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.
reply"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.
reply"Vote with your wallet" in a K shaped economy simply becomes the slogan of modern feudalism.
replyFunnily 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.
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?
replyThis is victim blaming. The customer is not the one deciding make the batteries non-removable. This is protection from Nintendo.
replyI 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.
replyYes but eliminating unnecessary e-waste is a good thing for everyone.
replyThis 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.