the free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever.
Hahaha, nooo. In the absence of restraint you get robbed and pound sand. The state-of-nature wild-west is never what yāall mean, when you fluff up āthe free market.ā You mean a space where competition matters because people can trust theyāre making rational decisions on good information.
Charging real money inside a video game is inherently irrational because all the information is made-up. Thereās only one vendor and they control gravity. The environment is as arbitrary and fictional as any con-artistās story. More ātiger rockā than ādeed to the Brooklyn Bridge,ā but still a complete fabrication that exists only to part you from your currency in exchange for approximately dick.
Thereās a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it.
Declaring an absolute right to manipulate people is the first one.
āManufacturing consentā is not some unfortunate side effect, for you. You defend it by name. You describe it the way more sensible people describe religious freedom. How much more throat do you have, if thatās not a full-throated endorsement?
Here, Iāll be more libertarian than you: why shouldnāt we let people get scammed? Fuck 'em. Theyāre adults, right? Itās their money to lose. How can I be absolutely free to manufacture consent, if lying isnāt an option? Itās an abrogation of my right to free speech. Lying is legal. Scams should be legal as well, because ethics shouldnāt dictate the law. They clicked Buy and itās my money now and tough shit. Caveat emptor, bitches!
Please tell me why you think thatās wrong.
When did I say [fire codes are tyranny]? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesnāt pass code
Do you read all this, or just type it?
There are plenty of people who genuinely like the MTX model.
And a bunch more who FUCKING HATE IT, but are subjected to it anyway, because hey guess what - other peopleās decisions also affect you. What everyone else wants and does will always limit your choices. We have to ensure assholes and morons donāt ruin it for everyone else. Sometimes that means enforcing building safety, Jesus Hoobastank Christ, and sometimes that means recognizing a bullshit way to make money is illegitimate and unacceptable.
āJust sell video gamesā is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
I think people are naturally moral toward one another, at least in smaller groups, and commit crimes when thereās a level of abstraction (i.e. youāre not hurting your neighbor, but someone you donāt know). The reason we need strict rules and policing isnāt because people are naturally bad, but because population density creates more opportunity for crime, as well as desperation (poverty rates are lower in rural areas).
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, itās the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
Lying is legal
Your right to lie stops when you make a contract with someone, such as when you sell something. Itās one of those necessities as the market pool gets bigger and you canāt operate on trust anymore. I can say whatever I want to entice you to buy, but I cannot misrepresent what Iām selling.
Thereās no fraud with a typical MTX, you get exactly whatās it says. Whether that has value is up to the buyer.
And libertarianism isnāt āscrew you, got mine,ā itās a set of principles that centers around non-aggression. I happen to be a somewhat left-leaning libertarian
Do you read all this, or just type it?
Both. Thereās a difference between something being certified and something being legal. I can buy something thatās not certified, I just donāt get the guarantees that come with certification.
subjected to it anyway
Nobody is forcing you to interact with a MTX model. I have never bought a MTX, and I actively avoid games that use it. There are a ton of great games out there, I donāt need to play the ones with a predatory profit model.
Sometimes that means enforcing building safety
Sure, and that absolutely makes sense for something like a commercial building. It doesnāt make sense for my personal residence. The first prevents injustices against the innocent, the latter just screws over the DIYer.
āJust sell video gamesā is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there werenāt other options to MTX, but the non-MTX model is extremely healthy, so I donāt see a case for restricting it when the market is ensuring alternatives exist.
There are issues WRT kids and those with addiction problems, but we can ban the first and limit the second with less invasive policies.
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, itās the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
The anarcho-pastoralist argument for unrestrained capitalism. Eugh. Thatās worse than the joke about principles. Yeah keep going on about the evils of systems and power, as you argue these corporations have every right to manipulate money out of people.
I cannot misrepresent what Iām selling.
Says who?
āThe free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever.ā It canāt be a crime if thereās no government. I didnāt put a gun to anyoneās head. The true free market says I can make up whatever I want, and itās on them to evaluate whether Iām full of shit.
You cannot argue otherwise without acknowledging systemic issues require limitations. Thatās exactly what youāre doing, when you say that as a society āgets bigger,ā individuals need guarantees that theyāre not about to get fucked over.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there werenāt other options to MTX
No you would not, if your principles existed. Youād just frown along with this shrug.
The existence of non-abusive options never excuses the abusive options. For exactly the same reason we donāt say, well, truthful advertisements abound, so just pick those - we donāt tell people to shop for houses that meet the fire code. They should all meet the goddamn fire code.
