sudneo

@sudneo@lemm.ee

🇮🇹 🇪🇪 🖥

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

sudneo ,

Tbh the word he used is not that bad, or at least is used in many contexts in informal conversation, but only in very few I would consider it a "slur". I wouldn't say it translates well to English.

sudneo ,

Pope dying unfortunately only means another one will come. I wish it was this easy...

sudneo ,

Dude I am from Rome, I want to see the Vatican in flames since way before people got upset from a very small thing among the many more serious reasons.

Few months ago when the Pope made timid openings to the LGBTQ community he was celebrated as a revolutionary. I am just saying, the word itself is not that bad and if this is the reason you feel such anger, and not the fact that the Church is an institution who did so many atrocious things (instituzionalized misogyny and homophobia among the many), then your judgment is just poor and you are getting angry for the wrong reason.

sudneo ,

So you have problems reading I guess. I am saying the slur is not the problem (because it's not that bad in this instance), the institutionalized homophobia is one of the many systemic problems of the church that is not going anywhere even if you get a pope that speaks using pronouns.

So take a chill pill, being gay or even being right doesn't give you the right to be a nasty person.
Cheers

sudneo ,

Unlike you (apparently) I speak the language, and my whole point is that it's not really a "slur".
You can feel as you want about it, you can even feel attacked by someone wishing you good day, for all I care. It doesn't change the fact that the word itself is not really that bad. It's not comparable to " fag..." In English.

I see you are just a hateful person who is looking for reasons to feel prosecuted, at the cost of bending reality, so you can hate others. Suit yourself, I am sure your behavior will greatly help your community!

Edit: I forgot. You are wishing people to burn or worse in this thread left and right, with a half-asses understanding of what has been written. You are nasty even IF someone was defending the pope. Take it down a couple of notches.

sudneo ,

"I don't speak the language, you do, but I know better than you what is and is not a slur because every language has to work the same". Frociaggine is hardly a slur, it's a term that can be used in many contexts without any particular hateful undertone, although this applies to friendly contexts mostly. "frocio" is closer to a slur because it's more personal, although in Italian is very common for slurs/bad words to be used in a completely different way too (see for example use of "stronzo") or without the bad connotation. In Rome this phenomenon is particularly common.

You seem to have a colonialist mindset. Your culture/language apparently has to apply anywhere, no differences accepted.

Also, I am a radical leftist who is a full supporter of LGBTQ rights, and I fight the Church in Italy for decades. So you can put down your strawman.

Calling gaslighting telling you about a word that you don't understand is the cherry on top :)

sudneo ,

You are not reading at all, apparently. Shame, it's useful sometimes. You should try.

sudneo ,

So your opinion on the use of an Italian word is not important, as you are not in the community (Italian speakers). Sounds good to me.

(Obviously I consider your argument BS, but happy to apply it both ways).

sudneo ,

You can also verify that "mortacci tua" (literally: cursing your dead ancestors) is a slur/cuss, but in Rome it is used 80% as a friendly expression. Just to make an example.

Culture and language exist beyond your google searches...

sudneo ,

Frociaggine is not a word that refers to a person. Frocio is, and I mentioned that while it is sometimes used without hatred, the latter is more generally a slur. Frociaggine/frociata is also very used to describe something flamboyant. It is a bit heavier than that, but definitely far from "fag...tness".

I explained this already, but you didn't want to read " the essay", so here I am repeating myself.

fact, the fact that they use it so casually is just more evidence of how deeply entrenched queerphobia

Or maybe it's evidence that cultures and languages are differently and evolved differently, and not everything has to model to the English (American) version?

I already made an example for insults which are used completely in a friendly way, you can have other examples in religious people god-swearing (something that doesn't even exist in most languages).
The fact that while you don't belong to the culture, do not speak the language but pretend to be authoritative about what the language is or should be is honestly hilarious.
Now, is the pope queerphobic? Very likely, but because it's the head of a queerphobic institution who has a queerphobic posture since ever, not because he used frociaggine.

sudneo ,

Oh no, a comment in another context again interpreted from your US-centric view!

I mean, you think I care about your respect? A person who makes 0 effort in understanding other points of views (quite similar, ironically) and straight up insults and wishes death to others? Lol you are thinking way too much of yourself.

