Once again, you don't get a say.
They are the same in the law. They will be treated the same way.
Also, what is your point anyway? That porn should be accessible to children but loot boxes shouldn't? Are you not OK with porn being for adults? The question here isn't whether the content is adults-only, we probably should all agree that's the case. The question is how that's enforced.
I mean, if you want to tell me what you actually think about that I'm happy to listen, but going "these two things feel different to me" doesn't bring anything to this conversation.
Potatar@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
My point was pointing out your logical mistake. These two things are separate things which should be discussed separately. Just because they are grouped together in one piece of official document, doesn’t make it the UNIVERSAL truth.
or are you telling me the Braziling government doesn’t discriminate between gambling and porn in other settings?
(Also maybe I missed it: Where did I cast any judgement about it being accessible to children?)
MudMan@fedia.io 23 hours ago
No, see, there is no logical mistake because at no point was there an argument about universal truths anywhere. There was a note that, despite the headline and article not flagging it, the same regulation covers porn and has some of the issues that anti-porn age verification has had in the past.
You're just doing the thing where you read something on the Internet and it made you angry by not immediately reinforcing your preferences so you nitpicked a random bit you thought didn't check out regardless of whether it was part of the argument or not.
I would much prefer to talk like adults, instead.
maniclucky@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
The point is that, despite being in the same bill, they shouldn’t be. One is already covered in existing law, related to adult exclusive activities recognized as such the world over (porn for clarity). The other is defining a new phenomenon that has yet to be defined as being exclusive to adults and currently exists within spaces for children to the point of predation and is akin to existing child targeted products (loot boxes again for clarity).
Lumping even seemingly similar things is a bad practice that is more meant to poison pill bills (among other things) than actually execute legislative duties.
MudMan@fedia.io 20 hours ago
Whose point is that? Because I don't think it's the previous guy's point, and it certainly isn't mine.
I mean, the law (not a bill, this isn't the US and it has been approved, as per the text) outright bans loot boxes in games "targeted at children or teenagers". No qualifiers. Doesn't even say "paid loot boxes", so technically all videogames are now illegal if they have a loot table anywhere. I'm going to assume cooler heads will prevail and a categorization will come from courts or specific regulatory development, but it's certainly not in the law.
So if you don't like this for doing both at once... well, that's weird, that's why laws have multiple articles. If you're worried that the inclusion is meant to stall the bill that's irrelevant, this has been published and comes in force in six months. If you think they're overreaching by outright banning loot boxes... well, I agree, but I don't think that's the point as the rest of the thread is defining it.