• BroBot9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    “In terms of the Call of Duty publisher’s alleged responsibility, the lawsuits seek to connect the promotion of real-world weaponry to “vulnerable” young men who are "insecure about their masculinity, often bullied, eager to show strength and assert dominance.”

    “The suits reportedly paint a detailed picture of Daniel Defense’s aggressive marketing, using Facebook and Instagram to “bombard” Ramos with material glorifying assault rifles after he downloaded a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare game in November 2021.”

    It’s targeted data stalking on the mentally unstable and pushing them to extremism.

    There needs to be accountability and a stop to targeting people for the sake of profits.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      There have been numerous studies debunking links between violent video games and violence. This is the 80’s Satanic Panic all over again with a different wrapper and target.

      400 police failed them, not activision. Then they voted for the same leadership at the next election. It’s like everyone from the first responders onward just takes turns reacting to this shooting in head scratching ways.

      • BroBot9000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I’m not complaining about violent video games like some Christian boomer. I’ve played them all my life and have no issues with realistic violence.

        It’s the companies marketing them using data tracking and social media. Them getting directly connected to gun manufacturers through targeted ads is the issue. It’s exposing the mentality unstable to a barrage of targeted ads and pushing them down the crazy pipeline that social media has created.

        Meta needs to be held accountable and if it takes M$ and gun manufacturers with them all the better.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ah, I misunderstood the point you were making, I apologize for my assumptions.

          Much as I hate ads (and especially targeted ads which involve datamining by corporations), I’m still not convinced this is something that can win in court, but I do see the distinction you are drawing.

    • mechoman444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re not intentionally targeting the mentally ill to sell them guns so they can perform crimes with them.

      What’s happening is this mentally ill person was searching things, the algorithm caught on and sent them advertisements to persuade them to purchase more of the things he was looking at.

      The algorithm doesn’t really care what it is as long as it qualifies in whatever marketing parameters they have.

      Did the algorithm persuade or affect the person’s actions and promoted the crimes that they committed. Probably not. Do these predatory marketing firms have some kind of accountability? They probably do.

      But not for the reasons that you think.

      • BroBot9000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You are literally making my argument.

        The algorithm is causing this and it’s creators need to be held accountable. Thats the fucking point.

        • mechoman444@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          And I’m telling you that the algorithm isn’t causing this.

          The underlying root cause of these things have nothing to do with marketing or any algorithm that any marketing firm employs.

          The underlying issues are mental illness and a lack of mental health Care in America Not to mention the basically suggestions we have for gun control instead of laws.

          Marketing firms cannot and should not be held accountable for people freely using the internet or any other service that also have mental illness

          The relevant conundrum is that they should regardless take some kind of responsibility for this Even if they have no liability.

          The fact that you are even talking about stuff like this even if it is out of ignorance and probably naivety is that you are detracting from the underlying issues causing these things to occur in the first place.

          This whole thing is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit specifically designed to make a little bit of profit from a settlement preying on the grief and torment of people who lost a child in that terrible shooting.