I also stand by every word of that comment, as the concept of white privilege doesn't apply everywhere (Italy has a completely different history and racial dynamic compared to US).

Again, you have a colonialist mindset, and you are completely incapable of accepting that the US cultural lens is not the only lens that exists and that won't apply to many.
So tell whatever stories you want to yourself, shout as much as you can, but I am just explaining my views and providing cultural context (which has nothing to do with excusing or defending homophobia). You refuse to accept this context because you think that your perspective is universal. I will repeat it, colonialist mindset.

sudneo ,

Good, let me give back the favour with all the violence threats and wishes. At least you are the only one in bad faith :)

sudneo ,

I would say that the audience can be "wrong", where I mostly mean "inappropriate for the specific comedian" at least.

One example that comes to mind is this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M4ckxcHx1q4
(Which unfortunately is in Italian). This monologue is an incredible piece on feminism, and the audience was extremely silent and unresponsive, probably because they were a "TV crowd" with a stand-up comedian (the best Italy has ever had IMHO) who was totally out of their league.
In this case, the comedian ended up "rebuking" the audience and I think he was right at that.

sudneo ,

Yeah, I can see your point and I would say I generally agree.

Stand up comedy though I think is quite a gray area. Ultimately cannot be seen as pure entertainment as that's exactly what it distanced from when it was born. Laughing ultimately is just the mean but not the goal of this particular form of comedy.

But I agree about not being entitled to a crowd that finds you funny and throwing a fit about that.

Lemmy.ml tankie censorship problem

I feel like we need to talk about Lemmy's massive tankie censorship problem. A lot of popular lemmy communities are hosted on lemmy.ml. It's been well known for a while that the admins/mods of that instance have, let's say, rather extremist and onesided political views. In short, they're what's colloquially referred to as...

sudneo ,

Like, no opinion on if what was morally right or not, just what the numbers worked out.

I don't want to get in the merit of the comment, but unless you see the future, this statement is simply not true. Your argument is simply based on accepting certain assumptions as true.

Coincidentally this argument is routinely used by people supporting american atrocities, who consider nuking hundreds of thousands of people the humanitarian solution to WWII.

To be clear, I don't agree with that line of moderation, I don't agree with most of the views that seem to characterize .ml, but it's a year that people make posts like this one, you can't tell me you don't understand the ban based on the above.

sudneo ,

There are serious cyber security implications here that people are sleeping on

No, there are not.

At most, if they decide to kill the project by adding malicious code they can affect Lemmy itself. 99% of users don't run Lemmy (which is where the "quiet exploits" would run), and the frontend simply doesn't allow you to have a serious impact, unless you think they will stumble upon a browser 0-day and they decide to burn it by committing the exploit to an open source repo instead of selling it for millions (or use it elsewhere).

What's with the fearmongering? Their stance is crystal clear since ever.

possibly even fork the Lemmy repos

Right, and who maintains the fork? Who, among the large population of external contributor, I mean?

sudneo ,

They were openly discouraging people to sign up on .ml already a year ago (I remember a banner to register elsewhere). I don't think "anything" in particular is working. The devs seem not to care less for having the biggest instance, or communities there etc. They had the instance long before most of Lemmy users joined, after all.

sudneo ,

Tbh, also harass a mod. People get quite worked out when being moderated, and being a mod is enough work without people chasing you to argue with you or straight up harass you, I suppose.
At least, I can see plenty of good reasons to hide the moderator name.

sudneo ,

See https://lemmy.world/comment/10467647

It seems this is just a new feature in the upcoming relase (the communities ban).

sudneo ,

They banned from the instance. Apparently the fact that you get banned from hosted communities is just a new feature.

sudneo ,

It is not obvious, most likely not necessary and in any case completely unproven. Why are you so busy making stuff up in this thread?

sudneo ,

Yes, but that fact is well known and at least this shows there was no particular intention to chastise the user - it was just a button press.

sudneo ,

I am a security engineer by profession, so I do have at least a decent understanding of what I am talking about.
Every server in this case has that potential. There is nothing preventing any admin from patching code and manipulating the network after TLS termination (I.e., changing payloads of POST requests etc.). That said, not even in a videogame you would be "locked up" by someone posting CP on your behalf like that.
This is simply not a threat and if you think it is, then you should be worried about every website you visit.

sudneo ,

I see absolutely no reason why you couldn't be a Dev and an admin, in a decentralized platform. If this was a single-server platform, maybe. But here, how does the moderation policy of lemmy.ml affects anything but posts over there?

