It's obvious because it's clearly a false dichotomy... not everything maps 1 to 1 from real world to digital world, and things you learn in one may not be learnable in the other.
Equating farm visitation to playing farming simulator is absurd, literally no one would support that the digital counterpart is more absolutely valuable, whatever that means (the onus of figuring that out is on you)
But sure, I'll go with an easy cookie cutter example just to fit your argument - letting a kid play flight simulator is much easier, faster, and affordable than enrolling them in a flight school. Maybe you're too poor to even consider a real school, but playing a video game is still a valid way to see if flight might be a genuine interest. Is it then a worthless endeavour?
Non-wasy examples would have you try to come up with direct alternatives to abstact thinking ( "obviously me making some weird DIY things will be better than playing a puzzle game" - absurd)
Attacking the digital medium is absolutely not the way we'll figure out how to move forward.
That's definitely true, and I think this may be one of the least bad. But when it becomes that the actual "perceived leaders" of the world subscribe to it, the ideology is no longer silly on the macro scale and we all end up trying to scam each other for money in ways that arent _inherently_ wrong, just _practically_ destroying the world.
Most definitely a sexist, yes. Just like your parents raised you to be a "gentleman", their generation was raising women to have absolutely no self-esteem or self-confidence, therefore in need of "saving"
The "good old days" were never good for anyone except the abusers. That would be you. Please think carefully about your values.
"They won't listen to users and keep building devices that have no market"
You just listed an idea according to yourself with literally no market data or budgetary notions. Of course you would do better than any of the companies that actually know what it means working this stuff
>And this opinion is shared by many of people I know
Unfortunately "people this guy knows" isn't a real market and has no bearing on whether a product would be successful or not
Yeah, that will result in only pre-established games making it onto the store because no one will even risk having to pay that fee for a game there is no market benchmark for.
Have fun seeing only AAA titles and clones thereof in the store. But hey, at least you can be lazy and not have to put a little effort into finding cool new stuff!
Greenlight is a muddy mess of copycats, but imposing a barrier like this to all indie devs universally is a terrible idea. Most likely, it will never even work since indie devs will just move to the next platform where they can actually do their job; Steam will lose all its interest and become a sort of playstation store for PC
If there isn't anything inherently wrong with collecting, and future abuse is the only thing you are worried about, then you should probably worry about protecting against abuses, not collecting. Especially if you have no other point to be had for privacy, when the opposition claims unobjected that giving it up can and does save lives.
That said, I think the criminal breach argument is a valid one but the one that really nails it is one already mentioned above:
"privacy isn't something you can just give up. It's a right given to society by our framers, not individuals. A smoothly functioning democracy depends on dissent, which requires privacy to allow alternate points of view to gain traction. So privacy is a social good, not a personal right, and if we reduce privacy, we are reducing our democracy. The Soviets didn't have privacy. Free countries must."
Sans the soviet part, in my opinion... Seems useless and even fallaciously counter-productive to mention it, I don't get why it's even there
edit: What I mean by the first paragraph, in case it's not clear, is that most technologies can and probably will be abused, which doesn't go a long way to say that they should be forbidden right at the start, if there is good to be had in them. You just have to be careful not to allow abuses (which by your post I figured you don't think are happening at this moment)
Equating farm visitation to playing farming simulator is absurd, literally no one would support that the digital counterpart is more absolutely valuable, whatever that means (the onus of figuring that out is on you)
But sure, I'll go with an easy cookie cutter example just to fit your argument - letting a kid play flight simulator is much easier, faster, and affordable than enrolling them in a flight school. Maybe you're too poor to even consider a real school, but playing a video game is still a valid way to see if flight might be a genuine interest. Is it then a worthless endeavour?
Non-wasy examples would have you try to come up with direct alternatives to abstact thinking ( "obviously me making some weird DIY things will be better than playing a puzzle game" - absurd)
Attacking the digital medium is absolutely not the way we'll figure out how to move forward.