UI

  • 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 2 days ago
cake
Cake day: September 21st, 2026

help-circle

  • But what actually makes it bad? Is making a game and wanting to get a financial benefit out of it inherently wrong?

    Why doesn’t that same logic apply to celebrities doing brand endorsements, shoving products down our throats that they probably don’t even use just because they are famous? And don’t forget product placement in movies.

    Also, developing a modern video game can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and if it flops, it’s just a dead loss. Unlike movies, which can recoup losses through streaming deals or cable rights, a bad video game usually means nobody plays it and the studio loses everything. That is a massive financial risk.

    Where do you draw the line?







  • Laws (and crimes) and consumer behaviors are governed by popular concensus of what we, the body politic, are willing to tolerate - neither are absolutes, and both are subject to change.

    You’re right that social norms shift, but fundamental legal protections don’t evaporate overnight, especially in democratic nations with institutional checks. Suggesting that society will casually normalize grave robbery for profit within our lifetimes isn’t realistic.

    A realistic analogy would make my point less clearly than an exaggerated cartoon.

    Admitting that your argument relies on an “exaggerated cartoon” proves that your logic isn’t realistic. Video game ads are a voluntary consumer choice, but grave robbery is a non-consensual crime.

    If you want a realistic corporate greed analogy, look at a company intentionally polluting the air and then selling clean air filters to profit off the damage. At least that deals with actual market behavior instead of shock value crime scenarios.





  • You’re comparing a non-consensual crime to a voluntary consumer product. Unlawfully exhuming a corpse leaves the victim and family with zero say in the matter.

    A video game gives you complete choice, if a developer milks a game with ads, you can choose to uninstall it and give them zero dollars. Try making an analogy that actually deals with voluntary choice, because grave robbery isn’t it.

    Why not use a realistic analogy? Like how some car companies tried charging monthly subscriptions to activate built-in features like heated seats or remote start. BMW eventually killed that feature specifically because subscription sales were so extremely low. That’s a real example of consumer choice driving corporate decisions, not grave robbery.




  • I don’t think any business can be completely unregulated. Does that change the fact that private companies still have to operate under professional standards and official accountability? Plus, saying people who work for a private company are ‘just like you and me’ (implying they act like the general masses) is a stretch. People who work in government are also just regular human beings. Since private companies are in it for profit, isn’t it in their best interest to avoid shady practices? Doing illegal things would simply destroy their own business






  • Why treat the public and the government as identical? The government operates under professional standards and official accountability. It’s like saying that because I trust a doctor to perform surgery, I should let anyone cut into my body

    I get what you’re trying to do, you’re trying to show how uncomfortable it feels to lose privacy. But here’s see it: the masses can’t be held accountable if someone misuses your data. How would you even track down who abused the information once everyone has access to it?

    Plus, being forced to hand over your personal life alone while everyone else stays hidden isn’t the same as a universal system where everyone operates under the exact same standard rules.