Also, beehaw has a very politicized banning policy, would you say that is unacceptable? I see it as perfectly fine and I would be fine as well if they were to contribute to Lemmy code (unless they try to build their policies into the code and therefore enforce them everywhere - which is something we know the Lemmy devs are not doing).

sudneo ,

What does this have to do with showing mod log? Genuinely confused

sudneo ,

History is about what happened. "Otherwise it would" is speculation.

sudneo ,

It does, but it's an online forum, not an essential service, and easy to replace.
On the other hand, being there with your name or nickname exposes you to harassment from those pissed at you for your decision.

I would say it's an acceptable evil given the circumstances.

As a side note: asking why after a mod action is almost universally pointless. Moderating is free work and a level of subjectivity is implied. I think not having the ability to argue is infuriating but understandable.

sudneo ,

I complain about people who support Soviet-style dictatorships having full control over online platforms moderating exactly as one would expect

I will ask in good faith: given that those people started the whole project to have that space, but built it using federated technologies which allow others to run their places, what is exactly the basis for your complaint? As absurd as they might be, instances can decide their own moderation policies, whether you or I agree with them or not. Given the fundamentally distributed nature of this platform, there is no such thing as "having full control", and instead we can choose instances based on our preferences, so we are free to not subject ourselves to those policies, they are free to do, and both a free to use the platform in the way we use. The code is open, there are plenty of other instances. What exactly is the complaint here?

sudneo ,

And where is the count of deaths in the different timeline?

Look, my point is simple: human history is not deterministic and we simply can't know what happens tomorrow like if we were predicting the laws of phisics. Maybe there were other 100 different course of actions leading to as many outcomes.

You can analyze what happened, but it's foolish to say "this was better because the alternative would have led to". You can only analyze and discuss what happened, otherwise anything can be justified with "it wouldn't have been worse".

"this genocide was good, because without it the oppressed population would have led to civil war and many more deaths".

sudneo ,

I just made an example of speculating on future occurrences to justify concrete actions that instead happened. In fact, the entire comment was about the general idea of considering history deterministic, not about the specific atomic bomb event...

sudneo ,

You need to learn what abstraction is, my friend.
I am not speculating. Quite the opposite. I am saying that you like to think the world works according to precise laws that you can use to predict the future. This is why you are arguing in multiple comments that "they would have...", as if people are NPCs with 3 different behaviors and the outcomes are predetermined so it's just a matter of choosing.

The reality is simple: you, me, nobody can know for sure what " would have happened" if history happened differently.
This is a methodological issue, not a discussion on the merits of your speculation.

I don't know if nuclear bombs caused less deaths than the millions of other potential courses of actions, and neither do you, neither does anybody else.
I don't know if Israel wiping off Gaza from the map potentially saved thousands of lives in future conflicts. You see the problem?

Now, before assuming that everyone else is an idiot and that you are the only smart one in the room, you might want to try a little harder to understand the point of your interlocutor, considering we are also discussing in what (I assume) is your native language but not mine.
If you didn't understand so far that my critique is in the method, not in the merits, of your claim, then I agree, there is nothing to talk about.

sudneo ,

They can't add sneaky code to the process (without getting caught). For sensitive game code every single change needs to be tracked and reviewed by the authority.
You get audited at least once a year, and then all the changes are reviewed. Authorities outsource the job for the technical reviews to specialized companies.

Also, what's the point? The games already provide a margin to the host, why risking to go out of business for such an irrelevant gain (a few more %)?
Add to this that usually casino games writers do just that, write games and sell those to N casinos. So the incentive for the casino games writers are even smaller.

Finally, yes you can write "license X", but you can cross-check that information from the regulator itself, you don't need to trust just the line on the site.
The point is you as a customer can choose a trustworthy site, ideally one who is licensed in countries where regulations are quite tight (in Europe I would say Denmark), before putting your money somewhere.

At some point you need to trust "someone", that's how the whole world works. The gambling authorities are no different than the authorities that enforce the safety certifications for electrict equipment, or cars, or whatever.

