Hacker News Reader

Comment by redthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, most people aren't even that sophisticated. The average user isn't going to be able to differentiate between a free game and one designed to pry their wallets open.

I don't know if the solution to that is regulation, but it can't be reliance on the uninformed to know what's good for them. The exploitative industry moves faster than any but the most well-informed and most jaded.

View on HN

Indeed. There is always a point where everyone of us starts being not sophisticated.

Each time somebody tells me that we shouldn't protect stupid people, I remember not feeling very smart in front of pages of legalese in insurance and banking contracts. I keep thinking, yes they are probably going to screw me, but somebody is working to prevent them from screwing me too overtly.

I guess I didn't realize the average person was that stupid. I play games with in-app purchases. It's pretty easy just not to pay for them.

If the public is this bad with something as simple as in-app purchases, why should we ever legalize drugs? This is a serious question.

> why should we ever legalize drugs?

Because enforcing strong anti-drug laws causes even more damage. It's not that most people want drugs to be legal, it banning them does not work.

On the other hand a legislation like this is easy to enforce, because you pretty much only have to get Apple, Google and Microsoft to comply in their stores.

That depends on the question if you think it's OK for you to take the rights away from someone that you think are stupider than you. And if you think it's OK if someone who thinks they are smarter than you would take your rights away. If you think that'd be fine - then indeed there's no reason to legalize drugs, at least until people smarter than you decide there is. There's also no point of discussing it, since the decision lies with people smarter than you anyway.

But if you think people are smart enough to vote and to discuss public matters and to make right decisions for themselves - then there's no reason why decisions about what to eat and what to drink and what to inhale should be any different.

People are selfish all the time. They threaten others with guns, to get cash. They blackmail, and coerce, and cheat. Smart people too.

Now, don't know if selfish irresponsible use of intoxicants rises to that level, but the argument can be made. E.g. alcohol laws are everywhere, and its not even a very good intoxicant.

Argument can be also made it's selfish for you not to give me half of your money. So I am entitled to threaten you with a gun, to get cash you're selfishly denying me. There can be a lot of arguments made once you abandon the notion of rights that people have.

Obviously we are talking about reasonable arguments.

I think if you go out and make a poll you will find intense disagreement on whether there is a right to [severe] self-harm. Please don't strawman into the idea of abandoning all rights.

It's not a requirement for a customer protection law to be protecting only the average citizen. Even if there is a minority of people affected but significantly the state feels entitled to act, rightfully or not. A good example is drug use/abuse.

Legalizing drugs and regulating them would be a better analogy to the situation you're considering here. Games are legal to play and the discussion is about regulating the game makers and not the consumers.

Well, for one thing the legal audience for these games includes children, whereas even for legalized drugs such as alcohol, I don't know of a country where children are a legitimate audience.

People are that dumb. Even smart people.

The drug question is difficult precisely because the balance kf protection and rights is complicated by the fact that prohibition creates massive problems of its own.

This is why there is no simple fix that makes all the harm go away and we should focus on trying to mitigate as much as possible. To me it seems that legalisation and regulation woukd help, but we'll always need services to pick up the people who get into trouble with it.

I do wish there was a distinction between the freemium app types. I'm okay with demoware (first level free, pay to unlock the rest) but I hate the buy coins every day model.

Maybe in-app purchase can be categorized as one-time or recurring?

I think this is a matter for regulation because unlike a regulation deciding what you can and can't do, this is a regulation of advertising your product. App developers, myself included, have a responsibility of being honest to customers about what they are getting. Currently many freemium app descriptions tout the "free" and intentionally divert buyers attention from the fact that they have to pay later. Payment advertising is sometimes completely ignored and players feel that they are buying as a form of game play rather than as a buying transaction tied to real money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com