So it requires the threat or implied threat of serious harm or abuse of the law against a person.
And no, not looking cool or being at the top of a game isn’t “serious harm,” you’d be laughed out of the courtroom and perhaps fined for wasting everyone’s time if you tried to make that legal argument.
The original context of this chain is a legal one:
Isn’t it time to get some regulations on m(i/a)cro transactions? This seems very illegal to me and it is exploiting people’s addictions.
Yes, you didn’t say that, but you responded in that context. I asked “what is illegal about it?” and you directly replied with the note about coercion. To me, that clearly implies you think this is a form of legal coercion, and now you’re backpedaling because I showed that’s explicitly not true. You’re moving the goalposts.
That completely fair. You can definitely interpret that implication from what i said. I need to be more careful with my choice of words in future.
However, i assure you my intent was not to make a legal argument.
I was saying that coercion is illegal, which is true. And that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion, which would be my opinion. But it doesn’t read that way.
No worries, it just gets confusing when terms are used loosely and differently in a conversation.
For the record, I disagree that both that FOMO is a form of coercion (even the regular dictionary definition implies force is involved) and believe it shouldn’t be illegal to entice adults with it, but there should be limits on marketing to children. That said, any form of advertising can be considered a form of fomo, so I’m not exactly sure where the line should be. That said, we do have limits on fraud, which covers things like making unrealistic claims (e.g. this cosmetic will make you win). It’s disgusting, but shouldn’t be illegal.
No, fomo is not a form of coercion whatsoever. Here’s the legal definition in the federal legal code:
So it requires the threat or implied threat of serious harm or abuse of the law against a person.
And no, not looking cool or being at the top of a game isn’t “serious harm,” you’d be laughed out of the courtroom and perhaps fined for wasting everyone’s time if you tried to make that legal argument.
Im not making a legal argument… im making a philosophical one.
The original context of this chain is a legal one:
Yes, you didn’t say that, but you responded in that context. I asked “what is illegal about it?” and you directly replied with the note about coercion. To me, that clearly implies you think this is a form of legal coercion, and now you’re backpedaling because I showed that’s explicitly not true. You’re moving the goalposts.
That completely fair. You can definitely interpret that implication from what i said. I need to be more careful with my choice of words in future.
However, i assure you my intent was not to make a legal argument.
I was saying that coercion is illegal, which is true. And that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion, which would be my opinion. But it doesn’t read that way.
Sorry.
No worries, it just gets confusing when terms are used loosely and differently in a conversation.
For the record, I disagree that both that FOMO is a form of coercion (even the regular dictionary definition implies force is involved) and believe it shouldn’t be illegal to entice adults with it, but there should be limits on marketing to children. That said, any form of advertising can be considered a form of fomo, so I’m not exactly sure where the line should be. That said, we do have limits on fraud, which covers things like making unrealistic claims (e.g. this cosmetic will make you win). It’s disgusting, but shouldn’t be illegal.
Fair enough.