What's insane is that some want to replace the irresponsible parents of those teenagers with a nanny state.
For example, your nanny state comment could easily be modified to describe chemical waste dumping.
"What's insane is that some want to replace the irresponsible CEO's and C-suite execs of those workers with a nanny state."
Well fucking hell yes I do, I want the government to have to power to ruin companies if they negligently damaged or destroyed the environment we all share, for profit, stupidity or laziness.
Government regulations are the only reason we the workers have it as good as we do today. 5 day work week, EPA restrictions, etc.
Teenagers shouldn't be gambling, their parents should be responsible for that, but some don't want to rear their children.
Do you also think governments forcing schools to teach abstinence is diminishing kids from having sex?
https://www.kunc.org/news/2019-08-14/seven-years-after-legal...
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance116/figu...
https://news.ohsu.edu/2022/12/07/teen-cannabis-abuse-has-inc....
Win?
Far less damaging to the lungs/liver, especially as the article says much of the increase is via "edible products". Far less addictive than alcohol/tobacco. Far less impairing than alcohol for driving. etc.
You can't claim you're not harming people while giving money to people who will use it to cause harm.
A casino advertising, highlighting wins, etc. doesn't change the rational's prior on the odds of winning. I am fully against regulating people's freedom to engage in commerce when that commerce isn't harming anyone else, and I don't consider advertising a third party externality.
If that "solution" sounds sketchy to you, note that that's how you sound to everyone else here.
When people start moving away from the nanny state in sufficient numbers, the nanny state will also hinder people from escaping. Look at the Soviet Union, China, etc.
Australia did that during the covid pandemic, they literally banned citizens from leaving the country.
Because if you tought like that in a company and putting in practice your careless behaviour and lack of maturity, the boss would fire you in the spot.
Or, well, on regulations, look what happened to these "smart guys" trying to outsmart deep water physics by saving money on proper security policies as if they were that money-grabbing grampa duck from Donald Duck series.
Everything said about this stuff applies to doing drugs way more. And society did something about it - drugs were made illegal and it's getting enforced. But are we actually better off now as a result of the war on drugs or prohibition?
Chemical waste dumping is a much different matter, because that's polluting a common resource. What resource are games like this polluting?
Like many people, I think the war on drugs was a terrible idea. But preventing huge pharmaceuticals companies from selling drugs isn't.
Even stringent requirements to access these types of games are going to impact the player the most.
Just something as schooling in general, which I consider to be a very negative thing for the majority of children, but then for many children it is a safe haven from an abusive home situation. Nobody is unaware of these issues, so I really fail to see what your comment was trying to achieve.
This is an important question, because the kid doesn't own a credit card to pay for their gacha game purchases. It's the parent's card that authorizes the purchases.
What kind of controls would you like on these applications? Should everyone have to provide photoid and a running camera feed to prove that they're 18+ and it's actually them playing and not their kid? Pretty much every scenario to stop kids from playing, that isn't extremely invasive, is going to be weaker than a credit card requirement. And apparently a credit card requirement isn't a barrier.
If you make tobacco products in child-friendly forms, you get in trouble. Gacha games are gambling targeted directly at children; in any other context they’d be clearly and obviously forbidden.
We regulate these things a lot, and fairly effectively.
And how do you prove this? Just think logically about this - who's going to have more money to whale: an adult or somebody that has to beg money from an adult?
>If you make tobacco products in child-friendly forms, you get in trouble
Yes, but you also get in trouble when you make any tobacco products as evidenced by the numerous bans of tobacco. You can't even have flavored smokes anymore despite them having been available for decades. Governments can basically propose any policy regarding tobacco and people would happily agree with it due to decades of public marketing campaigns (on kids btw).
>We regulate these things a lot, and fairly effectively.
No we don't. That CPS comment shows exactly the point - it's the parent that gets in trouble. That's not what people against gacha games are trying to do, they're trying to get the company in trouble and not the person actually doing the poor parenting.
Anything that requires a credit card to purchase needs authorization from a parent.
TBH, I can't help but partially blame consumers here. Piracy in the early 10's were rampant, especially on Android. So no surprise that for these always online cell phones that they adapt and keep the valuable data server side. And make sure there's no barrier to entry, because mobile users have also shown they don't like paying an upfront cost for their apps.