I never said it’s okay. All I’m saying is that a mega-corporation can simultaneously exploit psychological loopholes for profit (loot boxes) while actively pushing open-source ecosystems (Linux), providing great value to consumers and fighting other pc gaming monopolies (Microsoft). Look at the whole picture.
Do you consider that it is morally acceptable to push thousands of kids into gambling addiction because you are doing more than Microsoft for Linux in the gaming world?
I don’t like your attitude. I’m agreeing with you that it is not morally acceptable , and an actor should be judged by the worst of what they’re currently doing, not just sweep it under the rug.
I feel like you’re straw-manning here.
I never said it’s okay. All I’m saying is that a mega-corporation can simultaneously exploit psychological loopholes for profit (loot boxes) while actively pushing open-source ecosystems (Linux), providing great value to consumers and fighting other pc gaming monopolies (Microsoft). Look at the whole picture.
Do you consider that it is morally acceptable to push thousands of kids into gambling addiction because you are doing more than Microsoft for Linux in the gaming world?
So you’re saying that since a company is reprehensible in one area, all their other accomplishments should be judged accordingly?
Makes sense to me.
Answer the question.
I don’t like your attitude. I’m agreeing with you that it is not morally acceptable , and an actor should be judged by the worst of what they’re currently doing, not just sweep it under the rug.
Thank you. Yeah, I can be pretty confrontational sometimes.
I wish you a nice day. See you around!