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…).
My argument is that casinos don’t need to scam by rigging games.
And this opinion is incorrect. I would accept that some online 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.
Incorrect. I’ve posted multiple examples of online casino scams, including rigging the games.
Do you think banking sites are scams?
Some are.
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.
Look at the top of this thread. The question was “Why are online casinos bad”.
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.
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?
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 :)
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.
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.
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?
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…).
And this opinion is incorrect. I would accept that some online casinos don’t need to scam by rigging games.
Incorrect. I’ve posted multiple examples of online casino scams, including rigging the games.
Some are.
Look at the top of this thread. The question was “Why are online casinos bad”.
No, it’s not. I discussed and explained already to you that there are several reasons:
You instead provided 0 explanation about what you are claiming.
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.
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.
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:
Then, when confronted about this, you would provide https://getcomputeractive.co.uk/protect-your-tech/fake-bank-website-URLs which says:
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?
See links above why scamming and online casinos are linked.
You are not approaching this from a user perspective
If it looks like a banking site, then it is banking site.
If it looks like an online casino then they are an online casino.
Incorrect.
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.
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?
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.
Oh yeah?
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:
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 :)
Incorrect. Learn to recognize ‘spoofing’ and ‘phishing’
Incorrect
Incorrect. OP clearly wrote “online casinos”.
You clearly have a guilty conscious about the money you earned from gamblers. Or you are being paid for this shilling.
The problem with online casinos is that they are associated with a huge number of scams.
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.
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:
To which ones do you think your initial answer applies:
?
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.
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.
Not part of the discussion. You are straining pretty hard in your efforts to “win”.
Yes, they do. The clue is in the name.
I am making an example to prove a point. The point is simple “industry” doesn’t contain the scammers who try to abuse it.
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:
To which ones do you think your initial answer applies:
?