[estimator7292]

I think it's interesting that you're refusing to engage with the topic at hand and trying to distract with whataboutism.

You may be shocked and horrified to learn that two things can be bad at the same time, even if we only talk about one.

GP's comments trend digital because we're talking about digital games. GP is on-topic, you are trying to derail and delegetimize the conversation.

[hx8]

I think it's very interesting many people treat physical games of chance as different than purely digital ones, and wanted to explore this topic. To me, that's a more interesting topic of conversation than calling for legislation, or arguing about the merits of such legislation. Especially when it's about legislation in a jurisdiction I do not fall under.

This forum is a branching conversation pattern. I'm not derailing anything because this isn't a linear conversation. If you want to discuss something else that the parent comment said then make a post against that conversation.

[hofrogs]

Physical gambling is confined to a physical location (like a casino or a sports betting bar), so people have to go there to be harmed. It's bad, but it requires someone to spend time getting there (and if the victim has a family/friends they might ask where they're headed/intervene in some way) and there is a limit to the amount of people who can be there at once. With digital gambling, anyone can spend any amount of money, anywhere, anytime, with no oversight (however little it might be in a physical location). The harm is magnified immensely.