I am not arguing anything, and would never say anything that ridiculous.
I just find it tedious and irrational to see people up in arms about this contrived and unlikely scenario (a video game company is going to spy on you - a random nobody - for a big bad foreign power), while not being up in arms about the much bigger and more likely vectors of compromise they are exposed to constantly (like your operating system or cell phone).
But of course protecting yourself from those possibilities would require real sacrifice and inconvenience, so let's not talk about it.
1. "Nobody playing this game is important enough to be spied upon."
It might surprise you to learn that some people in the military, congress, the DoD, and even important individuals in significant companies play video games.
2. "Some vulnerabilities exist, therefore any new vulnerabilities should be ignored or not discussed."
All vulnerabilities should be considered, especially new ones that will affect 10s or 100s of millions of people. That's why we're discussing it. Since you find it tedious, you're free not to participate.
I'm not sure if you lack comprehension, or if you are just really paranoid and can only see things in absolutes, or if I'm writing poorly. But yet again you've taken what I've written and somehow twisted it into something ridiculous.
> It might surprise you to learn that some people in the military, congress, the DoD, and even important individuals in significant companies play video games.
Anyone in this scenario who is using the same computer to run any untrusted software (like all games) as they are using for their national security work is already compromising themselves.
> "Some vulnerabilities exist, therefore any new vulnerabilities should be ignored or not discussed."
This would be a more productive conversation if you addressed my points at face value, and made your own without twisting my words into whatever convenient position you want to argue against. That's the part I find tedious.
Everything is degrees.. you seem to only be willing to consider extremes.
Of course if you work in a sensitive position or are a likely target of foreign spying, you should take many more precautions. But that's not most people, in fact that's almost no one, statistically speaking. So if we're going to discuss likely compromise scenarios, the risk-reward on using a high-profile video game company as a vehicle for APT state-level actions starts to fall into "movie plot" territory, in my opinion.
And I never said that new vulnerabilities should be ignored or not discussed . Again, possible <> plausible.
In fact, you are basically contradicting yourself at this point because I first brought up way more plausible vulnerability scenarios (your underlying operating system being compromised) and you dismissed that in favour of some narrow and much more implausible scenario (a US-based video game company as a deep-state plant for a foreign government).
It's absolutely not clear that the US has backdoors into any Apple product. Apple has fought pretty hard to ensure that their devices remain something that a user can feel safe and secure storing their private data on.
But if we're talking about plausibility, then it's much more likely that your underlying operating system, regardless of vendor - Microsoft and Apple are the major players - has been compromised in some manner, or contains the hooks for on-demand compromise if compelled by a state actor.
I just find it tedious and irrational to see people up in arms about this contrived and unlikely scenario (a video game company is going to spy on you - a random nobody - for a big bad foreign power), while not being up in arms about the much bigger and more likely vectors of compromise they are exposed to constantly (like your operating system or cell phone).
But of course protecting yourself from those possibilities would require real sacrifice and inconvenience, so let's not talk about it.