No one is choosing “yes, I think installing this malware is a reasonable thing to do”. Ignoring that the reality is that they don’t communicate it and no one knows, which means every single person involved should be in a prison cell until the end of time, they would be abusing their market position to get that consent.
It’s the entire reason every EULA term is thrown out every time. It’s not possible for a consumer to actually form a contract because of the imbalance of power.
No, I know with certainty that it’s fucking malware, that it’s a massive security hole, and that there is abundant precedent that customers inherently cannot consent to unreasonable EULA terms.
There’s a reason that no abusive EULA term has ever been accepted or enforced by courts. The idea that all that shit is automatically ignored, but somehow consenting to extremely invasive malware is OK is completely batshit.
“He consented to me stabbing him dude, I dont get what the deal is. What, do you hate free will? He said it was okay to stab him. Get your hands off me, you cant take me to jail he coNSENTED, HE CONSENTED!!!”
Arguing that conditioning the use of a game you bought on the installation of kernel level anticheat software designed to watch the user like a hawk is somehow pro user freedom is batshit.
Because it’s not consent.
No one is choosing “yes, I think installing this malware is a reasonable thing to do”. Ignoring that the reality is that they don’t communicate it and no one knows, which means every single person involved should be in a prison cell until the end of time, they would be abusing their market position to get that consent.
It’s the entire reason every EULA term is thrown out every time. It’s not possible for a consumer to actually form a contract because of the imbalance of power.
Got it. You just think that you should be unilaterally making decisions for other people
No, I know with certainty that it’s fucking malware, that it’s a massive security hole, and that there is abundant precedent that customers inherently cannot consent to unreasonable EULA terms.
There’s a reason that no abusive EULA term has ever been accepted or enforced by courts. The idea that all that shit is automatically ignored, but somehow consenting to extremely invasive malware is OK is completely batshit.
The only thing unreasonable here is that you think you have room to decide what other people do with their own hardware.
Users aren’t the ones who are getting control of their system with pieces of shit defending fucking malware.
How so? Users consciously choose to install (and keep installed) these programs. Why should your opinion matter?
“He consented to me stabbing him dude, I dont get what the deal is. What, do you hate free will? He said it was okay to stab him. Get your hands off me, you cant take me to jail he coNSENTED, HE CONSENTED!!!”
It’s a fucking video game. Don’t like it? Don’t fucking install it. Simple as.
Thats the point, dude, you shouldnt be allowed to put malware into video games. Its a fucking video game. It doesnt need that level of access.
Arguing that conditioning the use of a game you bought on the installation of kernel level anticheat software designed to watch the user like a hawk is somehow pro user freedom is batshit.
I still fail to see why you people think you have more of a right to my computer than I do
Removed by mod