43
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
43 points (93.9% liked)
Games
16806 readers
998 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why? It's their computer. Shouldn't people be able to do with their own machine whatever they please?
Because it's not consent.
No one is choosing "yes, I think installing this malware is a reasonable thing to do". Ignoring that the reality is that they don't communicate it and no one knows, which means every single person involved should be in a prison cell until the end of time, they would be abusing their market position to get that consent.
It's the entire reason every EULA term is thrown out every time. It's not possible for a consumer to actually form a contract because of the imbalance of power.
Got it. You just think that you should be unilaterally making decisions for other people
No, I know with certainty that it's fucking malware, that it's a massive security hole, and that there is abundant precedent that customers inherently cannot consent to unreasonable EULA terms.
There's a reason that no abusive EULA term has ever been accepted or enforced by courts. The idea that all that shit is automatically ignored, but somehow consenting to extremely invasive malware is OK is completely batshit.
The only thing unreasonable here is that you think you have room to decide what other people do with their own hardware.
Users aren't the ones who are getting control of their system with pieces of shit defending fucking malware.
How so? Users consciously choose to install (and keep installed) these programs. Why should your opinion matter?
"He consented to me stabbing him dude, I dont get what the deal is. What, do you hate free will? He said it was okay to stab him. Get your hands off me, you cant take me to jail he coNSENTED, HE CONSENTED!!!"
It's a fucking video game. Don't like it? Don't fucking install it. Simple as.
Thats the point, dude, you shouldnt be allowed to put malware into video games. Its a fucking video game. It doesnt need that level of access.
Cool, then don't download it if you don't like it.
"Just dont go stabbing dude, who other people stab is none of your business"
The fuckin irony
Arguing that conditioning the use of a game you bought on the installation of kernel level anticheat software designed to watch the user like a hawk is somehow pro user freedom is batshit.
I still fail to see why you people think you have more of a right to my computer than I do
Because it's my own fucking choice to install it.
Gaming companies are not giving you a choice. You are arguing in favor of the right of companies to force you to install invasive software on your pc in order to use what you paid for. And you dont seem to understand that that is the exact opposite of user freedom.
Weird. Nobody has forced me to install a single game yet.