this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
170 points (96.2% liked)
Games
16751 readers
654 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
No, fomo is not a form of coercion whatsoever. Here's the legal definition in the federal legal code:
So it requires the threat or implied threat of serious harm or abuse of the law against a person.
And no, not looking cool or being at the top of a game isn't "serious harm," you'd be laughed out of the courtroom and perhaps fined for wasting everyone's time if you tried to make that legal argument.
Im not making a legal argument... im making a philosophical one.
The original context of this chain is a legal one:
Yes, you didn't say that, but you responded in that context. I asked "what is illegal about it?" and you directly replied with the note about coercion. To me, that clearly implies you think this is a form of legal coercion, and now you're backpedaling because I showed that's explicitly not true. You're moving the goalposts.
That completely fair. You can definitely interpret that implication from what i said. I need to be more careful with my choice of words in future.
However, i assure you my intent was not to make a legal argument.
I was saying that coercion is illegal, which is true. And that i believe that fomo is a form of coercion, which would be my opinion. But it doesn't read that way.
Sorry.
No worries, it just gets confusing when terms are used loosely and differently in a conversation.
For the record, I disagree that both that FOMO is a form of coercion (even the regular dictionary definition implies force is involved) and believe it shouldn't be illegal to entice adults with it, but there should be limits on marketing to children. That said, any form of advertising can be considered a form of fomo, so I'm not exactly sure where the line should be. That said, we do have limits on fraud, which covers things like making unrealistic claims (e.g. this cosmetic will make you win). It's disgusting, but shouldn't be illegal.
Fair enough.