When did I ever claim to be an anarchist? I explicitly explained how we need more rules the larger a society gets. Iām not making the argument that we need no government, but that we should have a restrained government.
Look at all the nonsense weāre getting with opposition to police. Do you think thatās a general opposition to rule of law, or perhaps itās just opposition to unjust laws? (i.e. laws w/o victims, like marijuana possession)
So Iām going to be very hesitant to create new laws where there is no clear victim. And I donāt believe convincing someone to buy something make them a victim.
And no, individuals donāt need guarantees that theyāre not going to get a bad deal, they need guarantees that theyāll get what they expect to get in the transaction. Whether they can get a better deal somewhere else is completely irrelevant.
They should all
Should and must are very different things. Should is about morality, must is about law.
Games shouldnāt use MTX because thatās a manipulative way to run a business. But provided theyāre not misrepresenting the product, I donāt see any reason to turn that into a legal ban. Iāll never recommend a MTX-heavy game, and Iāll avoid them at every turn, but I am unwilling to turn my preference into law because thatās restricts othersā rights. Many people like evergreen games, and MTX is the main way to fund that.
We can discuss requirements for games to make and advertise options to set purchase limits, but I will never support a bill to ban that type of game, unless thereās some kind of monopolistic behavior thatās preventing alternative monetization options in other games.
Of course you donāt support meaningful consumer protection laws. You donāt support fire codes. Stop typing another denial: you know goddamn well the point of them is that they must be followed, otherwise theyāre just fire suggestions. Fireā¦ best practices. You can figure out which meaning of should I am using, as I tell you, there should be no fire-prone homes allowed!
People shouldnāt have to choose between something tolerable and something that will fuck them over. Sorry, Iāll retype that to appease your latest hair-splitting: people must not be forced to choose between acceptable options - and becoming a victim.
Anyone buying an unsafe house is a victim, no matter how ardently they insist itās fine. Itās not. These laws are written in blood. Innocent strangers die when we let that shit happen. In large part because, hey guess what, markets only care about money. Optimize for money alone and you get places where no home is safe, but people still have to live, because itās where they are. Scolding those people for wanting a home that wonāt burn down, but buying one that might, is blaming those victims.
You know this. These are the laws we require, in large societies. You chafe at the comparison of your arguments to anarchist arguments, albeit possibly because youāre unfamiliar with actual anarchist arguments.
And youāll glibly suggest āpurchase limits.ā
Why?
What principled reason is there, if the right to manipulate people toward whatever youāre selling is absolute? You insist this business model of selling soccer goals is in no way a scam, so who cares if someone blows every paycheck on it? If you want to say itās addiction, do we stop people from being alcoholics? Are you against substances that are almost unavoidably addictive, on a physiological level?
If this continues to spread, and becomes an effective monopoly - why do you suddenly care? Why is the point where it becomes a problem for you the point where itās too late?
I never said that. I think fire codes are a fantastic idea, I just donāt think a house not meeting code should make it unsellable.
And thatās essentially what the current law is, at least in my area. New construction is required to meet code, older houses are not required to in order to sell. If you want to turn a house into a business, it needs to pass code (e.g. I had to buy and install a couple fire extinguishers when I registered my home business).
If I made a legal change here, it would be requiring an up-front disclosure of any building codes the seller is aware of violating so the buyer doesnāt need to waste time and money with an inspection. Iām also a fan of requiring any legal contract to be understandable with an 8th grade education (i.e. no legalese) and reasonable in length and scope (i.e. a page of 12pt font should be fine for most cases). I want contracts to be something people are expected to read and understand, not where you hide all the gotchas on page 22 of small print.
Are you against substances that are almost unavoidably addictive, on a physiological level?
No, but Iām okay with requiring them to be used under supervision, especially since a ābad tripā often presents a hazard to the public.
I see two options here:
ban harmful drugs
control harmful drugs
The first just pushes it to the streets, and youāll end up having to police that, which means a ton of innocent people get screwed over. Look at how successful our āwar in drugsā has been, itās an absolute clown show, and things are way better in places with looser restrictions (i.e. Portugal, The Netherlands, etc).
Controlling it means allowing pretty much all drugs, but with increasing requirements on supervision for use. Maybe some drugs just arenāt allowed because thereās no safe way to use it (e.g. fentanyl), but there should be an avenue the public can use to get legal access to most drugs. I think we should tax it as well to fund rehabilitation, but almost never outright ban it. Safer drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc) should be allowed over the counter, while others may require a supervised appointment (heroin, cocaine, psilocybin, etc).
