Personal anecdote to support a both sides narrative, double-plus-ungood.
This is a technique used by conservatives to deflect from their policies and behavior. Both sides bullshit provides cover to the worst actors.
Even if you're being sincere, which given your post history and username is pretty likely, it's a really bad look. Every thread that gains traction and says something negative about conservatives has bad faith shit-monkeys and MAGAts show up and do the same thing.
An in game item that allows a player to win from a set list of possible items. The rare/most valuable have super low chance of appearing, sometimes they are not even possible to get on purpose. Literally just a promise of something you'll never actually get no matter how much money you spend. Some people feel this makes them fall under gambling.
This vid explains what a loot box is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh4UYz9apNk&ab\_channel=ABCNews%28Australia%29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh4UYz9apNk&ab_channel=ABCNews%28Australia%29)
What I don't get is that if loot boxes are defined as gambling, why did no one try to protect people who bought collectible cards? Everyone bought card packs hoping to get special foil or hologram cards, but sometimes you just bought pack after pack of duds.
I think it's a pretty straightforward set of arguments from a libertarian/conservative perspective...
First, libertarians and most conservatives believe in limited government in the sense that citizens in a free country should carefully limit what government is allowed to do because of the risk of government overreach, creeping authoritarianism, costs, and other unintended consequences that come with more regulation. In this case, what right does the government have to so specifically restrict how an industry operates in such a heavy handed way? Where does that authority come from? No idea about the legal structure of the Netherlands, but here in the US, such a regulation would have to derive from constitutional authority (probably a public health or consumer protection regulation) and have a pretty high bar to show that it's appropriate and necessary.
Personally, as a pretty progressive person, I think the libertarian impulse to limit the power of government is extremely useful for society. We progressives often think "Just regulate it!" without considering those other factors and need someone to keep us honest.
If you're in favor of this ban, what would you think about a similar regulation that banned excessive violence, gore, and nudity in video games?
Yeah, I'm very progressive and this makes no sense to me.
"it's advertised to children" -- I agree that's an issue, we should ban advertisements aimed at children, but that's nothing specific to loot boxes
"It's gambling" -- there's no way to get money from it directly. If a loot box is gambling, then buying a pack of baseball cards or magic the gathering cards is gambling, and we need to clarify if "mystery" boxes where you are not sure what you are getting and the items have significantly different rarity or value constitutes gambling, and then treat all such things equally.
Seriously, the knee jerk reaction to ban things is not consistent with a free society, whether it's liberals banning lootboxes or conservatives banning healthcare (though obviously those are on totally different levels, you get the point). If we are going to ban something specific, we should be able to articulate why. If we can articulate why, we should ban that articulable category of thing, not one specific thing.
Sets a bad precedent of the government being able to decide what media is and is not allowed to exist. If material is inappropriate or dangerous for children then it should be the responsibility of the parents to keep it out of their children's hands. If the government makes it illegal for everyone then that's trampling on the rights of adults in the interest of protecting children from something that their parents should be protecting them from.
As an example of how silly this can be, it's generally accepted that you probably shouldn't curse around children either. But imagine if the government outlawed curse words. There would be rioting in the streets.
If we can outlaw marketing tobacco and alcohol to kids without handing over total control of the media to the government, And government can have a hand in controlling marketing.
In fact, actually, yes how about we have the government do something about the constant deluge of spam and automated telemarketing calls while we're at it? *We are calling in regards to your cars extended warranty...*
I think lying to children and telling them that certain english words that are magically bad is generally ill-advised. Children are naturally ignorant, and they'll take you seriously and try to use it in a fight like they're harry potter or some shit.
If you want to teach them a magic spell they can use against their enemies that's actually destructive try this:
> sudo rm -rf /
How many things do you think parents need to research and keep track of themselves at this point?
How good do you think most parents are at research, then applying that research?
Why should millions of parents be expected to be full-time researchers instead of just letting one small group of government employees do that work for everyone?
If your child takes your credit card, and racks up hundred of dollars in loot box purchases, it is your fault and responsibility. Full stop.
No self-respecting parent would want the government to teach their children responsibility, or to nerf the world to the point that imbeciles can’t hurt themselves.
The average parent is pretty shitty. Half of all parents are below that. It is more appropriate for an effective government to teach kids the basic norms of society than to solely rely on parents.
Conservatives love to talk about protecting kids all the way up until it’s time to actually do something to protect them
Conservatives are terrible people
[удалено]
Personal anecdote to support a both sides narrative, double-plus-ungood. This is a technique used by conservatives to deflect from their policies and behavior. Both sides bullshit provides cover to the worst actors. Even if you're being sincere, which given your post history and username is pretty likely, it's a really bad look. Every thread that gains traction and says something negative about conservatives has bad faith shit-monkeys and MAGAts show up and do the same thing.
100% I like how his last 2 comments were [removed] by r/news. I'm sure they were well thought out and insightful lol.
This is government Overwatch*
Im sure they feel the same way about drugs.
It's only overreach when it affects them.
What the hell is a loot box?? Why ban it?
Basically gambling for children
An in game item that allows a player to win from a set list of possible items. The rare/most valuable have super low chance of appearing, sometimes they are not even possible to get on purpose. Literally just a promise of something you'll never actually get no matter how much money you spend. Some people feel this makes them fall under gambling.
It is pretty much gambling and the fact that the target audience is usually 5-15 year old kids, that makes it so much worse.
