You’re comparing a non-consensual crime to a voluntary consumer product. Unlawfully exhuming a corpse leaves the victim and family with zero say in the matter.
A video game gives you complete choice, if a developer milks a game with ads, you can choose to uninstall it and give them zero dollars. Try making an analogy that actually deals with voluntary choice, because grave robbery isn’t it.
Why not use a realistic analogy? Like how some car companies tried charging monthly subscriptions to activate built-in features like heated seats or remote start. BMW eventually killed that feature specifically because subscription sales were so extremely low. That’s a real example of consumer choice driving corporate decisions, not grave robbery.
Laws (and crimes) and consumer behaviors are governed by popular concensus of what we, the body politic, are willing to tolerate - neither are absolutes, and both are subject to change.
A realistic analogy would make my point less clearly than an exaggerated cartoon.
If the consumer market, or the corporations that govern it, decide that grave robbery is to be tolerated as a for-profit adventure…
well, we’ve very few tools with with to oppose them.
(See also: the collapse of the biosphere)
Fortunately, in America at least, It’s likely your loved ones lacked the medical insurance necessary to cover the cost of dental fillings.
Laws (and crimes) and consumer behaviors are governed by popular concensus of what we, the body politic, are willing to tolerate - neither are absolutes, and both are subject to change.
You’re right that social norms shift, but fundamental legal protections don’t evaporate overnight, especially in democratic nations with institutional checks. Suggesting that society will casually normalize grave robbery for profit within our lifetimes isn’t realistic.
A realistic analogy would make my point less clearly than an exaggerated cartoon.
Admitting that your argument relies on an “exaggerated cartoon” proves that your logic isn’t realistic. Video game ads are a voluntary consumer choice, but grave robbery is a non-consensual crime.
If you want a realistic corporate greed analogy, look at a company intentionally polluting the air and then selling clean air filters to profit off the damage. At least that deals with actual market behavior instead of shock value crime scenarios.
I think they were trying to make an argument regarding ethics and morality and didn’t do the best job by throwing in a strawman argument. That being said, television networks literally do it every day. That they’re doing it is arguably unethical, but if you’re expecting ethics and morality from a megacorp, especially Micro$oft, you’re a fool.
Everything else you said stands. Don’t use the product. Don’t give the company your money. Nobody’s forcing you to consume the media. If you do, don’t complain, you’re the fool who bought a game with ads.
I might agree that it’s not morally wrong for them to add advertisements to milk more money out of people, but it’s definitely artistically wrong in that they are hugely compromising the thing they are making just for extra money.
And one might further argue that it’s morally wrong in that adding the advertisements is going to make the world a more frustrating, enshittified, dumbed-down place, just by a little bit.
Maybe a more apt comparison than “what if a Nazi killed you” or “what if somebody stole your mother’s teeth” would be what if you owned a food company and filled your food with sticks and rocks to save money. People would not be obligated to buy it, but it’s definitely wrong and doesn’t do anybody any good.
Didn’t you just prove my point? If nobody buys food because I put rocks and sticks in it, I go out of business. That’s exactly how consumer choice forces bad ideas to fail
You’re comparing a non-consensual crime to a voluntary consumer product. Unlawfully exhuming a corpse leaves the victim and family with zero say in the matter.
A video game gives you complete choice, if a developer milks a game with ads, you can choose to uninstall it and give them zero dollars. Try making an analogy that actually deals with voluntary choice, because grave robbery isn’t it.
Why not use a realistic analogy? Like how some car companies tried charging monthly subscriptions to activate built-in features like heated seats or remote start. BMW eventually killed that feature specifically because subscription sales were so extremely low. That’s a real example of consumer choice driving corporate decisions, not grave robbery.
Laws (and crimes) and consumer behaviors are governed by popular concensus of what we, the body politic, are willing to tolerate - neither are absolutes, and both are subject to change.
A realistic analogy would make my point less clearly than an exaggerated cartoon.
If the consumer market, or the corporations that govern it, decide that grave robbery is to be tolerated as a for-profit adventure…
well, we’ve very few tools with with to oppose them.
(See also: the collapse of the biosphere)
Fortunately, in America at least, It’s likely your loved ones lacked the medical insurance necessary to cover the cost of dental fillings.
You’re right that social norms shift, but fundamental legal protections don’t evaporate overnight, especially in democratic nations with institutional checks. Suggesting that society will casually normalize grave robbery for profit within our lifetimes isn’t realistic.
Admitting that your argument relies on an “exaggerated cartoon” proves that your logic isn’t realistic. Video game ads are a voluntary consumer choice, but grave robbery is a non-consensual crime.
If you want a realistic corporate greed analogy, look at a company intentionally polluting the air and then selling clean air filters to profit off the damage. At least that deals with actual market behavior instead of shock value crime scenarios.
I think they were trying to make an argument regarding ethics and morality and didn’t do the best job by throwing in a strawman argument. That being said, television networks literally do it every day. That they’re doing it is arguably unethical, but if you’re expecting ethics and morality from a megacorp, especially Micro$oft, you’re a fool.
Everything else you said stands. Don’t use the product. Don’t give the company your money. Nobody’s forcing you to consume the media. If you do, don’t complain, you’re the fool who bought a game with ads.
I might agree that it’s not morally wrong for them to add advertisements to milk more money out of people, but it’s definitely artistically wrong in that they are hugely compromising the thing they are making just for extra money.
And one might further argue that it’s morally wrong in that adding the advertisements is going to make the world a more frustrating, enshittified, dumbed-down place, just by a little bit.
Maybe a more apt comparison than “what if a Nazi killed you” or “what if somebody stole your mother’s teeth” would be what if you owned a food company and filled your food with sticks and rocks to save money. People would not be obligated to buy it, but it’s definitely wrong and doesn’t do anybody any good.
Didn’t you just prove my point? If nobody buys food because I put rocks and sticks in it, I go out of business. That’s exactly how consumer choice forces bad ideas to fail
I agree that people should stop buying it. But people are stupid and also manipulated by advertising, brand loyalty, and irrationality