A free market requires a perfectly informed consumer. That’s impossible before you begin to consider how marketing is dishonest
87Six@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I feel like everyone in this thread is ignoring the literal headline.
The point being made is that the consumer chose these rights-infringing, privacy-corrupting, ownership-destroying choices.
Then OF COURSE companies weaponised it.
The issue is that your average Joe doesn’t think for a damn second in his life, and picks up whatever is put down.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
87Six@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I gotta disagree. The only requirement is that the consumer doesn’t blindly trust companies when buying things more expensive than bread.
It should be common sense to check what they actually get when they buy something that 1. Isn’t tangible and 2. Is expected to last. But people don’t, not because they’re not perfectly informed, but because they lack basic critical thinking.
Time isn’t an issue either. It takes 10 minutes, one time, to figure out what stores give you actual ownership and which don’t, in the case of gaming.
Krauerking@lemy.lol 2 days ago
Yeah, arguments that blank percent of people are morally good are insane since… Most people dont really think about long term morals of their decisions day to day if ever. Most people just live and do by convenience without asking if it is morally good but simply believing the self to be.
It needs to be convenient to do good things for people to do them and the convenient option for a long time has been giving up ownership rights.
TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Yeah … Morality is subjective… If the majority of a given population does a thing, that thing is moral within that population.
binux@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Ironically enough the topic of whether or not morality is ‘subjective’ is also inherently up for interpretation. There’s literally a whole philosophical field of study for this.
That being said, I’ll counter this sentiment by saying that the things we find to be ‘moral’ as a species are more often than not the things that help our species prosper (i.e. taboos for murder, theft, bullying, sexual violence, etc.). Sure, there may be a certain degree of variation within the moral frameworks of a culture, but you’ll be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t have that baseline of enforcing against most forms of explicit harm that can come about from members of that society. If that weren’t the case then we would have gone extinct a long time ago.
TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
You’re confusing biological utility with objective truth.
Sure, human societies share baselines against murder and theft because societies without them collapse. But that’s just evolutionary pragmatism. A behavior that keeps a species alive isn’t a cosmic moral law; it’s just a survival mechanism. If a beehive kills off its drones to survive the winter, it’s not being “moral”, it’s just trying not to die.
Even your premise that the prosperity of our species is inherently “good”, relies on our own subjective bias that we prefer being alive. The universe itself doesn’t care.
But let’s apply your own standard back to the actual topic: video games.
If your baseline for objective morality is “things that help our species prosper,” then a corporation shifting to digital-only game licenses has absolutely zero impact on human survival. By your own logic, it’s completely amoral.
If you still want to argue that going digital-only is “immoral,” you have to abandon your evolutionary argument and admit you’re just projecting a subjective cultural preference onto a consumer inconvenience.