If your concern is that you would lose money on casino games because the site rigged it, it's a relatively silly concern. You will lose because the casino games are designed to make you lose in the long term, on average.

sudneo ,

Have you ever made a single transaction online paying with your credit or debit card? How do you know the site didn't steal or misuse your information?

The answer is that storing, transmitting or processing card data requires you to be PCI-DSS compliant, which is a very strict standard. If you get caught violating that you are out of business and fined in the abyss, which is a much bigger risk than stealing john doe's pennies.

Sorry but from what you are saying it seems you simply don't understand how compliance works.

That means that people have to check

And that is why you have at least annual audits (for each license, plus AML, plus other stuff), and why you need to present the whole chain of changes that happened to sensitive code.

Why spend money to meet regulations?

Because if you get caught not doing that you lose access to whole markets at once and get fined. There is no economic incentive as complying doesn't cost nearly as much. Specifically, I told you that casino game makers are generally not casinos, they are software houses. So they can't care less about rigging the games, their revenue comes from companies paying for using their games. Casinos also don't care of rigging games because games are designed to leave them a certain margin anyway, so why doing it?

The point is that many don't.

And that's why national regulations are generally a safe umbrella. If you see a website (through advertisements) that means that website is allowed locally and already met the national regulations.

If you are in a non regulated country then you will need to do a tiny bit of research. You are putting money on a site, after all (you should do the same for everything you do online).

The question was what is "wrong with online casinos". So I gave an example. Others include money laundering, exploitation of addiction, exploitation of stupidity, waste of resources, tax evasion etc

Yes, you gave examples based on your own speculations. It's clear you have no idea how the industry works. Money laundering is something international law covers and is extremely tightly controlled, tax evasion is also completely insane for online businesses, because every transaction has a trail and there are tight regulations about what you need to report for every country where you operate. Exploitation of stupidity, sure. Some also exploit addiction, regulations exist for that too, and for some businesses addicts are terrible customers.

Question: what exactly is your experience with the gambling business?

Because to me it seems you are making stuff up or basing your statements on movies about gambling and oeganised crime, while the reality is much simpler: companies get money simply by having active users on their sites. Quantity is the name of the game.

sudneo ,

Exactly. Scam websites can be casinos or shops or anything.

Ok, you understand that this is a completely different set of businesses compared to established casino business, right?

Talking about scam website to infer things about the "real" counterparts doesn't make much sense. Yes, there is scam-everything. Doesn't mean "shops are scam", because there are shops which scam people. So when I talk about online casinos, I refer to the legitimate businesses that are gambling businesses, not scam organizations that happen to use gambling as their cover.

In any case, licenses are a very effective way to protect yourself from scammers.

Casinos, on and offline, are excellent ways to launder. The amount of regulations trying to mitigate this risk proves my point.

As all systems that allow to move money, they are excellent vectors, but doesn't mean they are excellent ways to launder money. Regulations prevent money laundering (or strongly mitigating), which makes them less and less viable for laundering. I specifically talk about online casinos, since cash is not an option.

Not for casinos. Gambling addiction is a casino’s main business. Why are there no windows in Vegas?

Online and physical casinos are different and they comply with different regulations. In online casinos for example it might be mandatory to limit session duration, show popups every X minutes to inform about losses and duration of the session etc., depending on licenses. These are just responsible gaming measures enforced by licenses (in this case the Maltese, which is a very common one), which do not apply to physical casinos.

Yes. Online you can scam many more people with fake roulette tables.

So, this is the crux of the problem: your definition of scamming seems to be variable. There are only two options:

  • The casino game works according to specifics
  • The casino game is rigged, meaning it provides better odds to the host compared to its specifics

Both of them provide revenue for the host, with the second being marginally higher (you can't have 80% margin, people won't play). The second though has the problem that it won't pass certification, so the only way to serve it is on unlicensed sites. Being unlicensed makes it impossible to access whole markets. So, why companies should go for the second and not the first, when even the first is providing money and a bigger pool of players?

To support your claim, maybe you can list a bunch of articles about casinos getting caught with rigged games that were licensed? I did a quick search and nothing popped up immediately (although they might exist, and it's a good thing they got caught, which shows controls work).

Betfair, betfred, bet356, Ladbrokes etc.

