I never said this. I never said any of it is or should be illegal, except loot boxes (only illegal because they should be classified as “gambling” and regulated as such) and maybe minors playing F2P games supported by cosmetics (smells like child labor since showing off to F2P players is the main attraction).
I merely said I don’t like it, not that it is or should be illegal. I don’t have to make everything that I don’t like illegal, only things that actually have victims, and someone choosing to buy something stupid doesn’t make them a victim unless they were defrauded in how that thing was presented (i.e. false advertising). You’re not a victim if something bad happens to you, you’re only a victim if you didn’t consent.
“Except loot boxes” is you-saying-that. You’re even suggesting a partial ban on cosmetics, unbidden. Thanks? Nice to know you understand it’s awful, and why it’s awful. Not sure why you think it becomes okay when the targets are adults.
Consent means nothing if it’s manufactured. Which these systems obviously do, through utterly shameless manipulation, in an environment made-up by the people taking your money. All appearance of value is contrived. The fact you get the worthless geegaw you were cajoled into believing is worth fifty actual dollars doesn’t matter. The process is the problem.
That’s a special case because it’s gambling. That’s not a comment about MTX in general or addictiveness, but that specific form because it’s based on chance and there’s no way to recoup your “investment.” Anything that’s purchased based on chance should have a secondary market to exchange things you don’t want.
Adults are capable of consent, so they should be free to make their own decisions.
Consent means nothing if it’s manufactured.
I disagree. People should be absolutely free to attempt to manufacture consent, and people should be absolutely free to oppose it. I hold that to be a fundamental freedom, because a restriction of that means you’re letting someone else decide what’s best for you. Nobody has that authority other than the individual themselves.
I make my own decision to avoid such nonsense, but I think it’s unjust to forcibly restrict someone else from making a stupid choice, provided they are capable of consent. There are certainly limitations here (e.g. should be illegal to coerce someone under the influence of drugs/alcohol), but those all must reach some standard of foreknowledge.
If there’s a law here, it should be refunds if the person was not of sound mind when they made the purchase, so perhaps a mandatory 36-hour window for returns if the user presents reasonable evidence that they were impaired (i.e. if the purchase was made at an irregular time, or the person can show evidence of being under the influence), and if the purchase was of an abnormal amount (i.e. spent hundreds instead of the usual <$10).
People should be absolutely free to attempt to manufacture consent
Jesus.
a restriction of that means you’re letting someone else decide what’s best for you.
We ban scams. Identifying and preventing abuses that work is good, actually. Downright necessary. Because it turns out, people are predictably irrational, and some exploitation of that works frighteningly well.
‘I want to choose not to get robbed blind’ is not compelling.
How do you not hear yourself proposing all this nitpicking legislation? You are staring straight at examples of people being tricked into bullshit… and figure the real problem is a lack of “undo.” Nah dude. It’s the part where this entire business model is built on tricking people into paying for bullshit.
Tricking them hard enough that they don’t regret it is actually commonplace in scams - like already-illegal, selling-a-bridge scams. Some victims get taken for everything, and then come back to the scammers with more money, hoping to try again. Regret is not a meaningful measure of victimization, when human beings will bend over backwards to justify their past decisions. Your brain does it for you.
Because they’re not consensual. A scam (or fraudulent transaction to use actual legal terms) is when you agree on one thing but deliver another. This could be false advertising, or using consent for one purpose (e.g. fix your computer) to so another (clean out their bank account).
That’s a very different thing than convincing someone the transaction is a good idea by making the product look enticing or necessary. If you’re getting exactly what was promised for the price that was agreed on, it’s not a scam.
MTX have nothing to do with scams, you’re getting exactly what was advertised and often there’s a “try before you buy” setup (i.e. it’ll show you what your character looks like with it on).
hoping to try again
Well yeah, because they didn’t get what was promised. Whether they think it was a fluke is irrelevant, if you’re not getting what was promised, it’s a scam.
With MTX, you’re getting exactly what was promised, so it’s not a scam, it’s just a stupid purchase.
When the infomercial promises “a fifty-dollar value!” and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value. Not even if that belief persists. So long as it’s not obviously bullshit… you can remain satisfied.
It’s still bullshit.
You, personally, endorse that bullshit. “Absolutely,” no less. Corporations should be totally free to harass and manipulate people into saying yes. That’s how consent works in the bedroom, right? So long as you don’t technically make threats or tell lies, implication and misdirection are completely ethical. If existing laws don’t already ban something new - it must be fine.
