Except something like 90% of revenue comes from 5% of "players" so it's obviously just what he told himself to placate his conscience that he wasn't ripping off addicts.

How is this different from Apps on the playstore ? Insurance/Banking/consultancy ? Or, I have to say, sometimes I wonder how the amounts people spend on music truly vary. The merchandising for most bands means that if you really want to spend millions on a band, you can (e.g. the "pharma bro" Wu-Tang clan saga). Bands themselves say that this is where most of their income comes from ...

This whale principle certainly seems to cover quite a bit of the economy.

Even movies are similar. You want to spend a million (or a few) on star wars ? Not a problem. [1]

From a psychological standpoint I would strongly suggest that you never make it your mission to save people from themselves. There's only 2 ways you come out of that experience: evil (lost belief in mankind, and therefore anything goes), or mad.

[1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/53388/6-most-expensive-pieces...

The question is about ethics. How is it relevant whether other people are taking advantage of addicts as well?

I'm just saying that, to varying extents, large portions of the economy are "taking advantage of" addicts. Certainly if you work for FANG, they all (including Amazon) have their addicts. As do things like reddit, in fact probably most sites.

You cannot let your life be controlled by "ethics" like this. It's not reasonable.

> My boss had this theory how betting small amounts of money is just another form of entertainment people enjoy, just like going to the cinema or playing a video game, and thus we were in the entertainment business.

For some that's true. I know people who like to responsible gamble from time to time. It's entertainment for them.