As a user? Because that doesn't tell much.
Anyway, bet365 has a casino, do you trust it?

sudneo ,

From the user perspective they are the same. A scam casino is much easier to create than a scam Nike shop.

it's not. Creating a game is much more complex than putting a bunch of images and text on a web page. Also in order to play casino games you need to deposit money, so you need to also develop that part, a scan shop can simply spoof the payment window and steal the card directly...

Not if the licence is fake.

If you got to know about the casino, chances are it's a legitimate business. It doesn't take a PhD also to just double check the website. If you are looking for casinos online digging in the internet, rather than surfing the most prominent businesses, then yes. If you just pick the mainstream ones, you are covered. The chance you lose because the game is rigged is negligible. Also, you are putting money somewhere, you should make some basic checks (it's enough a 10 second search for the license ID and check your regulator website).

“Might be mandatory” means that it might not be, and for certain casino operators don’t want it.

No, it means that it depends on licenses. Different licenses require different things. If you hold the Maltese license, you need to have it, period. Maybe there are licenses that don't prescribe that particular thing, hence "might be".

Yes. There is the objective “designed to steal” scamming and my subjective dislike of betting against a dressed up random number generator.

Games have to be random number generators lol. There is nothing to dress up, that's exactly what playing casino games is like. It's a RNG where you have the 50%-the margin chance to win.
This has nothing to do with scamming, or rigging games, which was your initial argument.

Lots of anecdotes along the lines of

Ok... lol

“What I mean by this is my friend is a new bettor, we sit side by side watching the same games at the same time, and the odds are much worse for me. It will show -100000 on my screen and shows -8000 on my friends screen”

Absolutely the bookie will know the customers and might apply different limits and different odds. If you are suspected being a part of a syndicate, for example, you will get worse odds.
This is not a scam, you see exactly what the odds are, it is not hidden from you. This applies to sportsbook, not casino.

All betting sites have blacklists of customers taking advantage of arbitrage between sites.

This has nothing to do with casino or scamming. Also, sure betters are generally not blacklisted, they simply get limits applied as anyway to make any kind of money you need high volumes. Again, what does this have to do with rigging games?
You can't "rig" sportsbook, when you bet you see clearly what the odds are and you can compare and choose another provider with better odds.

Here are some common online betting scams copied from quora.

Wow, very useful dump.
Have you read the "rigged games" part?

Rigged Games: In some cases, illegitimate gambling sites may manipulate game outcomes to ensure players lose. Stick to reputable sites that use random number generators and undergo regular audits.

Note that 7/10 items in that list are simply scams by individuals targeting other individuals and have nothing to do with casinos.
The only relevant ones are:

  • Unregulated Casinos
  • Rigged Games
  • Unfair Terms and Conditions

The solution for the first 2 is to use licensed providers. The last one is absolutely true, usually in bigger or established businesses, but has nothing to do with rigging games.

Basically nothing of this info dump from Quora (for what is worth) corroborates your argument...

To be honest, is it so hard to admit that you simply don't like gambling because it's taking money from people who don't know better? I agree with that myself, and it's a sufficient criticism to dislike casinos. There is no need to make up totally false information to add arguments.

No, mainstream, reputable and licensed casinos will not rig games and steal money from you. Yes, they will take money from you in the majority of cases because games - all of them - are designed to benefit the house. No, they don't help laundering money because in most cases they will get caught and lose the whole business, it's very, very, very hard to hide activity when you have multiple regulators plus the usual government agencies look at your reports constantly, and all your transactions are tracked.

sudneo ,

That’s why scammers usually just pirate and hack small parts of the codebase.

Sure.

EDIT: I don't even dignify with an answer "hack small parts of the codebase". I can clearly see you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about.

You don’t get as much money that way. Better to encourage larger deposits and “crash” when large withdrawals are requested.

Then this is not a rigged game. Again, you said that games are rigged to scam people...

Not necessarily. Popups and emails exist. Especially interesting if they offer free spins.

True, and that's if the site find you, rather than viceversa. No different than phishing...

The original question was “what is wrong with online casinos”. One answer I gave was scammers, then you pressed me for more.

Your original answer was specific: rigged games and money laundering. None of which is generally true.

