And then of course he continues (although won't make for a good social media rage point so understandable you didn't provide full context):
> Well, I actually think it's a brilliant idea if it can be done in an educational way that's legal.
> no free Robux, no free prizes, just a game called the dress to impress predictor where it's not like trying to get kids money or anything like that.
Still, probably what he sees in his mind is "more money yay" as always, he is a CEO of a for-profit company, that's what they do. But still felt disingenuous not to include the full context, doesn't even make it "that much better", he still seems like a scumbag with it.
We can mince his words. In the end anyone who organize gambling for profit is scum. If you do it for charity I know form experience it is massively profitable, but.. I am not sure it is worth it for society.
Hey now, silent auctions and raffles are great for small communities and aren't prone to degeneracy. I know a lot of fire departments that get a majority of their funding from a mix of these attractors and things like cookouts and public events.
I believe it just enables and validate the bigger actors. I do not know where the line should be drawn, if gambling is ilegal you build an illicit trade, if it is legal that trade just become more evil.
We should be careful with gambling especialy when CEOs are talking about it and only caring about the legal frameworks.
The problem once again comes when you decide to hyper optimize for profit. Ada and William will rely on word of mouth, maybe a few posters to drum up attention to their raffle.
Meanwhile large gambling orgs will run ad spots non stop with celebrities enticing you to join their app with free bonus bets and once you're in they will send you daily notifications to nudge you to place "just one more bet".
Easy to see how one would be relatively harmless while the other could cause widespread addiction.