• @Jyek
    link
    English
    107 months ago

    90% on consumers? I don’t know I’d go that far… If a company is evil but provides a service people still desire, that doesn’t make the evil company being evil the fault of the consumers. Like saying gun control in America is resisted primarily by its citizens when we are well aware that company lobbying is mostly at fault and most citizens are actually for some amount of gun control.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 months ago

        That only works if there’s meaningful competition. With megabrands like Nestle who make 1/4 of the grocery store, or game publishers like Ubisoft who receive 1/4 of the industry’s revenue any kind of boycott is dead before it begins.

        In a society with a functioning government, megabrands who abuse their neighbors and/or customers would be hit with significant fines and be heavily regulated out of the bad behaviors, but the US hadn’t had a government interested in helping the common person for over half a century

      • @Jyek
        link
        English
        17 months ago

        I don’t disagree. I disagree with the idea that it’s 90% the fault of the consumer.

          • @Jyek
            link
            English
            07 months ago

            The consumer is 90% to blame for the actions of an international corporation who have analyzed and manipulated their target demographic? If it were a relationship you’d be victim blaming. If I hit you for being stupid, is it your fault because you were stupid or is it my fault for thinking hitting you was a solution?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -17
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Way to shoehorn your opinions on gun control into a thread about forced ads in video games. If we ask nicely, will you share your thoughts about Trump as well?