There isn't a clear cause and effect between smoking a single cigarette and developing cancer, or even between smoking a single cigarette and addiction. For a long time, tobacco companies used such equivocation to avoid regulation of their industry.
Instead, we look at the total effect (and often the intended effect) of multiple small changes, and decide whether they are a net positive for society.
Do we have a total effect of ads and fake news on society? Something that's actually reliable and not propaganda itself? It seems extremely difficult to be able to differentiate between an ad letting people know that a product exists and it directly influencing your decision. Or you could consider letting people know about the product existing as influencing the person, but then it's hard to argue that ads are actually bad.
With tobacco it's far easier to show a correlation, because people can just not smoke. People can't just avoid the effects of advertising, because it's all around us. Even word of mouth can be an ad campaign.
Also, tobacco probably is too regulated. It should be regulated to stop other people from experiencing the negative effects of somebody smoking. Limiting what flavors cigarettes can have and enormously taxing them seems like it has gone too far. People should be allowed to make their own choices in a free society.
> Do we have a total effect of ads and fake news on society? Something that's actually reliable and not propaganda itself? It seems extremely difficult to be able to differentiate between an ad letting people know that a product exists and it directly influencing your decision. Or you could consider letting people know about the product existing as influencing the person, but then it's hard to argue that ads are actually bad.
Thinking out loud, I would be curious to see a study on people who play 'Loot Box/Gacha' style games. Include both people who have been playing for a while, as well as people who 'start' playing during the study. Include non-players.
Measure their other 'vice' behaviors (i.e. Drinking alcohol, nicotine, real gambling, gentlemen's clubs, etc.) over the same time.
My hypothesis is that in those who are introduced to Gacha games, you will see an increase in other 'addictive' behavior, because the content they see will whittle away at their resistance to other addictive behaviors.
>My hypothesis is that in those who are introduced to Gacha games, you will see an increase in other 'addictive' behavior, because the content they see will whittle away at their resistance to other addictive behaviors.
I understand what pattern you're going for, but I don't think the study would show that. The number of people that play gacha games is small conjugated to the number of people that smoke, drink, gamble etc. Chances are that you'd likely see the reverse - doing those things could increase your likelihood of playing gacha games (or well, spending money on them - it's entirely possible to play most of these games as virtually free).
It isn’t exactly on point but at some level the investment industry is aware of the difference and does a fairly good job at walking the line. There’s a reason every prospectus looks the same: it’s meant to convey facts and let investors arrive at their own decision rather than “sell” them on making an investment.
> People should be allowed to make their own choices in a free society.
When the rest of the "free society" has to bear the costs of certain choices, it doesn't seem so illegitimate to argue that it has some interest in constraining those choices.
And there of course is the endless contradiction of being a social creature: on the one hand, being part of a society creates possibilities that were not there before, but also leads to constraints that were also not there before.
Endless political philosophers across centuries have grappled with how best to resolve this paradox, with no definitive answer at this point.
>My hypothesis is that in those who are introduced to Gacha games, you will see an increase in other 'addictive' behavior, because the content they see will whittle away at their resistance to other addictive behaviors.
But we obviously tolerate this to some extent. I think it's reasonable to limit smoking so that it doesn't cause second hand smoking effects on other people. However, going further than that seems odd to me. If they're only hurting themselves then I don't see the problem with it. We allow people to do extreme sports, we allow them to drink alcohol, we allow them to do high stress jobs, we allow them to eat sugar, we allow them to do a long list of things that can hurt them, but we tolerate most of those because people should be free to choose how to live their life. Yet somehow on a small list of things we control people's behavior. If they don't follow it then they're considered immoral. (We don't call them immoral, but that's how we treat them.)
People who are addicted to gacha are psychologically manipulated, not to mention the gambling aspects. Gambling is already regulated across the world.
Just like laws protect the physically weak from exploitation, they should protect the psychologically weak from psychological exploitation.
You wouldn't accept someone holding you at gunpoint demanding your money, and you would have no choice but to give up you belongings. Even though it was your choice to give up your stuff, you were coerced into it. gacha/loot boxes and similar addictive phenomena pry on your psych.
This isn't some conspiracy, this is a tried and true method which you can learn about from the whaler himself[1].
Instead, we look at the total effect (and often the intended effect) of multiple small changes, and decide whether they are a net positive for society.