• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

Discussion Activision, Meta sued over school shooting

Graystripe2000

Graystripe2000

Cappy
Pronouns
He/him
The attorney that managed to win a settlement for the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting has brought about lawsuits against Activision, Meta and rifle manufacturer Daniel Defense, claiming they all “bear responsibility for radicalizing a "socially vulnerable" demographic by glorifying violence and making weaponry easily accessible”, according to the Washington Post. They’re trying to connect Call of Duty to the promotion of real world weaponry.
Worth noting, from a GameDeveloper.com article:
While some of the rhetoric in the suits echoes 1990s attempts to legislate violence in video games, there is an angle here worth noting: the idea that targeted marketing among social media platforms is partially to blame for the situation.

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.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/24/uvalde-lawsuits-daniel-defense-meta-activision/

www.gamedeveloper.com

Lawsuit alleges Activision, Meta bear responsibility for Uvalde school shooting

A pair of lawsuits allege Meta, Activision, and rifle company Daniel Defense are partially responsible for the carnage in the Uvalde school shooting.
www.gamedeveloper.com www.gamedeveloper.com
 
At least they're not saying all videogames are at fault, and are finally focusing in on a franchise that does feature and promote firearms and them being used on people.

I've known several people who got really, really into firearms from playing CoD, and ended up becoming some of those fill-a-gun-safe-with-illegal-automatic-rifles types. One even went into the army saying that he wanted to be able to live out what he does in CoD. Scary shit.
 
So they obviously won’t win this lawsuit, but I do think that shooters should condemn gun ownership outside of the most dire circumstances in like splash screens before the game. Movies and games collectively have definitely contributed to gun ownership in the US and thus gun deaths.
 
Graystripe2000 said:
The attorney that managed to win a settlement for the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting has brought about lawsuits against Activision, Meta and rifle manufacturer Daniel Defense, claiming they all “bear responsibility for radicalizing a "socially vulnerable" demographic by glorifying violence and making weaponry easily accessible”, according to the Washington Post. They’re trying to connect Call of Duty to the promotion of real world weaponry.
Worth noting, from a GameDeveloper.com article:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/24/uvalde-lawsuits-daniel-defense-meta-activision/

www.gamedeveloper.com

Lawsuit alleges Activision, Meta bear responsibility for Uvalde school shooting

A pair of lawsuits allege Meta, Activision, and rifle company Daniel Defense are partially responsible for the carnage in the Uvalde school shooting.
www.gamedeveloper.com www.gamedeveloper.com
Click to expand...
The marketing angle is actually a fair point, but I don't think that's something Activision has any control over, does it? Wouldn't Meta be at fault for the targeted marketing, or is there something else I'm missing?
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I would say movies and video games are probably significantly responsible for the positive image guns have in the United States and that positive image is responsible for mass shootings.
Click to expand...
The association of fire arms with personal freedom and millions of political donations through the NRA is by far and away the actual reason for a positive perception, your examples are just results of that attitude that long predates video games.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I would say movies and video games are probably significantly responsible for the positive image guns have in the United States and that positive image is responsible for mass shootings.
Click to expand...
Shooters being popular in the US is the result of the US pushing a “guns = freedom” narrative for as long as it has, not the other way around.
 
I was under the impression the “video games cause violence” debate ended years ago
 
Huh, that's interesting... I can't say I know enough about law to speak too much of this, so correct me if I am wrong, but...

If a court were to rule that CoD does in fact promote real-life violence through simulated violence, doesn't that set a precedence for cases to be opened against all media that depicts violence on similar grounds? I feel like that would be a concern...
 
StretchNStripes said:
Huh, that's interesting... I can't say I know enough about law to speak too much of this, so correct me if I am wrong, but...

If a court were to rule that CoD does in fact promote real-life violence through simulated violence, doesn't that set a precedence for cases to be opened against all media that depicts violence on similar grounds? I feel like that would be a concern...
Click to expand...

There's basically 0 chance the court rules against Activision.
 
Here in Australia Call of Duty is wildly popular, and mass shootings are practically unheard of since we banned auto and semi-auto weapons in 1996.

Video games are not the issue.
 
curl-6 said:
Here in Australia Call of Duty is wildly popular, and mass shootings are practically unheard of since we banned auto and semi-auto weapons in 1996.

Video games are not the issue.
Click to expand...
I agree that video games as a whole are not the issue in the way that they tried to frame them in the 90s. But some videogames do contribute to gun culture, especially those that feature detailed models and usage of them in-game, the way Forza or Gran Turismo do for cars. I've personally seen people drawn in by CoD and begin buying up rifles and start talking about wanting to be able to use them on people in the ways they do in-game. Is the game the root of that problem? Absolutely not. Hell no. But their glorified depiction in some games sure does seem to contribute to an already-existing problem.

