• thesmokingman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    5 months ago

    I did some cursory searches to find the actual arguments and came up blank. It’s important to note this isn’t the standard “video games cause violence” lawsuit that has absolutely no merit. This is different. The summary presented in articles is that this gun manufacturer explicitly marketed their product for things like this using a sophisticated campaign. If I understand the summary correctly, it therefore hinges on both the marketing of this specific gun and its presence across the digital landscape. The parents aren’t going after shooting in games; they’re going after a company that actively markets its products on social media and in video games.

    It’s novel. I’m kinda skeptical because the solution would have to limit product placement and advertisement which has a massive lobby. There’s also nothing that really says “this specific gun leads to violence” without implicitly relying on the whole “video games cause violence” which is bullshit.

    • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      There’s precedent though. Alcohol and tobacco have significant restrictions on marketing material. I would argue that firearms should fall into the same category.

      My impression was the same- eye roll at the “videogames cause violence” argument that’s been beaten to death, but I actually think they may have a point when it comes to marketing.

      Sadly, I also think that COD is a military recruitment strategy (Boy Boy did a video breaking down the way the American recruiters use COD to capture a certain demographic) so I don’t think this lawsuit will go anywhere. Thought-provoking though.