Isn't this argument far too strong? What distinguishes your slippery slope from the normal process of law? Can't you call every law "a precedent of restricted a

Isn't this argument far too strong? What distinguishes your slippery slope from the normal process of law? Can't you call every law "a precedent of restricted activity"? It seems to me like the problem in China isn't that they have laws, it's that they're unilaterally applied by a dictatorship. But this idea seems fine. There's no censorship or restricted activity. Nobody's preventing anyone from playing Fortnite, they're just toning back some of its more addictive qualities after a set time period. It's not a fundamental human right to earn XP in Fortnite.