• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    My point with all this is that people are naturally good, itā€™s the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.

    The anarcho-pastoralist argument for unrestrained capitalism. Eugh. Thatā€™s 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 Iā€™m selling.

    Says who?

    ā€œThe free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever.ā€ It canā€™t be a crime if thereā€™s no government. I didnā€™t put a gun to anyoneā€™s head. The true free market says I can make up whatever I want, and itā€™s on them to evaluate whether Iā€™m full of shit.

    You cannot argue otherwise without acknowledging systemic issues require limitations. Thatā€™s exactly what youā€™re doing, when you say that as a society ā€œgets bigger,ā€ individuals need guarantees that theyā€™re not about to get fucked over.

    I would be a bit more sympathetic if there werenā€™t other options to MTX

    No you would not, if your principles existed. Youā€™d just frown along with this shrug.

    The existence of non-abusive options never excuses the abusive options. For exactly the same reason we donā€™t say, well, truthful advertisements abound, so just pick those - we donā€™t tell people to shop for houses that meet the fire code. They should all meet the goddamn fire code.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      anarcho-pastoralist

      When did I ever claim to be an anarchist? I explicitly explained how we need more rules the larger a society gets. Iā€™m not making the argument that we need no government, but that we should have a restrained government.

      Look at all the nonsense weā€™re getting with opposition to police. Do you think thatā€™s a general opposition to rule of law, or perhaps itā€™s just opposition to unjust laws? (i.e. laws w/o victims, like marijuana possession)

      So Iā€™m going to be very hesitant to create new laws where there is no clear victim. And I donā€™t believe convincing someone to buy something make them a victim.

      And no, individuals donā€™t need guarantees that theyā€™re not going to get a bad deal, they need guarantees that theyā€™ll 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 shouldnā€™t use MTX because thatā€™s a manipulative way to run a business. But provided theyā€™re not misrepresenting the product, I donā€™t see any reason to turn that into a legal ban. Iā€™ll never recommend a MTX-heavy game, and Iā€™ll avoid them at every turn, but I am unwilling to turn my preference into law because thatā€™s 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 thereā€™s some kind of monopolistic behavior thatā€™s preventing alternative monetization options in other games.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        8 months ago

        Of course you donā€™t support meaningful consumer protection laws. You donā€™t support fire codes. Stop typing another denial: you know goddamn well the point of them is that they must be followed, otherwise theyā€™re 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 shouldnā€™t have to choose between something tolerable and something that will fuck them over. Sorry, Iā€™ll 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 itā€™s fine. Itā€™s 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 itā€™s where they are. Scolding those people for wanting a home that wonā€™t 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 youā€™re unfamiliar with actual anarchist arguments.

        And youā€™ll glibly suggest ā€œpurchase limits.ā€

        Why?

        What principled reason is there, if the right to manipulate people toward whatever youā€™re 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 itā€™s 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 itā€™s too late?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          8 months ago

          You donā€™t support fire codes.

          I never said that. I think fire codes are a fantastic idea, I just donā€™t think a house not meeting code should make it unsellable.

          And thatā€™s 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 doesnā€™t need to waste time and money with an inspection. Iā€™m 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 Iā€™m okay with requiring them to be used under supervision, especially since a ā€œbad 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 youā€™ll end up having to police that, which means a ton of innocent people get screwed over. Look at how successful our ā€œwar in drugsā€ has been, itā€™s 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 arenā€™t allowed because thereā€™s 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 thereā€™s no force from game studios to make that dominant, thatā€™s a very different thing.

          I really donā€™t see that being the case. In almost every case, a ā€œnatural monopolyā€ is anything but, usually itā€™s 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 isnā€™t because competitors donā€™t bother servicing an area, but because the local cable company has put so many legal barriers in place that competition isnā€™t practical.

          So if everything turns into MTX, thereā€™s probably illegal coercion going on behind the scenes because I know thereā€™s 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 ā€œbadā€ doesnā€™t mean it should be illegal, it may just need to more transparent about the bad bits. But if people want to smoke and drink, Iā€™m fine as long as they understand the health risks of doing so and they donā€™t bother others while doing it.

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            8 months ago

            I am just so tired of dealing with your entire worldview.

            We canā€™t ban unethical business practices because thatā€™s dictating customersā€™ morality, somehow.

            Oh but itā€™s not unethical because manipulating people is good actually.

            Oh but itā€™s not manipulation if it works.

            Donā€™t I know that consumer protection laws are like banning drugs? Which youā€™re okay with if theyā€™re 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. Iā€™m not convinced you know what cognitive dissonance feels like.

