[qzervaas]

For some context: there was a Government politician (Peta Murphy) who had broad support for a ban/restrictions on gambling ads, who passed away while in office in December 2023.

Since then all that talk went away and there’s been 2 years of this social media ban.

Surely a coincidence.

[edit: not a senator, a member of the House of Reps]

[rainonmoon]

David Pocock is still beating the drum on this issue.

[tomhow]

Not a senator, a member of the federal House of Reps (she was my local member, in fact).

I do think this is all a bit of a conspiracy theory. There was support for the ban from many quarters in politics, media, parent groups etc due to widespread mental health issues among teenagers. And state governments are still doing plenty to try and mitigate problem gambling (whilst also relying heavily on taxes from gambling).

[rainonmoon]

> which is the usual fare for Crikey

Just for anyone else reading this, Crikey is an extremely reputable source of original reporting and not some conspiracy rag.

[tomhow]

I took that bit out. I only added it as an afterthought but without enough thought.

I like Crikey. I paid close attention to it right from its inception, I've known people who have written for it, I have subscribed to it at times. All I meant was it's not a mainstream outlet doing traditional reporting; it has always specialized in outsider, stir-things-up takes on issues. That's always been its reason for existing and it's a very important reason to exist.

Personally I think that sometimes it gets so wrapped up in hubris that it can be a bit holier than though and can be too willing to believe in conspiracies, because, hey, its business model is built in exposing things so it's kind-of inevitable. And I don't think it's "extremely reputable"; it's shamelessly provocative and appealing only to a particular segment of the market – that's by design.

But it's fine. I still like it and I didn't meant to trash it.

[defrost]

I'm a pragmatist and the Crikey story has a hanging shoe waiting to drop.

Who ultimately did fund the 36 months campaign?

If you're a skeptical fan of Crikey, like myself, perhaps you're also an eyebrow raised sometime watcher of Gruen and understand that the crowd Peter Carey once ran with don't do anything for nothing .. even the 'free' content is agency self promotion.

The money trail here runs cold in the vicinity of the sports betting lobby and there's form on their ability to run distraction not to mention the returns on 'grooming' gamblers via particular kinds of campaigns that work as well on young dumb adults as they do children.

There's been no follow up on gambling advertising and they're still free to run the kinds of ads they likely may have had to phase out if focus hadn't shifted to saving the children.

That seems a success worth paying for ... even if the receipts aren't out in the open.