I don't think customers need to be protected from themselves. If they don't like the hardware but buy it anyways because they really like the game, that's a choice. And I feel that when we're dealing with luxury goods, we should give consumers very broad discretion to vote with their money.

▲

jackb4040 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Vote with money" is such a funny talking point in this discussion. It's a metaphor for actual voting, with votes, which the people already did, for politicians who are now protecting their interests. You just don't like corporations being told what to do.

	▲	johnnyanmac an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"Vote with your wallet" in a K shaped economy simply becomes the slogan of modern feudalism. Funnily enough, these regulations were made by policy makers who were voted in with votes, and put such a regulation to its own vote. It's the most democratic way to approach this.

▲

enaaem 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Companies like these enjoy artificial monopolies thanks to IP laws. Why don’t we have the freedom to copy their products and make them the way we want?

▲

Zambyte 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is victim blaming. The customer is not the one deciding make the batteries non-removable. This is protection from Nintendo.

▲

Waterluvian 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I just don't need a government to declare that I'm a victim by treating me like I'm not capable of saying, "no, the Switch 2 isn't cutting it for the pricetag. I'll skip this gen's Pokemon." This isn't bread. It's a luxury good.

	▲	ToucanLoucan 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but eliminating unnecessary e-waste is a good thing for everyone. This isn't about the government being your nanny, it's about the government, long term, building a better more sustainable society for everyone, as it should be doing. And I don't think there's a reasonable objection to that.