            This entire business model is horrible in a way you ardently defend, whilst insisting youā€™re not defending it. You have grand-sounding reasons for encouraging everything short of already-criminal fraud. You keep saying youā€™re not encouraging it, but quite frankly, come the fuck on. All youā€™ve had to say against it is the wishy-washiest nitpicking at the boundaries of this metastasizing industry-wide problem that didnā€™t 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 ā€˜absolute freedom to manufacture consentā€™ is where I shouldā€™ve pulled the chute, and itā€™ll be my point of reference next time someone asks why I donā€™t give a shit about libertarian arguments for this blatant exploitation.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              8 months ago

              manipulating people is good somehow

              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 doesnā€™t make it good, it just makes it protected. That right ends when you defraud someone though, because thatā€™s a contractual violation.

              Which youā€™re okay with if theyā€™re 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.

              Thereā€™s 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 itā€™s consensual, it should probably be allowed, even if itā€™s predatory in nature (e.g. gambling). If itā€™s coercive (e.g. ransomware attacks), it should be banned and prosecuted. Thereā€™s a pretty clear distinction there.

              This entire business model is horrible

              I absolutely agree. I just disagree about it needing to be banned. Iā€™m also disgusted with the tobacco industry (and theyā€™ve done some truly predatory advertising in the past before the crackdowns), but Iā€™ll defend everyoneā€™s right to buy cigarettes.

              metastasizing industry-wide problem that didnā€™t exist a decade ago

              This type of business practice is very old. Yeah, video game MTX are new, but selling FOMO isnā€™t. In the past it was subscriptions to all kinds of things, collectibles, ā€œas 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:

              1. Create mediocre product with catchy name
              2. Hire charismatic businessman to create a feeling of need
              3. Introduce a ā€œlimited timeā€ to the offer

              Thatā€™s 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, Iā€™ll probably respond.

              • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                8 months ago

                Your words keep being ā€˜well no, but actually yes.ā€™ Almost verbatim re: drugs. ā€œNo, the onlyā€“ā€ if thereā€™s an ā€œonlyā€ then thatā€™s ā€œthe wrong drugs,ā€ ya doof.

                This bullshit isnā€™t ā€œmediocre.ā€ Itā€™s a scam. I do not respect the framework you push to deny that itā€™s 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 donā€™t think theyā€™ve been tricked into that - they have. Itā€™s 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.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  Ā·
                  8 months ago

                  Your words keep being ā€˜well no, but actually yes.ā€™

                  No, youā€™re being overly reductive. For example:

                  if thereā€™s an ā€œonlyā€ then thatā€™s ā€œthe wrong drugs,ā€

                  That strongly implies that argumentation here is subjective. Itā€™s not, itā€™s based on objective measures, such as harm to non-users. The current law is objective, but stupid (based on usefulness in medicine).

                  Your arguments are overly reductive.

                  You do precisely thatā€™s with your argument re: MTX (MTX is bad so it should be banned). Your strongest argument is, ā€œitā€™s addictive.ā€ Should we ban everything thatā€™s addictive? (e.g. food, sex, work) Or only things with a financial consequence? (e.g. stock trading, extreme sports) Or only things without a physical good attached? (e.g. digital books, digital video games) Or things with a manipulative aspect? (any form of advertising, time-based exclusivity, etc)

                  What exactly is the objective measure youā€™re basing the ban on? Why doesnā€™t that apply to other, similar things? It sounds like your argument is, ā€œI donā€™t like it and I (or a friend) have made poor choices, so it shouldnā€™t be allowed.ā€ Yeah, banning it will probably help some people, but thatā€™s very much ā€œthe ends justify the meansā€ logic, and therefore invalid.

                  The alternatives are still super duper capitalist, so you can relax.

                  I donā€™t care if itā€™s capitalist, socialist, etc, I care about use of force. You need a very good reason to prevent me from doing something, as in, it would violate someone elseā€™s rights or would likely cause someone else to violate anotherā€™s rights.

                  The economic system isnā€™t important to me, individual rights are. I actually donā€™t like capitalism much, but it has so far done a decent job of preserving self-determination. I also believe a lot of people will make stupid choices, so I also believe in a social safety net (something like UBI, addiction recovery programs, etc) so people who have screwed up have a way out. But Iā€™m opposed to the government making choices for me.

                  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    Ā·
                    8 months ago

                    ā€˜My normative opinion is objectiveā€™ really underlines the problem.

                    As does calling an argument reductive before reducing it to ā€˜it is bad.ā€™

                    And then focusing on the word ā€œaddictiveā€ when the actual argument is, this entire business model is fucking nonsense that sells literally worthless things for real money, in a way that is fundamentally unethical specifically because tricking people into valuing arbitrary garbage is what games are for. Thatā€™s what makes them games! Iā€™ve only mentioned addiction as an example of the manipulation used to gouge people as hard as possible in spite of their better judgement. It is a how. The problem is why.

                    If that sounds like ā€˜well I just donā€™t like it,ā€™ fuck off.