While the game can be “addicting”, it is mostly because it is fun to play. Not all “addicting” forms of entertainment need elevated ratings because they are fun to consume. We don’t increase the ratings for binge worthy TV shows and we don’t restrict books if they are page turners, so why should we with a video game. At some point people need to regulate the use of their time themselves.
It was rather difficult to understand the point of this essay. It doesn’t state its thesis until about the middle. The first half is a philosophical review of automation games, taking a detour to explain what the word automation could mean (why?) to eventually arrive at the conclusion that tech bros (incorrectly associating them with Silicon Valley, which is focused on hardware, not software) are bad. The reasoning for which seems to be largely an opinion stated as fact with the supporting evidence being that these games are unrealistic.
I found it difficult to engage with these ideas because the linkage between them is so incredibly stretched that it is hard to see the connection at all.
The “willingly” makes the difference there. That changes it from negligence to intentional, and those are legally distinct.
If Amazon, or another marketplace, isn’t aware of the danger of a product sold by a vendor on their platform, it’s not clear if Amazon, or the market provider, is responsible. Amazon is arguing that they aren’t, but I don’t know enough of the law to say if that is a settled question.