|
|
|
|
|
|
by brigadier132
691 days ago
|
|
|
> drawing a distinction between forcing someone to stop doing something and forcing someone to do something is nonsensical in this context My interpretation of your argument is as follows: "Because we already have laws to mandate people to do things, saying it's bad to mandate people to do things is nonsensical." I disagree, I think it's bad we have to mandate people to do things ever but in certain situations we should do it because the alternative is terrible. ie like preventing people from polluting the entire environment. Also keep in mind, we are talking about video games |
|
|
That's not my argument. My argument is that it's wrong to claim this law is different from any other type of law in that it requires people to do additional labor. Unless a law literally has no requirements (is that even a law?), it has to require some people to do additional work.
> I think it's bad we have to mandate people to do things ever but in certain situations we should do it because the alternative is terrible.
Many of us do think it's terrible for people to have a product they paid for become inoperable because a company decided they would take their authentication servers offline without releasing a patch first. This erodes consumer trust and can lead to a market of lemons.
> Also keep in mind, we are talking about video games
We're talking about laws, which are serious things and deserve serious discussions. The proposed legislation is likely a test balloon for other consumer protections, so reasoning through the effects is a good exercise.