When the infomercial promises āa fifty-dollar value!ā 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 itās not obviously bullshitā¦ you can remain satisfied.
Itās still bullshit.
You, personally, endorse that bullshit. āAbsolutely,ā no less. Corporations should be totally free to harass and manipulate people into saying yes. Thatās how consent works in the bedroom, right? So long as you donāt technically make threats or tell lies, implication and misdirection are completely ethical. If existing laws donāt already ban something new - it must be fine.
I reiterate: Jesus.
We can, should, do, and must protect people from outright abuses theyād 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 āregret for being misledā wouldnāt be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans. Not even you can take the absolute stance seriously.
When the infomercial promises āa fifty-dollar value!ā 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 ālowerā it to $30. But if the item is normally $50, it really doesnāt matter what it costs them to make, what matters is if the product performs as advertised.
And no, I donāt 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 āimplied consentā (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 canāt really be a victim if you consented and took action in making a decision. Clicking ābuyā is very different from not shouting ānoā (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 theyāre all consenting adults and thereās little to no risk to innocent bystanders, I donāt think that interaction should be illegal.
On some level you recognize this, or else āregret for being misledā wouldnāt be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans.
Itās 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 didnāt 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 thatās 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
Itās not to prevent people from making stupid choices or to destroy business models āweā feel are bad for society. It should be focused on ensuring consent between two parties.
āIām not condoning thisā¦ it should be my right!ā
Why bother discussing anything if people donāt listen to themselves?
but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
We invented āthe free market.ā Itās a system of protective restrictions - mostly, banning abusive bullshit, once itās 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 isnāt a real material concern. Defending unsafe construction? Fuck off, guy. Whatās 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 shouldnāt 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 itās fucking garbage.
You donāt use this. You donāt want this. You donāt benefit from this.
When you care about people besides yourself, why is it the assholes with money, and not the millions of people theyāre 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 isnāt unfair or fraudulent, so it should be allowed to happen imo.
actively defending
Thereās a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it. Iām not saying these are good practices, just that they shouldnāt be illegal.
fire codes are tyranny
When did I say that? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesnāt pass code, not that the code shouldnāt exist.
The vast majority of people wonāt buy something that doesnāt 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 donāt need to be proscriptive.
I know I wouldnāt buy a house thatās not up to code (and I passed on one with foundation issues), but that doesnāt mean it should be illegal. It should only be illegal to claim a house is up to code when it isnāt.
When you care about people besides yourself
I care about all people, especially the poor. What I donāt 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 doesnāt mean I should take something they enjoy away because I donāt it, or because some people canāt handle it.
Should we make alcohol illegal because alcoholics exist? I donāt like it, Iāve 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).
the free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever.
Hahaha, nooo. In the absence of restraint you get robbed and pound sand. The state-of-nature wild-west is never what yāall mean, when you fluff up āthe free market.ā You mean a space where competition matters because people can trust theyāre making rational decisions on good information.
Charging real money inside a video game is inherently irrational because all the information is made-up. Thereās only one vendor and they control gravity. The environment is as arbitrary and fictional as any con-artistās story. More ātiger rockā than ādeed to the Brooklyn Bridge,ā but still a complete fabrication that exists only to part you from your currency in exchange for approximately dick.
Thereās a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it.
Declaring an absolute right to manipulate people is the first one.
āManufacturing consentā is not some unfortunate side effect, for you. You defend it by name. You describe it the way more sensible people describe religious freedom. How much more throat do you have, if thatās not a full-throated endorsement?
Here, Iāll be more libertarian than you: why shouldnāt we let people get scammed? Fuck 'em. Theyāre adults, right? Itās their money to lose. How can I be absolutely free to manufacture consent, if lying isnāt an option? Itās an abrogation of my right to free speech. Lying is legal. Scams should be legal as well, because ethics shouldnāt dictate the law. They clicked Buy and itās my money now and tough shit. Caveat emptor, bitches!
Please tell me why you think thatās wrong.
When did I say [fire codes are tyranny]? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesnāt pass code
Do you read all this, or just type it?
There are plenty of people who genuinely like the MTX model.
And a bunch more who FUCKING HATE IT, but are subjected to it anyway, because hey guess what - other peopleās decisions also affect you. What everyone else wants and does will always limit your choices. We have to ensure assholes and morons donāt ruin it for everyone else. Sometimes that means enforcing building safety, Jesus Hoobastank Christ, and sometimes that means recognizing a bullshit way to make money is illegitimate and unacceptable.
āJust sell video gamesā is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
I think people are naturally moral toward one another, at least in smaller groups, and commit crimes when thereās a level of abstraction (i.e. youāre not hurting your neighbor, but someone you donāt know). The reason we need strict rules and policing isnāt because people are naturally bad, but because population density creates more opportunity for crime, as well as desperation (poverty rates are lower in rural areas).
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, itās the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
Lying is legal
Your right to lie stops when you make a contract with someone, such as when you sell something. Itās one of those necessities as the market pool gets bigger and you canāt operate on trust anymore. I can say whatever I want to entice you to buy, but I cannot misrepresent what Iām selling.
Thereās no fraud with a typical MTX, you get exactly whatās it says. Whether that has value is up to the buyer.
And libertarianism isnāt āscrew you, got mine,ā itās a set of principles that centers around non-aggression. I happen to be a somewhat left-leaning libertarian
Do you read all this, or just type it?
Both. Thereās a difference between something being certified and something being legal. I can buy something thatās not certified, I just donāt get the guarantees that come with certification.
subjected to it anyway
Nobody is forcing you to interact with a MTX model. I have never bought a MTX, and I actively avoid games that use it. There are a ton of great games out there, I donāt need to play the ones with a predatory profit model.
Sometimes that means enforcing building safety
Sure, and that absolutely makes sense for something like a commercial building. It doesnāt make sense for my personal residence. The first prevents injustices against the innocent, the latter just screws over the DIYer.
āJust sell video gamesā is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there werenāt other options to MTX, but the non-MTX model is extremely healthy, so I donāt see a case for restricting it when the market is ensuring alternatives exist.
There are issues WRT kids and those with addiction problems, but we can ban the first and limit the second with less invasive policies.
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, itās the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
The anarcho-pastoralist argument for unrestrained capitalism. Eugh. Thatās 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 Iām selling.
Says who?
āThe free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever.ā It canāt be a crime if thereās no government. I didnāt put a gun to anyoneās head. The true free market says I can make up whatever I want, and itās on them to evaluate whether Iām full of shit.
You cannot argue otherwise without acknowledging systemic issues require limitations. Thatās exactly what youāre doing, when you say that as a society āgets bigger,ā individuals need guarantees that theyāre not about to get fucked over.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there werenāt other options to MTX
No you would not, if your principles existed. Youād just frown along with this shrug.
The existence of non-abusive options never excuses the abusive options. For exactly the same reason we donāt say, well, truthful advertisements abound, so just pick those - we donāt tell people to shop for houses that meet the fire code. They should all meet the goddamn fire code.
When did I ever claim to be an anarchist? I explicitly explained how we need more rules the larger a society gets. Iām not making the argument that we need no government, but that we should have a restrained government.
Look at all the nonsense weāre getting with opposition to police. Do you think thatās a general opposition to rule of law, or perhaps itās just opposition to unjust laws? (i.e. laws w/o victims, like marijuana possession)
So Iām going to be very hesitant to create new laws where there is no clear victim. And I donāt believe convincing someone to buy something make them a victim.
And no, individuals donāt need guarantees that theyāre not going to get a bad deal, they need guarantees that theyāll 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 shouldnāt use MTX because thatās a manipulative way to run a business. But provided theyāre not misrepresenting the product, I donāt see any reason to turn that into a legal ban. Iāll never recommend a MTX-heavy game, and Iāll avoid them at every turn, but I am unwilling to turn my preference into law because thatās 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 thereās some kind of monopolistic behavior thatās preventing alternative monetization options in other games.
Of course you donāt support meaningful consumer protection laws. You donāt support fire codes. Stop typing another denial: you know goddamn well the point of them is that they must be followed, otherwise theyāre 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 shouldnāt have to choose between something tolerable and something that will fuck them over. Sorry, Iāll 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 itās fine. Itās 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 itās where they are. Scolding those people for wanting a home that wonāt 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 youāre unfamiliar with actual anarchist arguments.
And youāll glibly suggest āpurchase limits.ā
Why?
What principled reason is there, if the right to manipulate people toward whatever youāre 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 itās 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 itās too late?
When the infomercial promises āa fifty-dollar value!ā 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 itās not obviously bullshitā¦ you can remain satisfied.
Itās still bullshit.
You, personally, endorse that bullshit. āAbsolutely,ā no less. Corporations should be totally free to harass and manipulate people into saying yes. Thatās how consent works in the bedroom, right? So long as you donāt technically make threats or tell lies, implication and misdirection are completely ethical. If existing laws donāt already ban something new - it must be fine.
I reiterate: Jesus.
We can, should, do, and must protect people from outright abuses theyād 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 āregret for being misledā wouldnāt 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 ālowerā it to $30. But if the item is normally $50, it really doesnāt matter what it costs them to make, what matters is if the product performs as advertised.
And no, I donāt 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 āimplied consentā (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 canāt really be a victim if you consented and took action in making a decision. Clicking ābuyā is very different from not shouting ānoā (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 theyāre all consenting adults and thereās little to no risk to innocent bystanders, I donāt think that interaction should be illegal.
Itās 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 didnāt 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 thatās a learning experience.
The role of government here is to:
Itās not to prevent people from making stupid choices or to destroy business models āweā feel are bad for society. It should be focused on ensuring consent between two parties.
āIām not condoning thisā¦ it should be my right!ā
Why bother discussing anything if people donāt listen to themselves?
We invented āthe free market.ā Itās a system of protective restrictions - mostly, banning abusive bullshit, once itās 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 isnāt a real material concern. Defending unsafe construction? Fuck off, guy. Whatās 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 shouldnāt 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 itās fucking garbage.
You donāt use this. You donāt want this. You donāt benefit from this.
When you care about people besides yourself, why is it the assholes with money, and not the millions of people theyāre 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 isnāt unfair or fraudulent, so it should be allowed to happen imo.
Thereās a difference between defending something and refusing to attack it. Iām not saying these are good practices, just that they shouldnāt be illegal.
When did I say that? I merely said I should be able to buy something that doesnāt pass code, not that the code shouldnāt exist.
The vast majority of people wonāt buy something that doesnāt 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 donāt need to be proscriptive.
I know I wouldnāt buy a house thatās not up to code (and I passed on one with foundation issues), but that doesnāt mean it should be illegal. It should only be illegal to claim a house is up to code when it isnāt.
I care about all people, especially the poor. What I donāt 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 doesnāt mean I should take something they enjoy away because I donāt it, or because some people canāt handle it.
Should we make alcohol illegal because alcoholics exist? I donāt like it, Iāve 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).
Hahaha, nooo. In the absence of restraint you get robbed and pound sand. The state-of-nature wild-west is never what yāall mean, when you fluff up āthe free market.ā You mean a space where competition matters because people can trust theyāre making rational decisions on good information.
Charging real money inside a video game is inherently irrational because all the information is made-up. Thereās only one vendor and they control gravity. The environment is as arbitrary and fictional as any con-artistās story. More ātiger rockā than ādeed to the Brooklyn Bridge,ā but still a complete fabrication that exists only to part you from your currency in exchange for approximately dick.
Declaring an absolute right to manipulate people is the first one.
āManufacturing consentā is not some unfortunate side effect, for you. You defend it by name. You describe it the way more sensible people describe religious freedom. How much more throat do you have, if thatās not a full-throated endorsement?
Here, Iāll be more libertarian than you: why shouldnāt we let people get scammed? Fuck 'em. Theyāre adults, right? Itās their money to lose. How can I be absolutely free to manufacture consent, if lying isnāt an option? Itās an abrogation of my right to free speech. Lying is legal. Scams should be legal as well, because ethics shouldnāt dictate the law. They clicked Buy and itās my money now and tough shit. Caveat emptor, bitches!
Please tell me why you think thatās wrong.
Do you read all this, or just type it?
And a bunch more who FUCKING HATE IT, but are subjected to it anyway, because hey guess what - other peopleās decisions also affect you. What everyone else wants and does will always limit your choices. We have to ensure assholes and morons donāt ruin it for everyone else. Sometimes that means enforcing building safety, Jesus Hoobastank Christ, and sometimes that means recognizing a bullshit way to make money is illegitimate and unacceptable.
āJust sell video gamesā is not exactly an anticapitalist hellscape. We have to stop the abuse.
The āWild Westā was quite tame (pretty good read imo), and was a lot safer at least from a murder perspective than major cities at the time. Even today, rural areas have lower crime rates.
I think people are naturally moral toward one another, at least in smaller groups, and commit crimes when thereās a level of abstraction (i.e. youāre not hurting your neighbor, but someone you donāt know). The reason we need strict rules and policing isnāt because people are naturally bad, but because population density creates more opportunity for crime, as well as desperation (poverty rates are lower in rural areas).
My point with all this is that people are naturally good, itās the system we create that enables bad actors to get into positions of power.
Your right to lie stops when you make a contract with someone, such as when you sell something. Itās one of those necessities as the market pool gets bigger and you canāt operate on trust anymore. I can say whatever I want to entice you to buy, but I cannot misrepresent what Iām selling.
Thereās no fraud with a typical MTX, you get exactly whatās it says. Whether that has value is up to the buyer.
And libertarianism isnāt āscrew you, got mine,ā itās a set of principles that centers around non-aggression. I happen to be a somewhat left-leaning libertarian
Both. Thereās a difference between something being certified and something being legal. I can buy something thatās not certified, I just donāt get the guarantees that come with certification.
Nobody is forcing you to interact with a MTX model. I have never bought a MTX, and I actively avoid games that use it. There are a ton of great games out there, I donāt need to play the ones with a predatory profit model.
Sure, and that absolutely makes sense for something like a commercial building. It doesnāt make sense for my personal residence. The first prevents injustices against the innocent, the latter just screws over the DIYer.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if there werenāt other options to MTX, but the non-MTX model is extremely healthy, so I donāt see a case for restricting it when the market is ensuring alternatives exist.
There are issues WRT kids and those with addiction problems, but we can ban the first and limit the second with less invasive policies.
The anarcho-pastoralist argument for unrestrained capitalism. Eugh. Thatās 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.
Says who?
āThe free market is what naturally exists without any government whatsoever.ā It canāt be a crime if thereās no government. I didnāt put a gun to anyoneās head. The true free market says I can make up whatever I want, and itās on them to evaluate whether Iām full of shit.
You cannot argue otherwise without acknowledging systemic issues require limitations. Thatās exactly what youāre doing, when you say that as a society āgets bigger,ā individuals need guarantees that theyāre not about to get fucked over.
No you would not, if your principles existed. Youād just frown along with this shrug.
The existence of non-abusive options never excuses the abusive options. For exactly the same reason we donāt say, well, truthful advertisements abound, so just pick those - we donāt tell people to shop for houses that meet the fire code. They should all meet the goddamn fire code.
When did I ever claim to be an anarchist? I explicitly explained how we need more rules the larger a society gets. Iām not making the argument that we need no government, but that we should have a restrained government.
Look at all the nonsense weāre getting with opposition to police. Do you think thatās a general opposition to rule of law, or perhaps itās just opposition to unjust laws? (i.e. laws w/o victims, like marijuana possession)
So Iām going to be very hesitant to create new laws where there is no clear victim. And I donāt believe convincing someone to buy something make them a victim.
And no, individuals donāt need guarantees that theyāre not going to get a bad deal, they need guarantees that theyāll get what they expect to get in the transaction. Whether they can get a better deal somewhere else is completely irrelevant.
Should and must are very different things. Should is about morality, must is about law.
Games shouldnāt use MTX because thatās a manipulative way to run a business. But provided theyāre not misrepresenting the product, I donāt see any reason to turn that into a legal ban. Iāll never recommend a MTX-heavy game, and Iāll avoid them at every turn, but I am unwilling to turn my preference into law because thatās 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 thereās some kind of monopolistic behavior thatās preventing alternative monetization options in other games.
Of course you donāt support meaningful consumer protection laws. You donāt support fire codes. Stop typing another denial: you know goddamn well the point of them is that they must be followed, otherwise theyāre 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 shouldnāt have to choose between something tolerable and something that will fuck them over. Sorry, Iāll 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 itās fine. Itās 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 itās where they are. Scolding those people for wanting a home that wonāt 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 youāre unfamiliar with actual anarchist arguments.
And youāll glibly suggest āpurchase limits.ā
Why?
What principled reason is there, if the right to manipulate people toward whatever youāre 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 itās 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 itās too late?