Granted the real solve would be far-reaching gun control rather than finger-pointing but still, I've seen firsthand what CoD symbolizes to some people and it's scary as hell.
 
Hidden content is only available for registered users. Sharing it outside of Famiboards is subject to moderation.
According to the complaint, the Robb school shooter downloaded a version of “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare,” in November 2021 that featured the DDM4V7 model rifle Ramos would later purchase on the game’s opening title page. Drawing from the shooter’s social media accounts, Koskoff argued he was being bombarded with explicit marketing and combat imagery from the company on Instagram.
Click to expand...
The argument being made against Activision isn't "damn this seems pretty violent," it's that Activision's depiction of this firearm in Call of Duty constitutes marketing it to a minor. That said, the primary focus here is on Meta advertising the weapons directly via Instagram, which seems to be a more promising avenue for the prosecution.

Reducing this lawsuit to a tired replay of the same talking points Gamers have recycled for years is lazy and ignores the point of the suit. Understanding why people view the portrayal of real guns within games as legally dubious marketing will not detract from your Gamer Cred.
 
Apopheniac said:
According to the complaint, the Robb school shooter downloaded a version of “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare,” in November 2021 that featured the DDM4V7 model rifle Ramos would later purchase on the game’s opening title page. Drawing from the shooter’s social media accounts, Koskoff argued he was being bombarded with explicit marketing and combat imagery from the company on Instagram.
Click to expand...
See that's what I'm talking about. If someone were to say Halo glorifies and contributes to gun violence I'd argue against that due to the very fantastical (sometimes even humorous) sci-fi way everything is built and portrayed there. Or even TF2 or Fortnite or Overwatch or whatever. But the games that are made and marketed to be realistic modern military shooting sims featuring real-ass guns being used on realistic people? That's different.
 
I’ll never blame videogames for any type of violent or illegal activities.

First place they should study is the upbringings of the perpetrators.

Why not just sue anything with guns in it???

I feel for any victim or relative but they’re missing the point.
 
chocolate_supra said:
At least they're not saying all videogames are at fault, and are finally focusing in on a franchise that does feature and promote firearms and them being used on people.

I've known several people who got really, really into firearms from playing CoD, and ended up becoming some of those fill-a-gun-safe-with-illegal-automatic-rifles types. One even went into the army saying that he wanted to be able to live out what he does in CoD. Scary shit.
Click to expand...
Many games do that…

I enjoyed shooting guys in the head in Goldeneye but it didn’t make me think anything of it in the real world.
 
Thread title would be better with Meta in it, as otherwise it’s suggesting it’s just a rehash of ‘games cause gun violence’ which isn’t what it’s about.

Targeted advertising on social media, of guns to minors, is some pretty grim stuff. The fault isn’t with the games, it’s that Meta’s algorithm leaps from ‘kid played military videogame’ to ‘huh they must really want to see ads about real-life military-grade guns! Let’s secure our advertisers that sale!’ That’s just not right. While I don’t get the US’s obsession with access to guns, and find the whole nationalism link behind CoD, US schools and military recruitment be extremely concerning, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for any social media targeted advertising to make sure it’s not promoting firearms to teenagers based on what video games they enjoy. Hell, I don’t get why firearms companies are allowed to openly advertise to minors full stop. If you know how old the user of the Facebook account is, it’s surely not that hard to say ‘yeah let’s avoid the algorithm putting ads for rifles in front of teenagers regardless’.
 
Last edited:
Enpsty said:
The whole world loves action movies and shooting games, but we don't have a positive image on guns.
Click to expand...
This is something I have a hard time understanding probably because of my perspective being from America. I see people play games like this and watch action movies and absolutely salivate over the guns and the depiction of their use. It's part of the core of their enjoyment of the media. But if people in other countries have a negative image of guns, how could they enjoy watching/playing these depictions of them? How are they not uncomfortable as soon as these things are on screen?

And I'm not trying to say that as a gotcha, I'm saying I honestly don't understand and I want to. Because again, from my personal experience people play these games and watch these movies because they love the guns and enjoy the simulated acts of using them on people.
 
chocolate_supra said:
This is something I have a hard time understanding probably because of my perspective being from America. I see people play games like this and watch action movies and absolutely salivate over the guns and the depiction of their use. It's part of the core of their enjoyment of the media. But if people in other countries have a negative image of guns, how could they enjoy watching/playing these depictions of them? How are they not uncomfortable as soon as these things are on screen?

