Incorrect An analogy is not an equation. Porn is harmful to children, and access should be age restricted to the fullest extent possible without interfering with the rights of grown adults. Gambling is harmful for children, and should be age restricted to the fullest extent possible without interfering with the rights of grown adults. They don't cause the ***same amount of harm,*** but a movie that features hardcore sex should be rated AO just like a game that incorporates gambling should be rated M.

Wow. The world sucks then, doesn't it?

Haha yeah I've picked up on that. Oh well

You're explicity suggesting the thing is not suitable for kids, while also explicity calling something that isn't gambling, gambling. That's the point Cosmetic lootboxes are suitable for kids. Unlike porn or gambling.

It's not gambling, it's just a thing you can spend real money on to have a chance of getting one of several rewards, with the best possible rewards having the lowest possible chances Oh wait that's literally the fucking definition of gambling

> but what can you do? lawmakers wont make laws ... You elect lawmakers. > just let me remind you that that happens offline, and it is provable if copies are not preserved. Fascinating. > if someone cannot properly configure their phones, then they need to be made liable So, this is exactly the problem I have with you and the other person. It's this contempt you have for your fellow people. It's extremely selfish. This isn't how you talk to your neighbors. You're not getting invited to any cookouts or block parties with this attitude. If you and I can agree that children shouldn't be in casinos, then they shouldn't be allowed *into* the casino. I am open to your suggestions.

Scamming children is illegal. Solution isn't banning children or requiring id to compromise others' privacy too (who for example play without gambling). This whole thing is bs. 2. people store id in their phone most of the time.

By that logic all games with any random component is gambling... which would include pretty much every game ever published. If Diablo isn't gambling, then neither is genshin.

If you could spend real life money to get random loot drops in Diablo, you might have a point. You should really try to seek out other viewpoints. Literally every discussion about this topic overwhelmingly agrees that gacha games are gambling.

"You're not part of the hivemind so go seek out more people that agree with me until you are" is a wild statement.

Not an accurate summary of what I said. I hope you learn to read past a kindergarten level someday

You literally said I wasn't correct because a majority of people hold a different viewpoint, and that I should get out of a non-existent echo chamber so I conform to the majority viewpoint. If you don't understand why your last paragraph is stupid, I don't think you should have kids or care about what happens to kids.

I didn't say anything about an echo chamber dude, try again

"You should really try to seek out other viewpoints" suggests I haven't... what is an echo chamber, young one?

You still haven't responded to the part about the real money slot machine

Because that's stupid, the point of a slot machine from the players perspective isn't colors moving, which is the only common theme between the two. It's like saying a horse is a tree because they're both brown. All video games contain a random element, and a lot of video games since Diablo have random reward elements, and fucking happy meals aren't considered gambling so lootboxes aren't gambling, so your allusion fails.

You still haven't responded about the real money part lmfao Whether happy meals count as gambling could be an interesting discussion, if you were a smarter and nicer person. [Lootboxes](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56614281) and [gacha](https://wjlta.com/2022/12/07/glorified-gambling-moral-and-legal-issues-within-the-gacha-gaming-industry/) games [super](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8064953/) duper [duper](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonwosborne/2023/05/25/how-loot-boxes-in-childrens-video-games-encourage-gambling/) duper [duper](https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/the-15-billion-question-have-loot-boxes-turned-video-gaming-into-gambling) are [though](https://www.medialiteracyschool.com/mls_updates/all-about-gacha-the-link-between-gacha-games-and-gambling-and-how-they-manipulate-you/) >It's like saying a horse is a tree because they're both brown. No, it's like saying gachapon games are gambling because they let players spend real money to get a randomly determined result, with the most desirable results being the rarest, triggering the same reward system in the brain that other forms of gambling do, which is harmful to children not just because it triggers those reward systems, but because it entices them to spend *real money* on more rolls.

> You elect lawmakers. well I personally certainly don't. I have too little power to do that. > Fascinating. your response actually is! does not sound too genuine. > If you and I can agree that children shouldn't be in casinos, then they shouldn't be allowed *into* the casino. I am open to your suggestions. children shouldn't get uncontrolled access to smartphones. access needs to be controlled _by the parent_. For medicine and cleaning things most already know to place those items out of children's reach. from this aspect, we would need to tackle the problem that the children obtains the parent's phone. some small items, maybe cleaning appliances too, are made to have a bad bitter taste so that children don't want to put them in their mouth. according to that pattern, we would need to mandate that online services are ugly and irritating to use. but is that the solution we actually want? I don't think so. or could we just ban services that are tuned to make people addicted, like drugs? but how do we define that, and that too is a double edged sword. but ultimately, we either make casinos unattractive, or make the parents be the casinos' first line bouncers. the first one sounds good, but the internet and even social media is not only for taking advantage of people, contrary to casinos. the second one requires cooperation. how would you incentivise cooperation? tie benefits to it,or part of the benefits, through child protection services or something?

That and adding their exaggerated hip-swinging animation that's designed exactly because perverts are drawn to it. Jiggle physics on their chest and butt, as well. There is no excuse for purposefully adding these to adolescents, realism or no. We know why it's there

> or make the parents be the casinos' first line bouncers Or, you know, we could just have bouncers on site. Such as a system which asks you to prove you're older than 13 before you're allowed to access it. I mean, this sure is a lot of pontificating and wondering about how the legal system could ever handle such an absurdly vague and difficult task when it already seems to be doing that. I'm going to invoke a comparison here that you're not going to like very much. I promise, you shouldn't take it personally. I have had 1,000 arguments with fascists who _looove_ tilting this way and that about how philosophically undefinable their behavior is. Zeno's paradox, the ship of theseus, what really is a "casino" anyway? I'll tell you this: I'm fine with 80% success. "Oh, but what if someone who is 19 but doesn't have an ID is rejected by the system? They won't be allowed to play. :(" Uh, that sucks for them. Oh well. I guess they'll have to go back to Atelier Ryza. > I have too little power to do that, Damn, that sucks for you.