[count zero]

"Should a site that's an advocate for players advocate refusing to accept the legitimacy of government as a way to make sports betting readily available to its base?"

1) MW is not an "advocate for players." Occasionally representing the interests of players who have been, or claim to have been, wronged by sports books is not advocating for players in the sense you intend. To the best of my recollection, MW has never represented the interests of sportsbettors against governmental authority, here or in any other public venue. Having sympathy for a point of view is not the same as publicly advocating for it. If you think I am wrong, please post a link to several instances where MW did so. And, as I said above, I think it tests the limits of naivete to imagine that the 10-20 people here who have the literacy skills to participate in such an effort plus the potential financial upside to care about the outcome would be able to get the federal government to so much as take notice of them, much less reverse course on the grounds of logic and common sense. With all due respect, your impression of government and its workings are more appropriate to a 1940s civics text than to today's unfortunate realities.

2) you evidently want to reduce the issue to pragmatic considerations, i.e., which of two alternatives will work best. That is a very short-sighted view, given the manifestly illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the current administration, but since you appear to have long since bought into what they're selling, I'll give you my impression of the chances of either of these alternatives working: absolutely nil. So the question becomes: if you believed you were wrongly deprived of something you valued, and you had to choose between standing up for yourself on principle or bending over and asking nicely, and neither alternative had the slightest chance of ameliorating your situation, which one would you choose?

3) if, as you now disingenuously state, you never thought anybody here was in bed with organized crime etc, then why did you say they were? Do your words stop having meaning when you get caught out? Since I accept that you are a person of good faith, I have some advice for you: when you don't mean to characterize someone as being unconcerned about organized crime, drug dealers and arms dealers, you should avoid putting words like these in their mouths: "I don't care if organized crime is taking my money to fund the drug or arms trade..."