And yes, you can have sexual characters with interesting characterization! But when sexualization is applied to so much of the female cast, it just gets samey and feels like the creator is saying "Only attractive women make good protagonists."

People continue to miss the point of what was actually being criticized. It's not wrong to have a sexual female (or male!) character. It's that for most of gaming's lifespan, 90% of female characters were sexualized or had the same body type. It was shallow fantasy over interesting characterization.

The more modern social media focused sites are kind of exhausting, so I get it.

Everyone forgets "freedom of association" is also a thing, and no one is obligated to be exposed to speech they don't want to be around! It's the same reason why it's legally mandatory for email accounts to stop messaging you if you unsubscribe from them!

I didn't mean to pass blame or shame to anyone to be clear, just saying that sometimes it can be a bummer to be reminded that you have to grind for money to get basic needs in the current system. That's pretty much why people associate "selling X for money" with "Capitalism".

I'm not sure who you're rebutting but I think the word they're looking for is "Mercantile". To be fair, sometimes it can be a bit disillusioning to go to a place for escapism and be met with a bunch of people trying to sell you something.

I just can't see bigger and bigger open worlds in games being sustainable in the long term. Places like Night City are fun to walk around in but then it kind of falls apart once you try to put a game in that huge environment. It's not about size! It's about *things* and the variety of *things*!

If these laws said something like "Social media companies must provide password protected parental controls so parents can moderate content and turn off automated recommendation feeds" I would be 100% on board with that. But the goal is collecting data and censorship, so it ain't like that.

To be fair there are ways to regulate things i.e provide content filters that don't suck and aren't government censorship or an invasion of privacy. I'm reminded of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 that required all TVs sold in the U.S to have (OPTIONAL) parental controls for parents to use.

Also see: any politician that boasts about "no property tax!"

Every politician that boasts about "no income tax!" Is just a slight of hand to push more regressive taxes that hurt the poor, like sales tax and tariffs.