And I'm not trying to say that as a gotcha, I'm saying I honestly don't understand and I want to. Because again, from my personal experience people play these games and watch these movies because they love the guns and enjoy the simulated acts of using them on people.
Click to expand...
It's the same with violence. People like gore in their movies or games, but as soon as you see something violent in real life you feel shocked and disgusted.
 
Enpsty said:
It's the same with violence. People like gore in their movies or games, but as soon as you see something violent in real life you feel shocked and disgusted.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm just not fit to really relate because gore disgusts me in movies and games too 😅

But yeah, like I know people who are into horror movies but I never ever hear them talk about how cool it'd be to do that in real life. But the people I've known who play CoD absolutely do talk about how cool it'd be to do that stuff in real life.

And then they went out and stocked up on guns as soon as they were old enough to buy them.
 
0
chocolate_supra said:
This is something I have a hard time understanding probably because of my perspective being from America. I see people play games like this and watch action movies and absolutely salivate over the guns and the depiction of their use. It's part of the core of their enjoyment of the media. But if people in other countries have a negative image of guns, how could they enjoy watching/playing these depictions of them? How are they not uncomfortable as soon as these things are on screen?

And I'm not trying to say that as a gotcha, I'm saying I honestly don't understand and I want to. Because again, from my personal experience people play these games and watch these movies because they love the guns and enjoy the simulated acts of using them on people.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I’ll try and explain it from my point of view. I think it’s the difference between fantasy action films and thrillers and games and being uncomfortable around guns in real life because of the capacity for carnage and near-instant mass murder. In my country I have never seen a gun in real life outside of occasionally seeing very small numbers of specialist armed police at big public demonstrations in the capital etc, or perhaps the odd air rifle in the country for hunting when I was much, much younger (most are banned now). So me seeing an Arnie film where a hundred people get shot, or Die Hard, some ludicrous violent military videogame or whatever, wasn’t that different to seeing a film of King Arthur swinging swords around- it’s all in the realm of complete fantasy to me. So to see people randomly toting guns in real life makes me uneasy here. Whereas American media exports (and also UK thrillers centred around military/espionage etc) of gun-heavy action films are almost so universal as a genre that it’s endemic. But it’s a complete, strict barrier between what’s normal in real life (subjectively, to me) being guns being extremely restricted to trained people with a specific purpose and a ton of oversight, compared to the realm of media/fantasy, which the vast majority of shoot-em up films and TV and games squarely fit in, alongside swords and bows and superheroes.
 
Last edited:
chocolate_supra said:
But if people in other countries have a negative image of guns, how could they enjoy watching/playing these depictions of them? How are they not uncomfortable as soon as these things are on screen?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say other countries love guns per se, rather that using guns is just another form of exciting action in the summer blockbusters and competitive multiplayer FPSes.

Another possibility is that guns simply aren’t as accessible in other countries. A pistol or shotgun is something you rarely encounter in real life. There’s also a tacit understanding that regular civilians shouldn’t be carrying heat.
 
PixelKnight said:
Hmm. I’ll try and explain it from my point of view. I think it’s the difference between fantasy action films and thrillers and games and being uncomfortable around guns in real life because of the capacity for carnage and near-instant mass murder. In my country I have never seen a gun in real life outside of occasionally seeing very small numbers of specialist armed police at big public demonstrations in the capital etc, or perhaps the odd air rifle in the country for hunting when I was much, much younger (most are banned now). So me seeing an Arnie film where a hundred people get shot, or Die Hard, some ludicrous violent military videogame or whatever, wasn’t that different to seeing a film of King Arthur swinging swords around- it’s all in the realm of complete fantasy to me. So to see people randomly toting guns in real life makes me uneasy here, whereas American media output (and also UK thrillers centred around military/espionage etc) are almost so universal as a genre that it’s endemic. It’s a complete, strict barrier between what’s normal in real life (subjectively, to me) being guns being extremely restricted, and what’s the realm of media/fantasy, which the vast majority of shoot-em up films and TV and games squarely fit in, alongside swords and bows and superheroes.
Click to expand...
So the restriction makes them seem almost like items of fantasy to yall, making it easier to separate their use in movies/games from the real-life usage. I get that.

So I guess the difference is it's not a fantasy here. Because my perspective being American is, I see an Arnie film or Die Hard or something where a hundred people get shot and I start to think of Uvalde or Sandy Hook, or the cops (or Rittenhouses) shooting at protestors, and I begin to feel weird sitting there watching something that looks like the news but with a cinematographer.
 
chocolate_supra said:
So the restriction makes them seem almost like items of fantasy to yall, making it easier to separate their use in movies/games from the real-life usage. I get that.