If this continues to spread, and becomes an effective monopoly - why do you suddenly care?
That depends on the type of monopoly, I suppose, but suppressing alternatives is a big no for me. If the public decides MTX are the way to go and thereās no force from game studios to make that dominant, thatās a very different thing.
I really donāt see that being the case. In almost every case, a ānatural monopolyā is anything but, usually itās due to some entrenched business being able to craft laws such that competition is impractical. Look at places where cable is the only available from of Internet access, this isnāt because competitors donāt bother servicing an area, but because the local cable company has put so many legal barriers in place that competition isnāt practical.
So if everything turns into MTX, thereās probably illegal coercion going on behind the scenes because I know thereās a market for non-MTX games. The more market share it gets, the more seriously we should look at regulation (e.g. How does this look for children? Is there a way to place caps? Is there a form of gambling here? Etc).
Just because something is ābadā doesnāt mean it should be illegal, it may just need to more transparent about the bad bits. But if people want to smoke and drink, Iām fine as long as they understand the health risks of doing so and they donāt bother others while doing it.
I am just so tired of dealing with your entire worldview.
We canāt ban unethical business practices because thatās dictating customersā morality, somehow.
Oh but itās not unethical because manipulating people is good actually.
Oh but itās not manipulation if it works.
Donāt I know that consumer protection laws are like banning drugs? Which youāre okay with if theyāre the wrong drugs?
I just do not give a shit what you want, anymore. Your principles are slippery and their justifications are ahistorical and it all leads to conclusions that should make you reconsider. Iām not convinced you know what cognitive dissonance feels like.
This entire business model is horrible in a way you ardently defend, whilst insisting youāre not defending it. You have grand-sounding reasons for encouraging everything short of already-criminal fraud. You keep saying youāre not encouraging it, but quite frankly, come the fuck on. All youāve had to say against it is the wishy-washiest nitpicking at the boundaries of this metastasizing industry-wide problem that didnāt exist a decade ago. And you seem serenely unbothered by how often your unprompted legislative suggestions do not square with the alleged rationale for otherwise naysaying the only solution that would actually work.
I do not intended to give you further attention on this subject. Quite frankly āabsolute freedom to manufacture consentā is where I shouldāve pulled the chute, and itāll be my point of reference next time someone asks why I donāt give a shit about libertarian arguments for this blatant exploitation.
I said manipulating people (as in, advertising a product using research about efficacy) is covered under free speech. That doesnāt make it good, it just makes it protected. That right ends when you defraud someone though, because thatās a contractual violation.
Which youāre okay with if theyāre the wrong drugs?
No, the only drugs that should be banned are those that present a significant risk to others. Something like Fentanyl has an incredibly high risk to the public because even a small amount can cause serious side effects, whereas something like marijuana has pretty much no risk.
Thereās a spectrum here, and the standard should be risk to the public, not whatever nonsense the DEA has come up with.
That also goes for business practices. If itās consensual, it should probably be allowed, even if itās predatory in nature (e.g. gambling). If itās coercive (e.g. ransomware attacks), it should be banned and prosecuted. Thereās a pretty clear distinction there.
This entire business model is horrible
I absolutely agree. I just disagree about it needing to be banned. Iām also disgusted with the tobacco industry (and theyāve done some truly predatory advertising in the past before the crackdowns), but Iāll defend everyoneās right to buy cigarettes.
metastasizing industry-wide problem that didnāt exist a decade ago
This type of business practice is very old. Yeah, video game MTX are new, but selling FOMO isnāt. In the past it was subscriptions to all kinds of things, collectibles, āas seen on TVā nonsense, etc.
The main shift is moving that to digital products and reducing the barrier to payment, but the business model itself is quite old. Basically the pattern is:
Create mediocre product with catchy name
Hire charismatic businessman to create a feeling of need
Introduce a ālimited timeā to the offer
Thatās basically a MTX, just with a physical product instead of digital.
I do not intended to give you further attention on this subject
Then thanks for the discussion, and I hope you have a fantastic day. But if you want to continue, Iāll probably respond.
Your words keep being āwell no, but actually yes.ā Almost verbatim re: drugs. āNo, the onlyāā if thereās an āonlyā then thatās āthe wrong drugs,ā ya doof.
This bullshit isnāt āmediocre.ā Itās a scam. I do not respect the framework you push to deny that itās a scam. What you consider above-board is fucking horrifying.
