Is it about that specifically, or is it that the states are forcing these websites to play by the same rules as everyone else? Ignoring laws that everyone else has to play by is something that has worked so far for Airbnb and Uber but apparently something like gambling is a bit more clear cut.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. If they are just forcing them to "play by the same rules", Chollida's question just becomes "why are the rules in the state stacked against gambling?", with the rest of the question unchanged.

It's perfectly possible to fairly enforce unfair (and/or fair but counterproductive) rules, but that on its own doesn't justify it. Viewed this way, these companies are then just engaging in something like constructive noncompliance.

Your question reduces to: why is gambling illegal? And the answer is that lots of people don't like it, and people are entitled to make things they don't like illegal.

A recent poll found that 55% of people think sports betting should be legal, while 33% think it should be illegal: https://www13.shu.edu/academics/business/sports-polling/uplo.... But if you read closely, support drops off dramatically in the 45+ age group, which is heavily over-represented at the polls, especially in local elections.

One study found that the median age of voters in mayoral elections in four cities was 60: http://www.knightfoundation.org/blogs/knightblog/2015/7/28/p....

Gambling is illegal in most places because it's an addictive behavior that causes a lot of social problems and attracts an undesirable element.

States started rolling out lotteries 50-60 years ago as a regressive tax scheme that also helped to reduce demand for illegal numbers rackets.

> people are entitled to make things they don't like illegal

Things like gay marriage, flag burning, and atheists holding public office, right?

That known as the "tyranny of the majority" and yes it's one of those warts no one likes to credit democracy with.

Those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Only when it implicates a fundamental right will the majority be precluded from banning things they dislike.

That is an entirely different question, but the answer probably isn't that anyone can ignore inconvenient laws under the guise of "It's unjust"

> What possible benefit to New Yorkers is there to not allow them to take bets, if things like state lotteries are still legal?

Just because the state lottery is legal doesn't mean anybody can go and create their own lottery. Notice how you see "no purchase necessary" on every single promotional event where you can win something?

Isn't the difference that sports betting is a game of skill and not pure chance like the lottery?

How does that make it not gambling, outside of the midnight rider on the port security bill? Wagering money on a game is gambling.

see poker. which is sometimes not gambling. but sometimes it is.

What about when a player gets injured? Isn't that pure chance?

Sure, but every player at a given position probably has an equal chance of being injured, so the real differentiator is skill in choosing the right players.

Fair question - is D&D or Diablo III a game of skill or chance? Is it legal to bet on it?

It doesn't really matter. It's not like authoritarians in the State make principled, consistent decisions, or have rules that reflect the same. FF fleeces customers but State lotteries? Crickets. The State lottery is in the constitution, so it has a magical protection spell around it. It's mostly about picking winners and losers, jumping on trends, protecting political legacies, shakedowns, etc. If D&D came under the same scrutiny, I'm sure they'd try to ban betting on it.