[Algemarin]

> What more do you want?

For it to be clear how unrealistic the odds are. They're not exactly broadcasting "you're 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to win the jackpot", instead their site screams "Millions Could Be Yours!". That is the dishonesty and obfuscation. Millions _could_ be yours, but they are very unlikely to be yours, in fact realistically approaching zero. While advance fee scams say "millions will definitely be yours", with the odds being absolutely zero. But neither are meaningful odds.

Though regardless, my original point wasn't about odds but about the lure and the appeal of both of these things: the potential for getting a lot of money for doing virtually nothing (other than spending a bit of money up front).

[Terr_]

> That is the dishonesty and obfuscation.

The problem is that no culture/philosophy has (yet?) even found a clean line.

Ex: How different must the fixed menu picture of the "Burger and Fries combo"--designed to manipulate me into feeling hunger--be from the real food before it's fraud? If I tell you "pink elephants", I have created text that placed an idea into your mind against your will, but is that an offense?

[pbhjpbhj]

If it's not a picture of food cooked by a worker at the company, in the regular kitchen, with the normal ingredients then surely it's fraud (lying to get money)?

Market capitalism needs truth and transparency to have any chance of optimising delivery of goods/services. These should be preeminent goals of Western Capitalism.

[Calavar]

At a certain point it falls to personal accountability. A would be lottery ticket buyer can get all that info in 30 seconds by googling "How likely am I win to win the lottery?" If they don't do that, that's on them.

Advance fee scams are different because 1) they are telling outright falsehoods and 2) they come cloaked in a broad variety of disguises, which means that a naive web search is not guaranteed to unveil the deception

[Algemarin]

A user can just as easily identify a scam such as the one in this post by also taking 30 seconds to do a web search for some phrasing from the email.

And "if they don't do that, that's on them"? This is victim blaming in both cases.