I reiterate: Jesus.
We can, should, do, and must protect people from outright abuses they’d otherwise gladly fall for. Civilization is a series of other people making decisions that limit you. If you want to buy an unsafe house, tough shit. If you want to advertise Russian roulette, tough shit. Knowing the risks is not a universal excuse for risk. Sometimes we just stop problems before they happen.
On some level you recognize this, or else ‘regret for being misled’ wouldn’t be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans. Not even you can take the absolute stance seriously.
When the infomercial promises “a fifty-dollar value!” and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value.
I disagree. It would only be a scam if they normally sell for $10, then they jacked up the price to $50 just before the infomercial just so they could “lower” it to $30. But if the item is normally $50, it really doesn’t matter what it costs them to make, what matters is if the product performs as advertised.
And no, I don’t endorse it, but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
implication and misdirection are completely ethical
Ethics and law are two completely different things. It may be ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that should also be illegal.
That said, implication and misdirection can constitute a threat. When it comes to something like rape, there is an actual, tangible relationship to account for, as well as the idea of “implied consent” (lack of resistance), which is quite at odds in a market situation where the individual needs to take action to make a poor choice.
IMO, you can’t really be a victim if you consented and took action in making a decision. Clicking “buy” is very different from not shouting “no” (and potentially running from the house).
If you want to buy an unsafe house,
Then that should be my right. However, I could see authorities preventing me from having children or unaware adults enter the house, because they did not consent to the risk and rightly expect houses they are welcomed into to be up to code.
We should only step in, imo, if an innocent party is at risk. But if they’re all consenting adults and there’s little to no risk to innocent bystanders, I don’t think that interaction should be illegal.
On some level you recognize this, or else ‘regret for being misled’ wouldn’t be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans.
It’s more to ensure proper consent. With MTX, for example, the buyer could be under the influence of some drug, and therefore not completely able to consent to that purchase. Or maybe a child got on the account and made the purchase. Or maybe the UX was so poorly designed (e.g. dark patterns) that they didn’t realize they were making a purchase. There are so many ways for someone to have not completely consented to a transaction that there should be some way out of it.
However, if the individual fully consents and regrets it later, well, I guess that’s a learning experience.
The role of government here is to:
protect children
ensure clarity in the purchase agreement
provide a way out if the purchaser did not fully consent
It’s not to prevent people from making stupid choices or to destroy business models “we” feel are bad for society. It should be focused on ensuring consent between two parties.
Why bother discussing anything if people don’t listen to themselves?
but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
We invented “the free market.” It’s a system of protective restrictions - mostly, banning abusive bullshit, once it’s proven to work. Some options are not allowed to exist because they make everything terrible for everybody.
You are actively defending that bullshit, tooth and nail. Splitting hairs about ethics versus law. Pretending money isn’t a real material concern. Defending unsafe construction? Fuck off, guy. What’s the point explaining systemic exploitation to someone who thinks fire codes are tyranny?
People are getting tricked and robbed for billions of dollars, just trying to play some games, and every single discussion veers into batshit crazy nonsense. I shouldn’t have to defend law, as a concept, to condemn an industry-swallowing problem with no justification besides greed, when even the cranks getting on my case agree that it’s fucking garbage.
You don’t use this. You don’t want this. You don’t benefit from this.
When you care about people besides yourself, why is it the assholes with money, and not the millions of people they’re subjecting to this manipulative crap?
No, the free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever. We add restrictions on top to make sure everyone is playing fair.
We should only restrict options that are unfair, such as fraudulent transactions, anticompetitive behavior (e.g. monopolies), etc. Convincing someone to buy your thing isn’t unfair or fraudulent, so it should be allowed to happen imo.
actively defending
There’s a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it. I’m not saying these are good practices, just that they shouldn’t be illegal.
fire codes are tyranny
When did I say that? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesn’t pass code, not that the code shouldn’t exist.
The vast majority of people won’t buy something that doesn’t pass code, especially if it comes with a bunch of restrictions, like increased liability for any injuries due to not being at code. Building codes have a ton of value, but they don’t need to be proscriptive.
I know I wouldn’t buy a house that’s not up to code (and I passed on one with foundation issues), but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal. It should only be illegal to claim a house is up to code when it isn’t.
When you care about people besides yourself
I care about all people, especially the poor. What I don’t care for is restricting individual rights just because some people make stupid choices.
There are plenty of people who genuinely like the MTX model. I think their shallow and vain, but that doesn’t mean I should take something they enjoy away because I don’t it, or because some people can’t handle it.
