Fomo is a form of coercion, and im pretty sure that's a crime in this case. The industry uses underhanded and shady practices to get people to spend money on things that have no intrinsic value.
I can see from your comment that its possible you haven't looked into this very much because you sound like me a few yesrs ago when i didnt see the harm as im not particularly susceptible to the ways they pedal microtransactions/in game purchases.
lol it very obviously is not a crime. It's not even a civil action.
I don't support the whale business model for video games, but the idea that it's somehow a crime is a laughable lack of understanding of the law.
Not coercion in regards to shady business practices. But in 2015 in the uk coercian was made a criminal offence. Since im from the uk you can understand where im coming from when i say its a crime.
It does not even loosely resemble the broad, non-legal definition of coercion in any way. There are zero similarities. Let alone the statutory definition, which is not near as broad.
It also is not and does not resemble FOMO, which is also not illegal anywhere and is practiced by every business on the planet.
No, fomo isn't illegal. Coercion is. And although the legal definition of coercion doesnt include the mental distress one feels when feeling like they might miss out it doesnt mean that it cant be argued from a philosophical angle that fomo is a form of coercion.
Your view that it bares zero resemblance is very static.
Only a sith deals in absolutes 😜
No valid definition of coercion has any resemblance in any context to what is happening here.
Some things are absolute, and the fact that you don't even sort of have any idea what you're talking about is one of them. You're not making a "philosophical argument". You're spouting completely incoherent gibberish.
I guess you are entitled to your opinion. If i only you allowed me to be entitled to mine without trying to insult me.
It's not an opinion. You are objectively wrong, completely redefining words to mean things that are entirely different.
You are not entitled to lie with words without being called out for it.
I will say what i have said to another user here.
I did not intend to state that fomo was a crime. I didn't actually say that at any point.
I did say, and mean, that coercion is a crime. That is true from a legal standpoint.
I then gave my opinion, or my philosophical argument, that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion.
It's not complete gibberish, and i wasn't lying. You just misinterpreted what i meant.
I coild have been more clear in my argument, but it's disingenuous and kinda shitty of you to call it complete gibberish when you clearly understood what i was saying.
Stop trying to aggressively argue with me when we could just discuss this like normal people.
I then gave my opinion, or my philosophical argument, rhat i believe that fomo is a form or coercion.
This is not an opinion. It is not a "philosophical argument". It's a lie.
And it's absolutely incoherent gibberish. None of the words you are using mean anything close to what you're claiming they do. You make posts, using your arbitrary, completely incorrect definition of words no one but you knows, then need many, many posts of consistently changing your wrong definitions for anyone to even be able to follow. There's no path to a "discussion" when nothing you're posting tracks in any way.
Yes, it is. You are wrong. If you can't follow it, that's your problem. Not mine.
(2) The term “coercion” means— (A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; (B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or (C) the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.
So it requires the threat or implied threat of serious harm or abuse of the law against a person.
And no, not looking cool or being at the top of a game isn't "serious harm," you'd be laughed out of the courtroom and perhaps fined for wasting everyone's time if you tried to make that legal argument.
Im not making a legal argument... im making a philosophical one.
The original context of this chain is a legal one:
Isn't it time to get some regulations on m(i/a)cro transactions? This seems very illegal to me and it is exploiting people's addictions.
Yes, you didn't say that, but you responded in that context. I asked "what is illegal about it?" and you directly replied with the note about coercion. To me, that clearly implies you think this is a form of legal coercion, and now you're backpedaling because I showed that's explicitly not true. You're moving the goalposts.
That completely fair. You can definitely interpret that implication from what i said. I need to be more careful with my choice of words in future.
However, i assure you my intent was not to make a legal argument.
I was saying that coercion is illegal, which is true. And that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion, which would be my opinion. But it doesn't read that way.
Sorry.
No worries, it just gets confusing when terms are used loosely and differently in a conversation.
For the record, I disagree that both that FOMO is a form of coercion (even the regular dictionary definition implies force is involved) and believe it shouldn't be illegal to entice adults with it, but there should be limits on marketing to children. That said, any form of advertising can be considered a form of fomo, so I'm not exactly sure where the line should be. That said, we do have limits on fraud, which covers things like making unrealistic claims (e.g. this cosmetic will make you win). It's disgusting, but shouldn't be illegal.
