Hacker News Reader

Comment by stefantalpalaru | Hacker News Reader

> People know what pushes their buttons, too, and we have a name for it: interest. Not "manipulation". Certainly not "psychological warfare".

So if people are interested in Ponzi schemes or magical remedies, the state should not interfere, right?

View on HN

Ponzi schemes and magical remedies promise you something in exchange for your money and do not deliver. If they were advertising a game in which for $x you get A and B and you don't in fact get it, then yeah, intervention is required. That is not what the article is supporting, though.

There's plenty of legal Ponzi and pyramid schemes out there right now. Amway and plenty of other multi-level marketing enterprises, for instance. As long as you're (sort of) honest about it, it isn't even fraudulent to run one.

"Magical remedies". I assume you mean alternative medicine. Does this mean you're going to ban various herbs, or what?

I would be in favour of anyone selling homeopathic "remedies" being banned from calling themselves a health professional.

I don't think this relates back to the topic at hand, though. Disqualifying these games as "games" probably wouldn't have much if any impact.

It was in response to the parent question about what to do about alternative remedies.

You base your argument on authority. If an actual health professional sells homeopathic remedies, then according to your argument, they are allowed to.

A product should be legal, if it really does what is it advertised to do. How is this validated? That is up to the lawmakers, as long as someone handles it, unlike now.

There's a massive difference between fraud (promising impossible returns or cures) and advertising.

Game makers aim to addict you, but they don't lie and they do give you exactly what they say they will.

What part of making a fraudulent Facebook account and friending users to get their information isn't fraud?

That's hearsay and I highly doubt it happens on an institutional scale.

Yeah, this seemed like a clear line if ever one was needed. My company builds F2P games that are ad supported, but my god that is some disgusting crap right there.

I'd say it's a difference of degree, not of kind. Generally, fraud is a deliberate deception to secure an unfair gain. Advertising is this too, but usually it's harmless enough that we don't mind. Sometimes though it crosses the line.

As the quote goes, "Any sufficiently advanced business model is indistinguishable from a scam." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8227941)

Perhaps, but if we're going to go that far we should also start regulating fashion to protect whales from themselves. It also depends immensely on a small number of people being manipulated through advertising to buy a lot.

Those are fraud, not just "manipulation".

When the game is released I think there would be a better case for 'not fraud'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com