> you do not have the authority to consent on behalf of all other players, I don't, I'm not forcing anyone to play League of Legends at gunpoint and I don't fo

> you do not have the authority to consent on behalf of all other players, I don't, I'm not forcing anyone to play League of Legends at gunpoint and I don't force them to install anything on their machines. If you don't trust Riot there's a simple solution, don't install their software on your computer. The basis of consent isn't that Microsoft gets to dictate security standards to both users and third parties, it's you getting to decide what you run on your own machine. >But of course, it's easy for gaming companies to brainwash the masses who have no awareness of security and privacy risks This securocrat mindset is the exact problem. To you every user who makes choices that you don't approve of is part of the mindless and brainwashed masses, and you'd prefer if an operating system owner gets to dictate conditions to everyone else likely because they align with your own. That is the opposite of user freedom and it is paternalistic. It's extremely ironic you don't realize that you want Microsoft to act like a sort of discount nanny state that interfers in every decision between users and third parties because you're afraid of security threats. In this analogy you have chosen, you are the guy who smells sinister plots on every corner and wants to move control from the user to the operating system manufacturer. It is the same walled garden bs that Apple forces on everyone.