The shittiest possible physical product is infinitely more real than charging actual money to increment a variable inside a video game on your computer. Even if people donāt think theyāve been tricked into that - they have. Itās nonsense. It is neither a good nor a service. It needs to be stopped, and no half measures will suffice.
The alternatives are still super duper capitalist, so you can relax.
Hahaha, nooo. In the absence of restraint you get robbed and pound sand. The state-of-nature wild-west is never what yāall mean, when you fluff up āthe free market.ā You mean a space where competition matters because people can trust theyāre making rational decisions on good information.
Charging real money inside a video game is inherently irrational because all the information is made-up. Thereās only one vendor and they control gravity. The environment is as arbitrary and fictional as any con-artistās story. More ātiger rockā than ādeed to the Brooklyn Bridge,ā but still a complete fabrication that exists only to part you from your currency in exchange for approximately dick.
Declaring an absolute right to manipulate people is the first one.
āManufacturing consentā is not some unfortunate side effect, for you. You defend it by name. You describe it the way more sensible people describe religious freedom. How much more throat do you have, if thatās not a full-throated endorsement?
Here, Iāll be more libertarian than you: why shouldnāt we let people get scammed? Fuck 'em. Theyāre adults, right? Itās their money to lose. How can I be absolutely free to manufacture consent, if lying isnāt an option? Itās an abrogation of my right to free speech. Lying is legal. Scams should be legal as well, because ethics shouldnāt dictate the law. They clicked Buy and itās my money now and tough shit. Caveat emptor, bitches!
Please tell me why you think thatās wrong.
Do you read all this, or just type it?
And a bunch more who FUCKING HATE IT, but are subjected to it anyway, because hey guess what - other peopleās decisions also affect you. What everyone else wants and does will always limit your choices. We have to ensure assholes and morons donāt ruin it for everyone else. Sometimes that means enforcing building safety, Jesus Hoobastank Christ, and sometimes that means recognizing a bullshit way to make money is illegitimate and unacceptable.
āJust sell video gamesā is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
The āWild Westā was quite tame (pretty good read imo), and was a lot safer at least from a murder perspective than major cities at the time. Even today, rural areas have lower crime rates.
I think people are naturally moral toward one another, at least in smaller groups, and commit crimes when thereās a level of abstraction (i.e. youāre not hurting your neighbor, but someone you donāt know). The reason we need strict rules and policing isnāt because people are naturally bad, but because population density creates more opportunity for crime, as well as desperation (poverty rates are lower in rural areas).
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, itās the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
Your right to lie stops when you make a contract with someone, such as when you sell something. Itās one of those necessities as the market pool gets bigger and you canāt operate on trust anymore. I can say whatever I want to entice you to buy, but I cannot misrepresent what Iām selling.
Thereās no fraud with a typical MTX, you get exactly whatās it says. Whether that has value is up to the buyer.
And libertarianism isnāt āscrew you, got mine,ā itās a set of principles that centers around non-aggression. I happen to be a somewhat left-leaning libertarian
Both. Thereās a difference between something being certified and something being legal. I can buy something thatās not certified, I just donāt get the guarantees that come with certification.
Nobody is forcing you to interact with a MTX model. I have never bought a MTX, and I actively avoid games that use it. There are a ton of great games out there, I donāt need to play the ones with a predatory profit model.
Sure, and that absolutely makes sense for something like a commercial building. It doesnāt make sense for my personal residence. The first prevents injustices against the innocent, the latter just screws over the DIYer.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there werenāt other options to MTX, but the non-MTX model is extremely healthy, so I donāt see a case for restricting it when the market is ensuring alternatives exist.
There are issues WRT kids and those with addiction problems, but we can ban the first and limit the second with less invasive policies.
The anarcho-pastoralist argument for unrestrained capitalism. Eugh. Thatās worse than the joke about principles. Yeah keep going on about the evils of systems and power, as you argue these corporations have every right to manipulate money out of people.
Says who?
āThe free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever.ā It canāt be a crime if thereās no government. I didnāt put a gun to anyoneās head. The true free market says I can make up whatever I want, and itās on them to evaluate whether Iām full of shit.
You cannot argue otherwise without acknowledging systemic issues require limitations. Thatās exactly what youāre doing, when you say that as a society āgets bigger,ā individuals need guarantees that theyāre not about to get fucked over.
No you would not, if your principles existed. Youād just frown along with this shrug.