DUDE. This is the point. You can’t argue that online casinos are fine so long as you ignore all the bad casinos and scammers.

I already clarified what I consider an "online casino". it's irrelevant what a scam website is, it doesn't say anything about the industry it tries to imitate...

Fuck me. You admit online casinos are unfair then immediately dismiss this as unimportant. Now I suspect I’m arguing against a paid troll.

Don't move the goalpost. Some casinos use complicate T&C, this has nothing to do with rigging games.

Again, the fact that your arguments are hairdresser gossip doesn't make me a paid troll. I know the industry and I can use facts to criticize it, which I do (I left it for a reason). You make stuff up and keep changing your argument...

sudneo ,

Dude, you are changing the argument again, as usual.

I got it. Yes, scam website exist. Yes, scan shop websites exist, as exist phishing banking sites, and a universe of things.

You said:

That’s why scammers usually just pirate and hack small parts of the codebase.

This is complete bullshit.

Pirating a game only means copying the look of a legitimate game served on "real" casinos. There is nothing to hack, because you don't have the codebase. Netent, playtech, evolution, microgaming, they all serve their games via iframes or similar, they integrate with you via API, they whitelist your IPs or authenticate yourself with a token.
Scam casinos might simply look at real games and imitate them, exactly like you might do a fake shop and copy - say - Amazon's look.

And for the 100th times, this is a negligible problem if you are playing on licensed websites, which in turn used licensed gaming providers.

You are conflating arguments that apply to scam website as if these apply to the wider industry, they don't! If you are talking about banking, you wouldn't say "banks steal your data", because there are scammers that use bank websites to phish people. They are a completely different thing. So, as clear as it can be:

  • Some scammers might use casinos to scam people. They might spin up fake casino sites (UNLICENSED, of faking a license at most) where games are rigged. These casinos generally can't advertise anywhere and they are luring people the same way phishing sites lure them in: Spam emails etc.
  • Rigged games are generally not a problem within the casino industry, as it's not money laundering. Regulations apply to the vast majority of established businesses which prevent both quite effectively. This is why before putting money in a website you should spend 10 seconds and check that the website has a valid license (from your national authority). Once you have done this, you can stay with that website and be 99.9% sure that games are not rigged (i.e., they use RNG). You will still lose in the long run, but not because they are rigged.

I can't be clearer than this.

sudneo ,

Your source didn't confirm in any way what you said. Making lookalikes have nothing to do with "hacking small parts of the codebase".

Also the source itself is a random website lol

My argument is that casinos don't need to scam by rigging games. A scam site is no more a casino than a phishing site is a banking site.
Do you think banking sites are scams?

Your initial statement was a blanket statement about casinos "rigging games" and "helping laundering money for a cut". Now you are defending the hill that some scammers use casinos as their vector for scams, which is a completely different thing, that nobody questioned also. It simply has nothing to do with " casinos".

But I see you are one of those people who are clinically incapable of admitting you said something incorrect, even after you said tons of incorrect stuff and you showed to have a very superficial understanding of the gambling industry (my favorite was when you called games "dressed up RNGs, when they are required to be RNG by law, and you really want them to be...).

sudneo ,

And this opinion is incorrect. I would accept that some online casinos don’t need to scam by rigging games.

No, it's not. I discussed and explained already to you that there are several reasons:

  • Game makers don't usually have casinos. Their revenues come from other casinos, who in turn don't have access to the code.
  • Games are already designed to have a margin for the host.
  • Rigging games is illegal and would make a casino lose their license. This is a much bigger financial risk than skimming 2-3% more of margin on games.

You instead provided 0 explanation about what you are claiming.

Incorrect. I’ve posted multiple examples of online casino scams, including rigging the games.

You didn't post any example. You posted statements that mentioned that some website can spoof casinos with rigged games. Those are not casino websites, they hold no licenses and they are not established businesses. They are not part of an industry, exactly like scam banking website are not part of the financial industry.

Some are.

False, again. They are not banking sites lol. No bank would phish their users. There are scammers who impersonate banks, exactly like they impersonate casinos. Your whole argument relies on calling scammers that do X part of the X industry. They are not.

Look at the top of this thread. The question was “Why are online casinos bad”.

And your answer in fact is completely incorrect. Rather than admitting that you have 0 proof or arguments that casinos rig games and enable laundering money, you are now relying purely on a definition of casinos that include the casino scam sites.

