• Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      2·
      8 months ago

      The point is simple “industry” doesn’t contain the scammers who try to abuse it.

      It does. To illustrate this I linked to a bank website containing advice on combating phishing.

      Here’s the definition I’m happy with.

      Legitimate casinos = established businesses in the casino industry

      Fake casinos = scammers

      Online casinos = legitimate casinos + fake casinos

      Combined because users find it hard to tell the difference.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              2·
              8 months ago

              Your definition of “legitimate casino” excludes any casinos that rig games.

              All businesses with financial operations are exposed to money laundering to some degree.

              Regulations increase costs to implement. Only “legitimate casinos” fight them.

              • sudneo@lemm.ee
                1·
                8 months ago

                It’s YOUR definition ahahah I literally took what you said and I am asking a question.

                YOU said, legitimate + fake = online. I asked to which you applied the answer and you said online. Now you are saying it doesn’t?

                So, do we agree that legitimate casinos don’t rig games?

                Also, you mentioned taking a cut to help laundering money, now you are retracting saying “are exposed”. No dude, taking a cut has intentionality behind, being exposed is a natural risk for any business which moves money. You claimed the first.

                So, one last time:

                • do legitimate casinos rig games?
                • do legitimate casinos help laundering money?
                • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  8 months ago

                  It’s YOUR definition

                  Nope. It’s you who is obsessed with separation of “legitimate casinos”.

                  YOU said, legitimate + fake = online. I asked to which you applied the answer and you said online.

                  Correct

                  Now you are saying it doesn’t?

                  Incorrect.

                  So, do we agree that legitimate casinos don’t rig games?

                  You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don’t rig games.

                  Also, you mentioned taking a cut to help laundering money,

                  Incorrect. I said casinos are used to launder money.

                  now you are retracting saying “are exposed”.

                  No retraction necessary.

                  • do legitimate casinos rig games?

                  Online casinos rig games. You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don’t rig games. A normal internet user cannot tell the difference.

                  • do legitimate casinos help laundering money?

                  Yes. Not necessarily knowingly. Income from internet gambling is tainted.

                  • sudneo@lemm.ee
                    1·
                    8 months ago

                    Your quote:

                    Here’s the definition I’m happy with. Legitimate casinos = established businesses in the casino industry Fake casinos = scammers Online casinos = legitimate casinos + fake casinos

                    You forgot already? A link to your own comment.

                    You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don’t rig games.

                    I didn’t define shit, you defined legitimate casino as a partition of online casino.

                    Look what triple jump you are making to avoid saying a very simple thing: legitimate casinos, defined as YOU did (established businesses in the casino industry) don’t rig games. All because you can’t admit to be wrong :)

                    So, I will ask once again:

                    • do legitimate casinos, as in YOUR definition, rig games, according to you?

                    Yes or no question.

                    Yes. Not necessarily knowingly. Income from internet gambling is tainted.

                    I would argue with this point, but I won’t. It doesn’t matter, I accept the theoretical possibility of money laundering. For some reason I was mistakenly taking the top comment of this thread as your comment. I even quoted it several times and you didn’t note that that’s not your comment… my bad.