The existence of non-abusive options never excuses the abusive options. For exactly the same reason we donāt say, well, truthful advertisements abound, so just pick those - we donāt tell people to shop for houses that meet the fire code. They should all meet the goddamn fire code.
When did I ever claim to be an anarchist? I explicitly explained how we need more rules the larger a society gets. Iām not making the argument that we need no government, but that we should have a restrained government.
Look at all the nonsense weāre getting with opposition to police. Do you think thatās a general opposition to rule of law, or perhaps itās just opposition to unjust laws? (i.e. laws w/o victims, like marijuana possession)
So Iām going to be very hesitant to create new laws where there is no clear victim. And I donāt believe convincing someone to buy something make them a victim.
And no, individuals donāt need guarantees that theyāre not going to get a bad deal, they need guarantees that theyāll get what they expect to get in the transaction. Whether they can get a better deal somewhere else is completely irrelevant.
Should and must are very different things. Should is about morality, must is about law.
Games shouldnāt use MTX because thatās a manipulative way to run a business. But provided theyāre not misrepresenting the product, I donāt see any reason to turn that into a legal ban. Iāll never recommend a MTX-heavy game, and Iāll avoid them at every turn, but I am unwilling to turn my preference into law because thatās restricts othersā rights. Many people like evergreen games, and MTX is the main way to fund that.
We can discuss requirements for games to make and advertise options to set purchase limits, but I will never support a bill to ban that type of game, unless thereās some kind of monopolistic behavior thatās preventing alternative monetization options in other games.
Of course you donāt support meaningful consumer protection laws. You donāt support fire codes. Stop typing another denial: you know goddamn well the point of them is that they must be followed, otherwise theyāre just fire suggestions. Fireā¦ best practices. You can figure out which meaning of should I am using, as I tell you, there should be no fire-prone homes allowed!
People shouldnāt have to choose between something tolerable and something that will fuck them over. Sorry, Iāll retype that to appease your latest hair-splitting: people must not be forced to choose between acceptable options - and becoming a victim.
Anyone buying an unsafe house is a victim, no matter how ardently they insist itās fine. Itās not. These laws are written in blood. Innocent strangers die when we let that shit happen. In large part because, hey guess what, markets only care about money. Optimize for money alone and you get places where no home is safe, but people still have to live, because itās where they are. Scolding those people for wanting a home that wonāt burn down, but buying one that might, is blaming those victims.
You know this. These are the laws we require, in large societies. You chafe at the comparison of your arguments to anarchist arguments, albeit possibly because youāre unfamiliar with actual anarchist arguments.
And youāll glibly suggest āpurchase limits.ā
Why?
What principled reason is there, if the right to manipulate people toward whatever youāre selling is absolute? You insist this business model of selling soccer goals is in no way a scam, so who cares if someone blows every paycheck on it? If you want to say itās addiction, do we stop people from being alcoholics? Are you against substances that are almost unavoidably addictive, on a physiological level?
If this continues to spread, and becomes an effective monopoly - why do you suddenly care? Why is the point where it becomes a problem for you the point where itās too late?
I never said that. I think fire codes are a fantastic idea, I just donāt think a house not meeting code should make it unsellable.
And thatās essentially what the current law is, at least in my area. New construction is required to meet code, older houses are not required to in order to sell. If you want to turn a house into a business, it needs to pass code (e.g. I had to buy and install a couple fire extinguishers when I registered my home business).
If I made a legal change here, it would be requiring an up-front disclosure of any building codes the seller is aware of violating so the buyer doesnāt need to waste time and money with an inspection. Iām also a fan of requiring any legal contract to be understandable with an 8th grade education (i.e. no legalese) and reasonable in length and scope (i.e. a page of 12pt font should be fine for most cases). I want contracts to be something people are expected to read and understand, not where you hide all the gotchas on page 22 of small print.
No, but Iām okay with requiring them to be used under supervision, especially since a ābad tripā often presents a hazard to the public.
I see two options here:
The first just pushes it to the streets, and youāll end up having to police that, which means a ton of innocent people get screwed over. Look at how successful our āwar in drugsā has been, itās an absolute clown show, and things are way better in places with looser restrictions (i.e. Portugal, The Netherlands, etc).
Controlling it means allowing pretty much all drugs, but with increasing requirements on supervision for use. Maybe some drugs just arenāt allowed because thereās no safe way to use it (e.g. fentanyl), but there should be an avenue the public can use to get legal access to most drugs. I think we should tax it as well to fund rehabilitation, but almost never outright ban it. Safer drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc) should be allowed over the counter, while others may require a supervised appointment (heroin, cocaine, psilocybin, etc).
