• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    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.

    • @Mr_Dr_Oink
      link
      English
      111 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        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.