Should we make alcohol illegal because alcoholics exist? I don’t like it, I’ve seen plenty lives ruined by it, and the US felt strongly enough about it to pass a constitutional amendment banning it (and later reversed it).
I never said this. I never said any of it is or should be illegal, except loot boxes (only illegal because they should be classified as “gambling” and regulated as such) and maybe minors playing F2P games supported by cosmetics (smells like child labor since showing off to F2P players is the main attraction).
I merely said I don’t like it, not that it is or should be illegal. I don’t have to make everything that I don’t like illegal, only things that actually have victims, and someone choosing to buy something stupid doesn’t make them a victim unless they were defrauded in how that thing was presented (i.e. false advertising). You’re not a victim if something bad happens to you, you’re only a victim if you didn’t consent.
“Except loot boxes” is you-saying-that. You’re even suggesting a partial ban on cosmetics, unbidden. Thanks? Nice to know you understand it’s awful, and why it’s awful. Not sure why you think it becomes okay when the targets are adults.
Consent means nothing if it’s manufactured. Which these systems obviously do, through utterly shameless manipulation, in an environment made-up by the people taking your money. All appearance of value is contrived. The fact you get the worthless geegaw you were cajoled into believing is worth fifty actual dollars doesn’t matter. The process is the problem.
That’s a special case because it’s gambling. That’s not a comment about MTX in general or addictiveness, but that specific form because it’s based on chance and there’s no way to recoup your “investment.” Anything that’s purchased based on chance should have a secondary market to exchange things you don’t want.
Adults are capable of consent, so they should be free to make their own decisions.
I disagree. People should be absolutely free to attempt to manufacture consent, and people should be absolutely free to oppose it. I hold that to be a fundamental freedom, because a restriction of that means you’re letting someone else decide what’s best for you. Nobody has that authority other than the individual themselves.
I make my own decision to avoid such nonsense, but I think it’s unjust to forcibly restrict someone else from making a stupid choice, provided they are capable of consent. There are certainly limitations here (e.g. should be illegal to coerce someone under the influence of drugs/alcohol), but those all must reach some standard of foreknowledge.
If there’s a law here, it should be refunds if the person was not of sound mind when they made the purchase, so perhaps a mandatory 36-hour window for returns if the user presents reasonable evidence that they were impaired (i.e. if the purchase was made at an irregular time, or the person can show evidence of being under the influence), and if the purchase was of an abnormal amount (i.e. spent hundreds instead of the usual <$10).
Jesus.
We ban scams. Identifying and preventing abuses that work is good, actually. Downright necessary. Because it turns out, people are predictably irrational, and some exploitation of that works frighteningly well.
‘I want to choose not to get robbed blind’ is not compelling.
How do you not hear yourself proposing all this nitpicking legislation? You are staring straight at examples of people being tricked into bullshit… and figure the real problem is a lack of “undo.” Nah dude. It’s the part where this entire business model is built on tricking people into paying for bullshit.
Tricking them hard enough that they don’t regret it is actually commonplace in scams - like already-illegal, selling-a-bridge scams. Some victims get taken for everything, and then come back to the scammers with more money, hoping to try again. Regret is not a meaningful measure of victimization, when human beings will bend over backwards to justify their past decisions. Your brain does it for you.
Because they’re not consensual. A scam (or fraudulent transaction to use actual legal terms) is when you agree on one thing but deliver another. This could be false advertising, or using consent for one purpose (e.g. fix your computer) to so another (clean out their bank account).
That’s a very different thing than convincing someone the transaction is a good idea by making the product look enticing or necessary. If you’re getting exactly what was promised for the price that was agreed on, it’s not a scam.
MTX have nothing to do with scams, you’re getting exactly what was advertised and often there’s a “try before you buy” setup (i.e. it’ll show you what your character looks like with it on).
Well yeah, because they didn’t get what was promised. Whether they think it was a fluke is irrelevant, if you’re not getting what was promised, it’s a scam.
With MTX, you’re getting exactly what was promised, so it’s not a scam, it’s just a stupid purchase.
When the infomercial promises “a fifty-dollar value!” and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value. Not even if that belief persists. So long as it’s not obviously bullshit… you can remain satisfied.
It’s still bullshit.
You, personally, endorse that bullshit. “Absolutely,” no less. Corporations should be totally free to harass and manipulate people into saying yes. That’s how consent works in the bedroom, right? So long as you don’t technically make threats or tell lies, implication and misdirection are completely ethical. If existing laws don’t already ban something new - it must be fine.
