There is no shortage of video and written content these days about how online gambling products are highly addictive for some users, and typically the more you play, the greater your risk—addiction by design.
This counters industry disinformation that these products are safe and that existing so-called guardrails or responsible gambling tools are meaningfully effective at a population level. It may sometimes be preaching to the choir that online gambling is addictive, but every piece of content still has the potential to raise awareness among people who are in the dark.
Still, is there a downside to consistently highlighting how addictive these products are? Could that be a superficial critique that, in today’s culture, does little to diminish them?
In the digital tech world, many founders openly say they’re building products people can’t stop using, sometimes even admitting outright that the goal is to make an addictive product. Because it would be potentially damaging PR, founders in the online gambling space don’t say this openly like other app developers. The point is that it’s no secret that firms are trying to build apps people can’t get away from, even ones that claim they’re “designed to be deleted.”
Americans have long lived in a culture and politics where it’s normal to say you’re addicted to something you very much like, whether it be a product, an activity, or even a person. In many cases, there’s no obvious harm; it may just be tongue-in-cheek. “Obsessed” is another word for this. Of course, even facetious obsessions can become problematic or worse.
To put it another way: There is room, culturally, to call something addictive as a compliment, an expression of your passion or enthusiasm. People are often rewarded for the results of some of their “addictions” or obsessions.
Online gambling companies market their products as “entertainment,” a characterization echoed by states that some public health experts argue regulate them far too lightly. That may be more or less true for some users, but the platforms aren’t built to make money from what can reasonably be considered fun. They generate most of their revenue from what the tech industry calls “power users,” and these users typically play to win money.
It isn’t complimentary to call these products addictive when they’re portrayed as vague entertainment. But if someone is convinced it’s just entertainment, calling that entertainment addictive isn’t a penetrating critique. People are conditioned to seek entertainment that makes them feel hooked. This reflects a general impoverishment of today’s concept of entertainment.
Despite clinical criteria, gambling addiction remains an abstract concept for many, and even meeting some of the criteria may be worn as a badge of honor in sports gambling culture through popularization of the term “degen” (short for degenerate). Many bettors know it’s addictive, and they engage in an at-risk gambling level for years. Some may never see gambling harm them as a full-blown addiction, though people they know may have different perceptions.
If some gambling communities already celebrate repetitive, reckless betting as part of their identity, how much persuasive force does calling the product addictive actually carry? Maybe the message really isn’t for these folks.
Does underscoring the addictive nature of the products ever encourage people to try them? For some, that rebellious urge to try things that have been condemned may kick in. With more faith groups reportedly taking strong positions against sports gambling, that could be a factor, though probably only for a small minority of people who ever place a bet.
As alternatives to calling online gambling products addictive, some people use language such as predatory, exploitative, and parasitic. These leave far less room for ambiguity while still implying addiction by design.
Word choices and language framing may ultimately be a tactical preference for critics of online gambling products. For some content creators, it may be an aesthetic choice. Paradoxically, describing a product as addictive may be ambiguous while also being the simplest idea to convey.
None of this means describing online gambling as addictive necessarily promotes the products. Indeed, the industry’s general refusal to acknowledge the product’s extraordinary addictive potential suggests the description remains threatening.
Calling online gambling addictive remains an important public health warning. Still, when culture celebrates products that people can’t put down, the label alone may no longer pack a punch. Explaining who profits from compulsive gambling, the state’s role in enabling it, and what happens to people and families who suffer its consequences may be more powerful than simply describing the products as addictive.