Fomo is a form of coercion, and im pretty sure that's a crime in this case. The industry uses underhanded and shady practices to get people to spend money on things that have no intrinsic value.
I can see from your comment that its possible you haven't looked into this very much because you sound like me a few yesrs ago when i didnt see the harm as im not particularly susceptible to the ways they pedal microtransactions/in game purchases.
lol it very obviously is not a crime. It's not even a civil action.
I don't support the whale business model for video games, but the idea that it's somehow a crime is a laughable lack of understanding of the law.
Not coercion in regards to shady business practices. But in 2015 in the uk coercian was made a criminal offence. Since im from the uk you can understand where im coming from when i say its a crime.
It does not even loosely resemble the broad, non-legal definition of coercion in any way. There are zero similarities. Let alone the statutory definition, which is not near as broad.
It also is not and does not resemble FOMO, which is also not illegal anywhere and is practiced by every business on the planet.
No, fomo isn't illegal. Coercion is. And although the legal definition of coercion doesnt include the mental distress one feels when feeling like they might miss out it doesnt mean that it cant be argued from a philosophical angle that fomo is a form of coercion.
Your view that it bares zero resemblance is very static.
Only a sith deals in absolutes 😜
No valid definition of coercion has any resemblance in any context to what is happening here.
Some things are absolute, and the fact that you don't even sort of have any idea what you're talking about is one of them. You're not making a "philosophical argument". You're spouting completely incoherent gibberish.
I guess you are entitled to your opinion. If i only you allowed me to be entitled to mine without trying to insult me.
It's not an opinion. You are objectively wrong, completely redefining words to mean things that are entirely different.
You are not entitled to lie with words without being called out for it.
I will say what i have said to another user here.
I did not intend to state that fomo was a crime. I didn't actually say that at any point.
I did say, and mean, that coercion is a crime. That is true from a legal standpoint.
I then gave my opinion, or my philosophical argument, that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion.
It's not complete gibberish, and i wasn't lying. You just misinterpreted what i meant.
I coild have been more clear in my argument, but it's disingenuous and kinda shitty of you to call it complete gibberish when you clearly understood what i was saying.
Stop trying to aggressively argue with me when we could just discuss this like normal people.
This is not an opinion. It is not a "philosophical argument". It's a lie.
And it's absolutely incoherent gibberish. None of the words you are using mean anything close to what you're claiming they do. You make posts, using your arbitrary, completely incorrect definition of words no one but you knows, then need many, many posts of consistently changing your wrong definitions for anyone to even be able to follow. There's no path to a "discussion" when nothing you're posting tracks in any way.
Yes, it is. You are wrong. If you can't follow it, that's your problem. Not mine.
No, fomo is not a form of coercion whatsoever. Here's the legal definition in the federal legal code:
So it requires the threat or implied threat of serious harm or abuse of the law against a person.
And no, not looking cool or being at the top of a game isn't "serious harm," you'd be laughed out of the courtroom and perhaps fined for wasting everyone's time if you tried to make that legal argument.
Im not making a legal argument... im making a philosophical one.
The original context of this chain is a legal one:
Yes, you didn't say that, but you responded in that context. I asked "what is illegal about it?" and you directly replied with the note about coercion. To me, that clearly implies you think this is a form of legal coercion, and now you're backpedaling because I showed that's explicitly not true. You're moving the goalposts.
That completely fair. You can definitely interpret that implication from what i said. I need to be more careful with my choice of words in future.
However, i assure you my intent was not to make a legal argument.
I was saying that coercion is illegal, which is true. And that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion, which would be my opinion. But it doesn't read that way.
Sorry.
No worries, it just gets confusing when terms are used loosely and differently in a conversation.
For the record, I disagree that both that FOMO is a form of coercion (even the regular dictionary definition implies force is involved) and believe it shouldn't be illegal to entice adults with it, but there should be limits on marketing to children. That said, any form of advertising can be considered a form of fomo, so I'm not exactly sure where the line should be. That said, we do have limits on fraud, which covers things like making unrealistic claims (e.g. this cosmetic will make you win). It's disgusting, but shouldn't be illegal.
Fair enough.
What the everloving fuck?
What?