[Algemarin]

This scam is successful because it is predicated on the same appeal that ventures like lotteries, sweepstakes, slot machines, or giveaways have (albeit accentuated with a seemingly guaranteed win, that these other ventures don't have): the belief that you can just luck into a giant treasure chest of money by expanding minimal effort.

Broadly, this is a modern version of what's known as an advance-fee fraud, which has been around for hundreds of years - paying a small amount upfront (hence the 'advance fee') under pretense of receiving a much larger amount later.

[nradov]

The difference is that while lotteries and casinos are out to take your money they're at least honest about it. If you win they'll pay out in real money. They're not rug pull scams.

[shombaboor]

they're heavily regulated which is a good thing. the odds are completely transparent.

[Algemarin]

The dishonesty lies in obfuscating the actual odds of winning, making the honesty about the payout a moot point as it's not particularly applicable for most entrants.

[nradov]

Where is the obfuscation? Most lotteries post the odds right on the main game page. What more do you want?

https://www.calottery.com/draw-games/superlotto-plus#section...

[Algemarin]

> What more do you want?

For it to be clear how unrealistic the odds are. They're not exactly broadcasting "you're 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to win the jackpot", instead their site screams "Millions Could Be Yours!". That is the dishonesty and obfuscation. Millions _could_ be yours, but they are very unlikely to be yours, in fact realistically approaching zero. While advance fee scams say "millions will definitely be yours", with the odds being absolutely zero. But neither are meaningful odds.

Though regardless, my original point wasn't about odds but about the lure and the appeal of both of these things: the potential for getting a lot of money for doing virtually nothing (other than spending a bit of money up front).

[Terr_]

> That is the dishonesty and obfuscation.

The problem is that no culture/philosophy has (yet?) even found a clean line.

Ex: How different must the fixed menu picture of the "Burger and Fries combo"--designed to manipulate me into feeling hunger--be from the real food before it's fraud? If I tell you "pink elephants", I have created text that placed an idea into your mind against your will, but is that an offense?

[pbhjpbhj]

If it's not a picture of food cooked by a worker at the company, in the regular kitchen, with the normal ingredients then surely it's fraud (lying to get money)?

Market capitalism needs truth and transparency to have any chance of optimising delivery of goods/services. These should be preeminent goals of Western Capitalism.

[Calavar]

At a certain point it falls to personal accountability. A would be lottery ticket buyer can get all that info in 30 seconds by googling "How likely am I win to win the lottery?" If they don't do that, that's on them.

Advance fee scams are different because 1) they are telling outright falsehoods and 2) they come cloaked in a broad variety of disguises, which means that a naive web search is not guaranteed to unveil the deception

[Algemarin]

A user can just as easily identify a scam such as the one in this post by also taking 30 seconds to do a web search for some phrasing from the email.

And "if they don't do that, that's on them"? This is victim blaming in both cases.

[lolinder]

You made it look more prominent by linking directly to the tab that details the odds.

On mobile that tab isn't even visible when you load the page, you have to know that it's possible to scroll to the right in the tab bar. Otherwise what you see is the tag line "Imagine Winning $48 Million", details about when drawing happens, and a button that says "claim a prize" with an ecstatic man on a phone.

I will say that the government-sponsored lotteries tend to be less blatantly abusive than casinos, but I'm still very comfortable saying that they do actively work to inflate people's sense of the odds.