lsmarigo

"California has empowered them in peculiar and powerful ways"

Fun example of this is John Wayne airport in Orange County pilots do a special takooff involving cutting power to engines to reduce noise for Newport Beach neighborhood below dating back to a lawsuit from the 80s.

> I blame myself.

This is a narrative the game industry has been successfully pushing through organized PR campaigns and astroturfing online discussions, of course parents share some responsibility but this angle is disingenuous and lets publishers off the hook too easily. I wouldn't beat yourself up too much here you're aware of the situation and actively involved in fixing it.

> Game shops are exploiting advanced psychological tactics to turn young generation into addicts.

This + the instantly available secondary market which allows you to gamble with your digital goods/currency is the major difference between this and it's predecessor: baseball/pokemon/magic the gathering card packs.

Belgium/EU are making strong moves on this but very doubtful we'll see any movement in the US anytime soon, a New Hampshire senator dared to question the situation and was blasted by an aggressive letter from the ESRB claiming loot boxes are not at all gambling.

The games industry is uniquely positioned to allow for this kind of abuse because the primary targets (marks) are unorganized young children that don't know any better. Most games are just a vessel for the 'marketplace' which is an online casino for kids. The current state of gaming is shocking, regulation is desperately needed.

already multiple players in this space but last time I checked none were very reputable or well reviewed so hey still an opportunity.

Why is this not allowed to be discussed here dang?

What's going on on reddit is something never before seen and has directly lead to the rise of extremism in the US. Every thread about reddit should be about this, nothing else matters in the context of what's going on here - on topic or not. How are more people not paying attention or maybe they are and OK with it, which is even scarier.

You've done the same to my comments about this exact issue in the past. You're denying visibility to an issue so much more important than some inc fluff piece, on the grounds of what - making YC funded companies look bad? Being off topic? Too political?

The admin team has shown a flagrant and criminally negligent disregard for the ethical and social impact of their platform which has lead directly to the loss of human life on more than one occasion, the rise of extremism and fascism but we're not allowed to talk about it here on any threads, why?

No, This is like going after murderers for being late on their taxes. Call me a cynic/skeptic but I don't see cracking down on tracking that's ubiquitous in big tech (google, fb) on some small devs as a positive. This is a distraction and an attempt to by this DA get PR points for "cracking down on tech" for the next election.

> Games are designed to keep you interested and engaged-- that's just what a game is. Children's games have included gambling since toys have existed (dreidel, jacks, marbles, to name a few).

You're not wrong, can also point to baseball cards, magic the gathering or pokemon cards. The key differences today are

1) Instant-availability of the secondary market and third party sites that allow you to gamble with virtual currency you've won.

2) Devs/Publishers hiring psychologists and cognitive behavior specialists to design these loot box experiences to release the perfect amount of dopamine to get users addicted, with frightening efficiency. In comparison your examples are extremely mild.

You could say it's the parents responsibility to educate and protect their children from these practices - but would you say the same about the tobacco industry advertising to children? For me this is the same addiction from profit motive the tobacco industry exploited for many years until they were rightfully regulated.

> “The F.T.C. has made enforcement of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act a high priority,” said Juliana Gruenwald, an agency spokeswoman.

> “These sophisticated tech companies are not policing themselves,” the New Mexico attorney general, Hector Balderas, said. “The children of this country ultimately pay the price.”

> “This is as much a black eye on the federal government as the tech space,” Mr. Balderas said. “I’m trying to get lawmakers at the federal level to wake up.”

This is like going after drug dealers for parking violations and calling a press conference to proudly brag about it. Game publishers are doing much worse stuff and you're making a big deal about going after them for tracking!?

To not even mention in passing loot boxes, really NYT? one of the most pervasive unethical rackets in modern tech targeting children, much worse than tracking because it causes real harm to individuals.

FTC: Feel free to exploit young underdeveloped brains to addict them to gambling for profit as long as you're not tracking them.

As a content creator it's very quickly apparent the best route to driving views and subs is to push extreme/edgy content. Balanced content gets no engagement. It's really that simple, with the ADHD short attention span of the current gen of heavy media consumers (read: kids) you have to shock them/surprise them/make them laugh ~once every 5-6 seconds to keep them on the video. YouTube offers very detailed metrics on engagement and you can study the exact time where people lose interest/close the video.

Only massive established channels have the privilege of pushing non-edgy content as their audience is built in already, for anyone new it's shock value and hard-line extremism or your voice will be lost among the noise.

Panda Express kicks this up a notch and has a little bell they ring whenever someone donates their change adding an element of social pressure/shame, super scummy

> The main argument seems to be that because we're not having forced arguments and considerations in meatspace, mano-a-mano, we're not challenged enough.

In meatspace social pressure exists unlike on the internet. An example is racist/misogynist jokes are not acceptable in most IRL contexts (especially those that are being logged/recorded permanently as is the case on the majority of the modern web) whereas on the internet it's not only discouraged but it's actually a great way to build a following quickly.

The internet is fundamentally changing how we communicate, ingest news, and share information.

The argument is that before safe spaces and echo chambers online, individuals that aim to engage general public with their message in any meaningful context are forced to compromise their extreme views. In my view Alex Jones wouldn't be a nationally recognized name before the internet, at best he'd be able to get influence over 30 or so of his local conspiracy theorists. No publication would print his views, because of how large a portion of the population they would alienate and anger. I'd argue this pressure is a net positive and having it removed online is leading us down a dark path.

I have no source these are just my thoughts and observations.

You bring up very good points.

> Technocrats don't compromise well on social issues, they believe there is a best answer.

You are absolutely correct. Algorithms and search bubbles are just symptoms not the disease. Elite untouchable tech giants with no oversight molding human thought and behavior to increase their bottom line and power with a 'move fast a break things' attitude in regards to the any social or ethical implications - that's the disease.