Games

16788 readers

793 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

171

Star Citizen's 'Everything Pack' Costs $48,000 (kotaku.com)

submitted 10 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, fomo is not a form of coercion whatsoever. Here's the legal definition in the federal legal code:

coercion

(2) The term “coercion” means— (A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; (B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or (C) the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.

So it requires the threat or implied threat of serious harm or abuse of the law against a person.

And no, not looking cool or being at the top of a game isn't "serious harm," you'd be laughed out of the courtroom and perhaps fined for wasting everyone's time if you tried to make that legal argument.

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Im not making a legal argument... im making a philosophical one.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The original context of this chain is a legal one:

Isn't it time to get some regulations on m(i/a)cro transactions? This seems very illegal to me and it is exploiting people's addictions.

Yes, you didn't say that, but you responded in that context. I asked "what is illegal about it?" and you directly replied with the note about coercion. To me, that clearly implies you think this is a form of legal coercion, and now you're backpedaling because I showed that's explicitly not true. You're moving the goalposts.

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That completely fair. You can definitely interpret that implication from what i said. I need to be more careful with my choice of words in future.

However, i assure you my intent was not to make a legal argument.

I was saying that coercion is illegal, which is true. And that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion, which would be my opinion. But it doesn't read that way.

Sorry.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No worries, it just gets confusing when terms are used loosely and differently in a conversation.

For the record, I disagree that both that FOMO is a form of coercion (even the regular dictionary definition implies force is involved) and believe it shouldn't be illegal to entice adults with it, but there should be limits on marketing to children. That said, any form of advertising can be considered a form of fomo, so I'm not exactly sure where the line should be. That said, we do have limits on fraud, which covers things like making unrealistic claims (e.g. this cosmetic will make you win). It's disgusting, but shouldn't be illegal.

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Fair enough.