I reiterate: Jesus.
We can, should, do, and must protect people from outright abuses they’d otherwise gladly fall for. Civilization is a series of other people making decisions that limit you. If you want to buy an unsafe house, tough shit. If you want to advertise Russian roulette, tough shit. Knowing the risks is not a universal excuse for risk. Sometimes we just stop problems before they happen.
On some level you recognize this, or else ‘regret for being misled’ wouldn’t be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans. Not even you can take the absolute stance seriously.
I disagree. It would only be a scam if they normally sell for $10, then they jacked up the price to $50 just before the infomercial just so they could “lower” it to $30. But if the item is normally $50, it really doesn’t matter what it costs them to make, what matters is if the product performs as advertised.
And no, I don’t endorse it, but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
Ethics and law are two completely different things. It may be ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that should also be illegal.
That said, implication and misdirection can constitute a threat. When it comes to something like rape, there is an actual, tangible relationship to account for, as well as the idea of “implied consent” (lack of resistance), which is quite at odds in a market situation where the individual needs to take action to make a poor choice.
IMO, you can’t really be a victim if you consented and took action in making a decision. Clicking “buy” is very different from not shouting “no” (and potentially running from the house).
Then that should be my right. However, I could see authorities preventing me from having children or unaware adults enter the house, because they did not consent to the risk and rightly expect houses they are welcomed into to be up to code.
We should only step in, imo, if an innocent party is at risk. But if they’re all consenting adults and there’s little to no risk to innocent bystanders, I don’t think that interaction should be illegal.
It’s more to ensure proper consent. With MTX, for example, the buyer could be under the influence of some drug, and therefore not completely able to consent to that purchase. Or maybe a child got on the account and made the purchase. Or maybe the UX was so poorly designed (e.g. dark patterns) that they didn’t realize they were making a purchase. There are so many ways for someone to have not completely consented to a transaction that there should be some way out of it.
However, if the individual fully consents and regrets it later, well, I guess that’s a learning experience.
The role of government here is to:
It’s not to prevent people from making stupid choices or to destroy business models “we” feel are bad for society. It should be focused on ensuring consent between two parties.
‘I’m not condoning this… it should be my right!’
Why bother discussing anything if people don’t listen to themselves?
We invented “the free market.” It’s a system of protective restrictions - mostly, banning abusive bullshit, once it’s proven to work. Some options are not allowed to exist because they make everything terrible for everybody.
You are actively defending that bullshit, tooth and nail. Splitting hairs about ethics versus law. Pretending money isn’t a real material concern. Defending unsafe construction? Fuck off, guy. What’s the point explaining systemic exploitation to someone who thinks fire codes are tyranny?
People are getting tricked and robbed for billions of dollars, just trying to play some games, and every single discussion veers into batshit crazy nonsense. I shouldn’t have to defend law, as a concept, to condemn an industry-swallowing problem with no justification besides greed, when even the cranks getting on my case agree that it’s fucking garbage.
You don’t use this. You don’t want this. You don’t benefit from this.
When you care about people besides yourself, why is it the assholes with money, and not the millions of people they’re subjecting to this manipulative crap?
No, the free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever. We add restrictions on top to make sure everyone is playing fair.
We should only restrict options that are unfair, such as fraudulent transactions, anticompetitive behavior (e.g. monopolies), etc. Convincing someone to buy your thing isn’t unfair or fraudulent, so it should be allowed to happen imo.
There’s a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it. I’m not saying these are good practices, just that they shouldn’t be illegal.
When did I say that? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesn’t pass code, not that the code shouldn’t exist.
The vast majority of people won’t buy something that doesn’t pass code, especially if it comes with a bunch of restrictions, like increased liability for any injuries due to not being at code. Building codes have a ton of value, but they don’t need to be proscriptive.
I know I wouldn’t buy a house that’s not up to code (and I passed on one with foundation issues), but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal. It should only be illegal to claim a house is up to code when it isn’t.
I care about all people, especially the poor. What I don’t care for is restricting individual rights just because some people make stupid choices.
There are plenty of people who genuinely like the MTX model. I think their shallow and vain, but that doesn’t mean I should take something they enjoy away because I don’t it, or because some people can’t handle it.
Should we make alcohol illegal because alcoholics exist? I don’t like it, I’ve seen plenty lives ruined by it, and the US felt strongly enough about it to pass a constitutional amendment banning it (and later reversed it).