Legal battle erupts: Game developers say you can't sue us for making games too entertaining
Legal battle erupts: Game developers say you can't sue us for making games too entertaining
The world of video games is facing a legal firestorm. Multiple lawsuits allege that popular titles like Fortnite and Call of Duty employ manipulative design elements to create addictive experiences, particularly harmful to young players. But in a recent coordinated response, major developers like Mi...
You're viewing a single thread.
Against age verification: Beer brewers say you can't limit us for making drinking beer too entertaining.
Permanently Deleted
They don't have to keep a copy. There are even services you can use to verify a user is over a target age without getting the age.
Second they already have you financial data. We are bot talking about people playing Darkest Dungeon too long. We are talking Fifa.
It's definitely a question for our times though. I don't want the government to know every time I need age verification but I also don't want companies to have all my private data.
It seems like the government would need to provide a form of id which also includes digital proof and proof of ownership. Something like a yubikey.
Passports already have something sorta like this but it's inaccessible to a standard user. You need to read the MRZ off the passport then use that to unlock the NFC chip on the back page to get biometrics off it.
A public read-only repository of public keys for every citizen could then be hosted where signatures from this theoretical id could be validated.
The signing id would contain basic biometric information that would be uploaded depending on what the company legally needs to know.
Scan this id with an NFC reader and enter in some piece of private information to unlock the NFC chip, send it the requests and receive back a signed package of the data.
Permanently Deleted
I get it: but that's a minority opinion unfortunately.
Proof of personhood will be a major requirement in the future. Age verification will only be part of the combat against llm chat bots and malicious actors.
If the government is going to do it eventually we might as well weigh in on the right way to do it. As private and easy as possible.
Or we could just emphatically say no. Do you think governments exist in a vacuum? They exist to serve the peoples interests, not the other way around.
Of course they don't.
But you have to contend with the fact that the overwhelming majority of people are apathetic or in favor of these kind of measures.
The morality police of the Christian right are campaigning for this. Many moderates don't care.
If it's coming, and it is, we should be sure to be part of a solution that makes it at least somewhat private.
But you have to contend with the fact that the overwhelming majority of people are apathetic or in favor of these kind of measures.
That's not even true.
Prove it