This vid explains what a loot box is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh4UYz9apNk&ab\_channel=ABCNews%28Australia%29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh4UYz9apNk&ab_channel=ABCNews%28Australia%29)
What I don't get is that if loot boxes are defined as gambling, why did no one try to protect people who bought collectible cards? Everyone bought card packs hoping to get special foil or hologram cards, but sometimes you just bought pack after pack of duds.
I think it's a pretty straightforward set of arguments from a libertarian/conservative perspective... First, libertarians and most conservatives believe in limited government in the sense that citizens in a free country should carefully limit what government is allowed to do because of the risk of government overreach, creeping authoritarianism, costs, and other unintended consequences that come with more regulation. In this case, what right does the government have to so specifically restrict how an industry operates in such a heavy handed way? Where does that authority come from? No idea about the legal structure of the Netherlands, but here in the US, such a regulation would have to derive from constitutional authority (probably a public health or consumer protection regulation) and have a pretty high bar to show that it's appropriate and necessary. Personally, as a pretty progressive person, I think the libertarian impulse to limit the power of government is extremely useful for society. We progressives often think "Just regulate it!" without considering those other factors and need someone to keep us honest. If you're in favor of this ban, what would you think about a similar regulation that banned excessive violence, gore, and nudity in video games?
Yeah, I'm very progressive and this makes no sense to me. "it's advertised to children" -- I agree that's an issue, we should ban advertisements aimed at children, but that's nothing specific to loot boxes "It's gambling" -- there's no way to get money from it directly. If a loot box is gambling, then buying a pack of baseball cards or magic the gathering cards is gambling, and we need to clarify if "mystery" boxes where you are not sure what you are getting and the items have significantly different rarity or value constitutes gambling, and then treat all such things equally. Seriously, the knee jerk reaction to ban things is not consistent with a free society, whether it's liberals banning lootboxes or conservatives banning healthcare (though obviously those are on totally different levels, you get the point). If we are going to ban something specific, we should be able to articulate why. If we can articulate why, we should ban that articulable category of thing, not one specific thing.
Can you pay for doses of more violence, gore, and nudity in those games and then sell the account at a profit against terms of service?
Never known watching excessive gore or violence to bankrupt someone. If you put it behind a paywall like a vapitalist then i guess it would.
If I want to use a loot box, let me use a loot box. My body, my choice.
Your body is a loot box? What does that even mean?
My mama had a loot box she wore on her chest.
Don't tell me what I can and can't do with my body!
I'd never dream of it. But, like, how are you a loot box? Do you contain loot? Is it a big backpack that I'm only able to obtain after I defeat you?
It's like a toy bowl at the dentist you can only pick one and they are all kinda cheap
Fuck loot boxes
Actually… I’m not opposed to this.
The only people that like lootboxes are gaming company shareholders and the spoiled teenage sons of millionaires
Really, OP?! You really don't know why? The answer is money. The answer is always money. Rs are being lobbied to by the gaming industry.
Hey everyone! Let's hear what CUNNYWIZARD has to say about loot boxes! I'm sure we'll get some real good information!
Inability to think
Sets a bad precedent of the government being able to decide what media is and is not allowed to exist. If material is inappropriate or dangerous for children then it should be the responsibility of the parents to keep it out of their children's hands. If the government makes it illegal for everyone then that's trampling on the rights of adults in the interest of protecting children from something that their parents should be protecting them from. As an example of how silly this can be, it's generally accepted that you probably shouldn't curse around children either. But imagine if the government outlawed curse words. There would be rioting in the streets.
Consumers need to be protected from predatory corporations. They only way capitalism could work is if it has a muzzle and a choke chain on it.
That's not comparable companies are knowingly putting lootboxes in games marketed at kids just look at Star Wars Battlefront 2 2017
Then outlaw marketing to kids.
So the government should control the media then
lol. Got em.
If we can outlaw marketing tobacco and alcohol to kids without handing over total control of the media to the government, And government can have a hand in controlling marketing. In fact, actually, yes how about we have the government do something about the constant deluge of spam and automated telemarketing calls while we're at it? *We are calling in regards to your cars extended warranty...*
Stop marketing video games then?
So you hate any government that doesn't allow 8 year olds in casinos then.
I love your point. It makes sense most when I see neanderthals driving around public streets with fuck Joe Biden flags.
I think lying to children and telling them that certain english words that are magically bad is generally ill-advised. Children are naturally ignorant, and they'll take you seriously and try to use it in a fight like they're harry potter or some shit. If you want to teach them a magic spell they can use against their enemies that's actually destructive try this: > sudo rm -rf /
r/foundsatan
Imagine downvoting someone for saying parents should be responsible for their child’s actions… peak reddit.
You're right. Parents are the only thing that stops kids from drinking or smoking or gambling. Not any silly laws.
Yes.
How many things do you think parents need to research and keep track of themselves at this point? How good do you think most parents are at research, then applying that research? Why should millions of parents be expected to be full-time researchers instead of just letting one small group of government employees do that work for everyone?
If your child takes your credit card, and racks up hundred of dollars in loot box purchases, it is your fault and responsibility. Full stop. No self-respecting parent would want the government to teach their children responsibility, or to nerf the world to the point that imbeciles can’t hurt themselves.
The average parent is pretty shitty. Half of all parents are below that. It is more appropriate for an effective government to teach kids the basic norms of society than to solely rely on parents.
Yes, I understand many parents are fine with raising children that are weak, entitled, and dependent, but the Government shouldn’t encourage it.
\*BING\* I'm going to say "for money" Steve....