I will repeat, your argument is exactly as absurd as the following:

Why are online casinos banks bad?

Sounds more like you just don’t know anything about the gambling financial industry. They run rigged games steal your credit card details in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut steal people identities.

Then, when confronted about this, you would provide https://getcomputeractive.co.uk/protect-your-tech/fake-bank-website-URLs which says:

Hackers have set up fake URLs for UK banks, using website names that sound genuine in order to trick people into handing over their personal information and log-in details.

thinking it is proof. It's not.

As I said, you clearly have no idea about the industry, you said so many things that show it and then glanced over them to avoid embarrassment, and you ended up moving the goalpost so far, that now your entire stance relies on the fact that scam casino websites are online casinos.
The initial question "why are online casinos bad" clearly referred to businesses which...run online casinos. And 100% your initial answer referred to that too, but once you couldn't support your argument in any way, you retreated purely onto the scam websites that impersonate casinos.

Is it so hard for you to admit that you made a big statement about something you are not fully knowledgeable?

sudneo ,

Ok, I see you are now fully entrenched on your position, with absolutely no ability to defend it. You are hanging onto that random site that says that yes - fake casinos exist, for your dear life.

You are not approaching this from a user perspective

ahahaha, yes, a scammer creating a fake banking site from a scammed person perspective is doing a banking site. But here we are discussing about banks (or casinos) so you realize this argument is completely irrelevant, right?

If it looks like a banking site, then it is banking site.

Finally we reached the core flaw in your argument! If we are talking about banking sites, and - say - we discuss the security measures needed on them, nobody would think to include phishing sites into the discussion, because it's meaningless. The question you answered to was about online casinos, and was obviously referring to the businesses which run online casinos, not "any site which looks as an online casinos from an aesthetic point of view", because this is a completely dumb way to characterize stuff.
There is a scam in which someone "sells" a box for something (say, a camera), and then you open it and there is a rock. Your argument is basically like saying "cameras suck, some don't even do pictures", because you consider those rocks cameras, since they were in camera boxes and sold as such.

I am 99% sure you actually don't believe your own argument, and you are just doubling and tripling down on it because admitting to be wrong on the internet is basically impossible.

Incorrect

Oh yeah?

Why are online casinos bad? I don’t understand this pervasive need some people have to force their way of life on others and take away their agency over their own lives. It comes off to me as some kind of superiority complex. “They’re too stupid to make their own decisions, I know better what’s best for them, I must protect them from themselves”.

OP was clearly talking about actual gambling businesses. They were trying to ask an opinion about why people consider gambling bad, in relation to the agency of people to play (or not play) on them.

Now you are trying to bullshit your way through, pretending that your answer was related to scam websites, and not actual casinos.
Let's remember your first answer:

**Sounds more like you just don’t know anything about the gambling industry. **They run rigged games in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut. They fight regulations designed to reduce problem gambling.

You specifically talk about the gambling industry. Once again, if you really want to base your whole argument on the fact that scam websites belong to the industry they spoof, then feel free to embarrass yourself. It's clear to anybody what you meant in your first comment, but you couldn't defend it (because it's bullshit), and now you are trying to get away with a rhetorical argument that is even worse. Really dude, we all said shit on the internet, admit you just said some stereotypical bullcrap and move on with your life :)

sudneo ,

Incorrect. Learn to recognize ‘spoofing’ and ‘phishing’

Jesus....
Let me spell it out even more clearly: if someone is creating a new standard for banking sites, they don't expect those goddamn measures to apply to phishing websites, because they are not considered part of the industry.
Nobody discussing the banking industry would consider phishing sites PART OF it. it's relevant to discussing phishin FOR the industry, but it's not a problem OF banking sites. Because "banking site" means inherently a legitimate banking site.

Incorrect. OP clearly wrote “online casinos”.

And online casinos don't include fake online casinos.

But ok, let's clarify once and for all.

Let's pretend you actually believe your bs, and let's make a distinction:

  • Online casinos = established businesses in the casino industry, operating with at least a license.
  • Fake casinos = scam websites that operate without a license and which spoof an online casino with the purpose of scamming users (in whatever way).