That depends on the type of monopoly, I suppose, but suppressing alternatives is a big no for me. If the public decides MTX are the way to go and thereās no force from game studios to make that dominant, thatās a very different thing.
I really donāt see that being the case. In almost every case, a ānatural monopolyā is anything but, usually itās due to some entrenched business being able to craft laws such that competition is impractical. Look at places where cable is the only available from of Internet access, this isnāt because competitors donāt bother servicing an area, but because the local cable company has put so many legal barriers in place that competition isnāt practical.
So if everything turns into MTX, thereās probably illegal coercion going on behind the scenes because I know thereās a market for non-MTX games. The more market share it gets, the more seriously we should look at regulation (e.g. How does this look for children? Is there a way to place caps? Is there a form of gambling here? Etc).
Just because something is ābadā doesnāt mean it should be illegal, it may just need to more transparent about the bad bits. But if people want to smoke and drink, Iām fine as long as they understand the health risks of doing so and they donāt bother others while doing it.
I am just so tired of dealing with your entire worldview.
We canāt ban unethical business practices because thatās dictating customersā morality, somehow.
Oh but itās not unethical because manipulating people is good actually.
Oh but itās not manipulation if it works.
Donāt I know that consumer protection laws are like banning drugs? Which youāre okay with if theyāre the wrong drugs?
I just do not give a shit what you want, anymore. Your principles are slippery and their justifications are ahistorical and it all leads to conclusions that should make you reconsider. Iām not convinced you know what cognitive dissonance feels like.
This entire business model is horrible in a way you ardently defend, whilst insisting youāre not defending it. You have grand-sounding reasons for encouraging everything short of already-criminal fraud. You keep saying youāre not encouraging it, but quite frankly, come the fuck on. All youāve had to say against it is the wishy-washiest nitpicking at the boundaries of this metastasizing industry-wide problem that didnāt exist a decade ago. And you seem serenely unbothered by how often your unprompted legislative suggestions do not square with the alleged rationale for otherwise naysaying the only solution that would actually work.
I do not intended to give you further attention on this subject. Quite frankly āabsolute freedom to manufacture consentā is where I shouldāve pulled the chute, and itāll be my point of reference next time someone asks why I donāt give a shit about libertarian arguments for this blatant exploitation.
You really like twisting my wordsā¦
I said manipulating people (as in, advertising a product using research about efficacy) is covered under free speech. That doesnāt make it good, it just makes it protected. That right ends when you defraud someone though, because thatās a contractual violation.
No, the only drugs that should be banned are those that present a significant risk to others. Something like Fentanyl has an incredibly high risk to the public because even a small amount can cause serious side effects, whereas something like marijuana has pretty much no risk.
Thereās a spectrum here, and the standard should be risk to the public, not whatever nonsense the DEA has come up with.
That also goes for business practices. If itās consensual, it should probably be allowed, even if itās predatory in nature (e.g. gambling). If itās coercive (e.g. ransomware attacks), it should be banned and prosecuted. Thereās a pretty clear distinction there.
I absolutely agree. I just disagree about it needing to be banned. Iām also disgusted with the tobacco industry (and theyāve done some truly predatory advertising in the past before the crackdowns), but Iāll defend everyoneās right to buy cigarettes.
This type of business practice is very old. Yeah, video game MTX are new, but selling FOMO isnāt. In the past it was subscriptions to all kinds of things, collectibles, āas seen on TVā nonsense, etc.
The main shift is moving that to digital products and reducing the barrier to payment, but the business model itself is quite old. Basically the pattern is:
Thatās basically a MTX, just with a physical product instead of digital.
Then thanks for the discussion, and I hope you have a fantastic day. But if you want to continue, Iāll probably respond.
Your words keep being āwell no, but actually yes.ā Almost verbatim re: drugs. āNo, the onlyāā if thereās an āonlyā then thatās āthe wrong drugs,ā ya doof.
This bullshit isnāt āmediocre.ā Itās a scam. I do not respect the framework you push to deny that itās a scam. What you consider above-board is fucking horrifying.
The shittiest possible physical product is infinitely more real than charging actual money to increment a variable inside a video game on your computer. Even if people donāt think theyāve been tricked into that - they have. Itās nonsense. It is neither a good nor a service. It needs to be stopped, and no half measures will suffice.
The alternatives are still super duper capitalist, so you can relax.