As a counterpoint, there's a This American Life story about how Harrah's/Caesar's casino hosts specifically marketed to people who clearly had gambling addictions:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/466/...
Is that because addiction is a recognized medical disability and thus the people would have a claim against the casino in case of losses? Or more for PR?
I can only speak for certain jurisdictions but apart from the reasons you mention it was a requirement from the Gambling Commission where I worked. In reality the casino found its ways to circumvent this for the whales though but that's a different topic.
Re:Chrome 60 Beta
by ganeshkrishnan on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @08:16PM
(#14549815)
And this exactly is my point. Google's main business is selling ads, why would it start blocking ads in it's flagship browser?
it's going to start banning all ads except google ads.
It's never that direct.
They would probably publish some policy what is an acceptable ad and what isn't, and let the others self-regulate. For them, the ability to finger-point ("it's only your fault that you are not compliant with the blocking policy") is very important.
The analogy holds but I just want to point out that this is very common and all serious casino and poker businesses have staff working with terminating accounts for people requesting to be banned due to addiction. The same people are going over chat logs that get flagged due to mentioning of certain words like "addiction" and ban them even if they haven't requested it. If you tell a support agent that you're addicted you will be banned in an instant.