To which ones do you think your initial answer applies:

They run rigged games in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut. They fight regulations designed to reduce problem gambling.

?

Do you think that online casinos as defined above run rigged games? Do you think they help laundering money?

At least I will give you an out and you don't need to keep climbing mirrors.

You clearly have a guilty conscious about the money you earned from gamblers. Or you are being paid for this shilling.

No, I simply don't like bullshit, and your arguments are full of it. I strongly dislike the gambling industry, but for reasons based on facts, not on what I heard in the beauty salon :) In fact, my whole point is that there are good, solid reasons to dislike gambling and online casinos. The bullshit you quoted is not part of it because it's false.

sudneo ,

Not part of the discussion. You are straining pretty hard in your efforts to “win”.

I am making an example to prove a point. The point is simple "industry" doesn't contain the scammers who try to abuse it.

Yes, they do. The clue is in the name.

Genius take!

Answer the question, though. I repost it for your own convenience. We clear out all the bullshit semantic you brought up, and go straight to the point:

Let’s pretend you actually believe your bs, and let’s make a distinction:

Online casinos = established businesses in the casino industry, operating with at least a license.
Fake casinos = scam websites that operate without a license and which spoof an online casino with the purpose of scamming users (in whatever way).

To which ones do you think your initial answer applies:

They run rigged games in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut. They fight regulations designed to reduce problem gambling.

?

  • Do you think that online casinos as defined above run rigged games?
  • Do you think they help laundering money?
sudneo ,

Answer the question, your definition doesn't add much.

To which ones does your initial answer apply? Both legitimate and fake casinos?

It's not a hard question.

P.s.
I bet you wouldn't be able to show me a fake casino if I asked. That's because they are not a common problem. You are overinflating it to make your absurd definition more reasonable. But let's not get into this...

sudneo ,

So both legitimate and fake?
In other words you believe that both legitimate and fake casinos rig games, both help laundering money and both fight against regulations?

It's a simple question, show a tiny bit of good faith :)

P.s., have you read your own link?

The blacklisting reasons have to do with scammy customer support, lack of license, stealing money. They don't even mention rigging games or laundering money, which is what you claimed :)

sudneo ,

It's YOUR definition ahahah I literally took what you said and I am asking a question.

YOU said, legitimate + fake = online. I asked to which you applied the answer and you said online. Now you are saying it doesn't?

So, do we agree that legitimate casinos don't rig games?

Also, you mentioned taking a cut to help laundering money, now you are retracting saying "are exposed". No dude, taking a cut has intentionality behind, being exposed is a natural risk for any business which moves money. You claimed the first.

So, one last time:

  • do legitimate casinos rig games?
  • do legitimate casinos help laundering money?
sudneo ,

Your quote:

Here’s the definition I’m happy with.
Legitimate casinos = established businesses in the casino industry
Fake casinos = scammers
Online casinos = legitimate casinos + fake casinos

You forgot already? A link to your own comment.

You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don’t rig games.

I didn't define shit, you defined legitimate casino as a partition of online casino.

Look what triple jump you are making to avoid saying a very simple thing: legitimate casinos, defined as YOU did (established businesses in the casino industry) don't rig games.
All because you can't admit to be wrong :)

So, I will ask once again:

  • do legitimate casinos, as in YOUR definition, rig games, according to you?

Yes or no question.

Yes. Not necessarily knowingly. Income from internet gambling is tainted.

I would argue with this point, but I won't. It doesn't matter, I accept the theoretical possibility of money laundering. For some reason I was mistakenly taking the top comment of this thread as your comment. I even quoted it several times and you didn't note that that's not your comment... my bad.

sudneo ,

Yes, but I am asking to answer according to your own definition! I specified it, I quotes it, I wrote YOUR in caps, I can't add flashing lights or I would.

You provided a definition, I am asking a simple question with that definition in mind.

According to YOUR definition, do legitimate casinos rig games?

Come on, how many more comments do you need to answer this simple query?

sudneo ,

I give up. You refuse to engage in good faith.

What user can tell is irrelevant, we are talking about your "taxonomy" and the properties that carries being in one or other category.

You might not be able to distinguish a legitimate casinos by a fake one, but if in your opinion legitimate ones also rig games, this is irrelevant. If they don't, then what users can tell is a completely separate problem.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •