5 ms·
A five-year-old is certainly not capable of understanding the significance of such a decision, and it's disgusting to exploit such weakness for large sums of mo
by save_ferris 8y ago
A five-year-old is certainly not capable of understanding the significance of such a decision, and it's disgusting to exploit such weakness for large sums of money.
- Ajedi32 8y agoThe person in that incident was fifteen, not five.
- andrepd 8y agoStill a minor.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wang_li 8y agoWe're told frequently that 18-22 year olds are incapable of understanding the implications of their college spending and the associated debt. Is a fifteen year old supposed to be more financially savvy?
- nailer 8y agoWorse than that: most adults (in developed countries) don't understand the law of 72 (doubling time) yet own multiple compound interest debts (credit cards)
- hnal943 8y agoA five-year-old also doesn't have any money of his own. Ultimately, the parents are spending the money and also the ones responsible for changing the situation.
- Voloskaya 8y agoThe parents were most likely not aware. Some platforms/games purposefully design their UX so that it's hard to control for a parent and easy to spend for a child.
- seattle_spring 8y agoIf you're not aware of 6k charges on your credit card (or even 6 dollars) then you're a very, very irresponsible person, let alone irresponsible parent.
- pcnix 8y agoIt's the refund policies that are being questioned, you being aware of a charge doesn't mean anything when Facebook doesn't refund it.
- Profan 8y agoYou read an article about predatory practices and somehow you now want to place the blame on the user? How about we don't do corporate apologism eh
- seattle_spring 8y agoNo, I read a comment about parents who apparently don't check their credit card transactions for months at a time.
- Voloskaya 8y agoSo your child spent 6k$ and you are now aware of it. So what? This article specifically talks about the employees who talk about child as whales when discussing whether to refund or not. Presumably the 5 year old kids did not request the refund themselves.
- benologist 8y agoNon-five year olds barely understand in-game currencies intended to obfuscate the real price. That's why they're used.
- RHSeeger 8y agoThat doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, a whale; a user that is spending large amounts on the game. The same term could be used in a sentence that doesn't come across as morally bankrupt. > This is a 5 yr old... that's a whale. Of course we're going to refund him, he has no concept of the money he spent. The term whale is just a description of the user's spending habits on the game and has not moral connotation attached to it.
- benologist 8y agoThey're only called "whales" because they're a great catch, in the fishing sense, where historically a whale was a singularly huge source of meat, blubber etc. Something you can hunt and exploit for profit.
- floatingatoll 8y agoShould consumers be hunted and exploited for profit? Would high-spenders appreciate the label "whales" if this reasoning were explained to them? The moral issue here is that people generally do not want to be hunted and exploited for profit. They imply that people are prey by labeling them "whale".
- RHSeeger 8y ago> Would high-spenders appreciate the label "whales" if this reasoning were explained to them? I guess it depends on the environment, but it's common for (adult) whales in mobile games to know the term and use it in reference to themselves (and minnow, dolphin, etc).
- leoc 8y agoIIRC, 'fish' is the term for someone who on average loses money in their gambling (in some particular game, or overall): a fish is a creature whose head is under water. In games like poker it roughly divides the recreational (and/or problem) gamblers from the pros. AFAIK 'whale' is probably an extension of that: a big fish.