If you try to access the website with disabled javascript or while blocking ads, you'll be redirected to a HTML page that kinda only says "We know you are using a blocking script and want you to disable it".
The most negative ones would be: - Content blocking: you limit access to your news to a very precise subset of people, so implicitly easily targeting and closing users's views. - Heaviness: you limit access to your news to mainly desktop targets, as most mobile networks have very limited bandwidth usage.
Also it have a positive impact on you, also me (as I decided to add it and all its subdomains to my blocklist) but a lot of users will keep living under those website's constraints, but also gaining the habit of that, thus starting to think about it as "normal" where it's really the Web and net neutrality cancer.
* * * block
* * css allow
* 1st-party image allow
But if gambling should be banned, why are lotteries still allowed? They are arguably the worst kind of gambling.
You are right that booster-pack based collectible card games are basically gambling (and they are definitely also targeting minors). However, there is also a significant difference between a game that front-loads this gambling (you know what you are getting into, and you buy and construct your card deck before a game) and a game that tacks it on an existing game. It a gray zone if the loot box contents offer no in-game advantage (e.g. Valve sticks to purely cosmetic items for their games), but is pretty sinister from both the game design and ethical perspective if it offers an edge in the game. It's back-loaded gambling, where a pay-gamble-to-win scenario is dangled in front of the player after getting killed in a shooter.
Edit: I see now you mean randomised ones, and I wholly agree with you
Online games dodge these three elements:
-In terms of consideration, the subscription fee doesn't count because it grants players access to the game world, which includes much more play elements than just the drop system, and the player's time doesn't really count since nothing of value to anyone else results from their play time. Note that this gets more murky for Asian-style gachapon-monetized games where the player directly spends virtual currency purchased with real money to roll for virtual items.
-In terms of prize, the fine print of most online games' TOS say quite explicitly that the player has no property rights or ownership of any items they get within the game.(If this weren't the case, they would have to compensate players for the loss of property when the game closed down or if the player were banned.) Since one doesn't "own" a drop, there's technically no prize per se.
-In terms of chance, most likely gaming companies would argue that killing a mob or raid boss counts as some sort of skill. Again, Asian-style gachapon-monetized games are on much shakier ground here.
That being said, it's not impossible that new legislation could expand these definitions to include online games and it's arguable that they should be; you have to admit that there's something unsavory about intentionally exposing minors to gambling-like systems to hook them into playing your game.
(I am not a lawyer and nothing said above should be construed as legal advice.)
While killing a mob/boss is likely to have associations to the actual play and learning of the game.
