5 ms·

I don't like loot boxes. But I'm not egotistical enough to say that just because I don't like something, it should be banned. This is the same moral panic that

I don't like loot boxes. But I'm not egotistical enough to say that just because I don't like something, it should be banned. This is the same moral panic that would have made arcades and baseball cards illegal. Those both follow the model of "put money in, maybe you'll get a reward." Loot boxes are the 21st century innovation of that mechanic, and if you're going to make an argument about "flashing lights and rigged games enticing young minds" then you better be prepared to argue that Dave & Busters should be shut down too, because that has all of the fanfare and phycological reward structure of loot boxes, plus physical sensations and sensory overload, plus cash value payouts, and yet the kids are alright.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
Considering policies that prevent someone from enriching themselves from the ruin of others isn’t just based on “not liking it.” It’s a fundamental decision about the ethics of the society that we want. Basically everyone agrees with that which is why the question is over how much enrichment should we allow from how much ruin.
- sneak 6y ago
  The fact that "the ruin of others" is entirely consensual means that it is indeed based just on "not liking it". No victim, no crime.
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    Go spend some time with people who have had "consensual" addiction ruin their lives and tell me there is no victim again. Thus doesn't mean you have to make addictive things illegal, but it does mean that you should investigate mitigation strategies and regulate the industry to prevent deliberate exploitation of these vulnerable people.
    - sneak 6y ago
      I've spent a lot of time with addicts who have chosen to stop, and a lot of time with addicts who have chosen to continue. To insinuate that the addict has no control or isn't actively making a choice is to dismiss the large percentage of addicts who decide the other way and stop. There is no victim when someone chooses to harm themselves, any more than there is a victim when someone chooses to better themselves.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

Considering policies that prevent someone from enriching themselves from the ruin of others isn’t just based on “not liking it.” It’s a fundamental decision about the ethics of the society that we want. Basically everyone agrees with that which is why the question is over how much enrichment should we allow from how much ruin.

sneak 6y ago
The fact that "the ruin of others" is entirely consensual means that it is indeed based just on "not liking it". No victim, no crime.
- shkkmo 6y ago
  Go spend some time with people who have had "consensual" addiction ruin their lives and tell me there is no victim again. Thus doesn't mean you have to make addictive things illegal, but it does mean that you should investigate mitigation strategies and regulate the industry to prevent deliberate exploitation of these vulnerable people.
  - sneak 6y ago
    I've spent a lot of time with addicts who have chosen to stop, and a lot of time with addicts who have chosen to continue. To insinuate that the addict has no control or isn't actively making a choice is to dismiss the large percentage of addicts who decide the other way and stop. There is no victim when someone chooses to harm themselves, any more than there is a victim when someone chooses to better themselves.