so we assume that it will again but we don't know that for sure, we are just presuming that it will, the only objective thing that we can say about that is that the sun has risen trillions of times not that it will for sure tomorrow).
Yes there is no objective morality, however, in order to have significant and useful moral discourse you have to accept some axioms as true. People are justified in saying things are 'bad' and 'evil' in a social context, because despite there being no objective moral facts -- in a community or society there are moral axioms that are implied to be objectively true (even if they aren't in reality).
@@LAN2D
„In a community or Society there are moral axioms that are implied to be objectively true“
Do most societies not have subgroups with different moral axioms?
So would you agree that the closest thing you can get to a set of axioms are the laws of the society?
So doesn’t that mean that morality equals legality?
Great video, although i HATE the sponsorship, because in this context it is very manipulative feeding on people crisis or desperation.
"Gambling sucks, your money is losing value, go here, for safe investment: "
Is hier noch wer wegen Imp
Gambleing streams are not wrong unless the one streaming says its profitable. Just make them have something akin to a open wallet on the side at all times that track all the money thats gone in and out from winning and losses through gambleing. Punish the ones that tinker with it BIGTIME.
Most of humanity nowadays misstake wisdom and knowledge for the same thing and goes for the fast more emotional thinking to soak up the "damage" that keeps pileing up behind them. And as society is starting forgive anyone for negligence instead of teaching them early on how to avoid conartists and let thier own bad judgement be the biggest cause in future missfortunes that might befall them.
Simply show the facts and odds for people and if they want to take the chance then no cries or bailout after a loss. If they never want learn I see no value in someone that honestly just think of thier own possible profits before anyone/thing else no matter of the promises of castles when they hit it big.
Edicate helpless people that bandits dont care about your fair naive views if there is money on the line (sadly enough) ^^'
para social sounds a bit like parasite
I would love to see you make a video about the parasocial nature of VTubers
One of the smoothest ads I’ve ever seen
19:48
Non-cognitivism?
Don't have to watch to know the answer is no they're not ethical
Get it twisted, you will win big, I am up millions 🎰🎰🎰🎰 /s
If any kid is watching a live stream for 18+, that's neither the streamer's nor twitch's fault, the role of controlling what the kid is exposed to rests with the parents.
I think it gets murky because these streamers have cultivated a following before the gambling sponsors, a following that they know consists largely of impressionable teens and young adults, by making content targeted to that demographic, on a platform targeted towards that demographic. In this context, the idea that the live stream is for 18+ is technically correct, but not correct in spirit. And then moral questions continue their relevance to the conversation
No it's not the role of the parent. It's the role of the website and streamer to ensure they are providing a service that isn't actively harmful to their userbase. It is the website's job to regulate the streamers' behaviour, and if they can't/won't do that, then it's the government's job to regulate the website. Putting the responsibility on the individual is a recipe for disaster.
@@LAN2D Let's give the power to decide what our children can or cannot see to the government, what can go wrong?
@@wilianwwr that's already what happens lmao they're just terrible at enforcing anything
@@wilianwwr Do you understand that in a capitalist system companies are actively encouraged to *exploit* their userbase for profit? You saw in the video that we are literally programmed by our psychology to succumb to gambling temptation, meaning that the individual is already useless at preventing this exploitation to themselves. Who else can force companies to act ethically other than the government? I'm not saying it will happen, because the government is a slave to capitalism too, but that's what *should* happen.
you can lose up to 100% of your money but at the same time you can win 2000% read that again
Such a fucking bad take on moral realism