this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
71 points (98.6% liked)

Slop.

804 readers
665 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"They" are a bunch of sexual deviants that want to destroy Western civilisation and white people by promoting homosexuality, feminism and transgender ideology

but also they're pearl-clutching prudes that want to ban whatever fucked up hentai I'm into

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They tried that already.

2022 Lawsuit against Valve over CS:GO skin gambling dismissed

...

Court argued that the plaintiffs, who were suing on behalf of their children, had never used Steam and therefore couldn't claim they were misled

Prior to the January dismissal, an arbitration process had ruled in favour of Valve, saying the company wasn't behind third-party websites such as CS:GO Lounge nor did it encourage players to use them.

The case then moved on to focus on whether Valve had violated the Washington's Consumer Protection Act over its use of lootboxes in CS:GO, "which they characterised as unlicensed gambling disguised as a video game," PC Gamer explained.

Ultimately, that last remaining claim was dismissed because the parents "never visited a Valve or Steam website, never used Steam, never played CS:GO, and never saw or read any representations from Valve about CS:GO, keys, or weapon cases."

As a result, the court argued that any attempt from Valve to warn about its lootbox mechanics would have gone unseen by the plaintiffs and therefore they could not claim to have been misled.

...

The plaintiffs are now unable to appeal the court's decision as their claim has been dismissed with prejudice.