So I guess the difference is it's not a fantasy here. Because my perspective being American is, I see an Arnie film or Die Hard or something where a hundred people get shot and I start to think of Uvalde or Sandy Hook, and I begin to feel weird sitting there watching something that looks like the news but with a cinematographer.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s the difference, in both cases. A blur of media and reality is understandably frightening, which is why I find the whole ‘CoD used as recruiting tool in the US’ thing terrifying. Like, taking what’s effectively a plaything and the modern version of kids playing tag or hide and seek or whatever (despite its adult age rating that kids and adults ignored since they were a thing) and turning it into a tool for recruitment. And then military recruiters turn up at schools after years of saluting a flag. That’s just blurring the line of a fantasy game about shooting people in other countries, for teenagers, who are then recruited to go do that. And now Facebook is happy for its targeted advertising to continue that blur. For me it goes way beyond ‘video games bad’ here. Activision’s daft military propaganda game is already a blurred line that makes it extremely sus and distasteful. But Meta’s (or anyone else’s) targeted algorithm that then makes a link in selling real rifles to teenagers after they’ve played a fantasy shoot em up with a body count in the hundreds with NPCs telling them how cool and badass and effective they are is even worse.

That societal ‘blur’ in targeted advertising based on metadata and propaganda and cross-promotion is the problem. Which is why any one element feels like ‘is this really that bad’, while when taken together in context, as the legal argument does in this case, it becomes ‘bigger than the sum of its parts’. Of course games don’t cause violence. Of course a country where guns are legal has guns for sale (and presumably various checks and restrictions on them). Of course social media collects your info. Of course it lets advertisers target groups of consumers. Of course action films wanting to use US military vehicles are only allowed to do so if it makes them look good. Of course the military is allowed to position itself as an attractive career. Of course a fictional action shooter game is allowed to make military service seem cool and foreign countries all more incompetent and evil or requiring morally justifiable intervention because x atrocity or whatever. But the blur becomes both more profitable and problematic the wider it occurs across all these things, even while no one element is illegal.

meatbag said:
There’s also a tacit understanding that regular civilians shouldn’t be carrying heat.
Click to expand...
Because no matter what conspiracy theories that weirdo down the road thinks, their right to feel safe by larping with military-grade kit doesn’t trump the right of everyone else not to have to fear a shoot-out in a disagreement over a parking space or dropping a parcel off or whatever, or to fear schools getting shot up on a regular basis for whatever reason.
 
Last edited:
PixelKnight said:
Like, taking what’s effectively a plaything and the modern version of kids playing tag or hide and seek or whatever (despite its adult age rating that kids and adults ignored since they were a thing) and turning it into a tool for recruitment. And then military recruiters turn up at schools after years of saluting a flag. That’s just blurring the line of a fantasy game about shooting people in other countries, for teenagers, who are then recruited to go do that.
Click to expand...
Yeah and that's pretty much the exact path that one of the people I knew followed. He was even disappointed when he got into the army and found it wasn't nearly as much as like CoD as he thought it would be.

I wish I were exaggerating and that that wasn't an actual conversation from when he was home on leave, but alas.
 
Speaking for myself, I hate guns and real life violence sickens me, yet I love playing shooters or watching action movies.

Fantasy and reality are two completely separate things, and my brain perceives them as such. I know I am looking at polygons or corn syrup when I see a bullet hit someone in a movie or a video game, not actual flesh and blood. Polygons don't feel pain and nobody is being harmed.

I am of course a product of my environment though; gun violence is a rarity here because guns are heavily restricted and generally viewed by most people as something suspect rather than awesome.

We play all the same violent games and watch all the same violent movies as America, so I don't think the old "blame it on the media" argument is any more accurate now than it was in the 90s when the right claimed that Doom and Wolfenstein would turn Millennials into a generation of serial killers.
 
Last edited:
After reading the article for a bit, I understand their argument a bit better. It’s about targeting the specific weapon as part of a marketing algorithm.

There are people who are very sensitive to these kind of things so it doesn’t surprise me. On the one hand, you can wave it away and think “pssh, if they want the algorithm to push me things that I can buy. I won’t crack, not today satan!” However I do know that some folks can’t resist the urge when the right things are pushed towards them. Its not the biggest group of people… but they are out there.
 
curl-6 said:
We play all the same violent games and watch all the same violent movies as America, so I don't think the old "blame it on the media" logic is any more accurate now than it was in the 90s when the right claimed that Doom would turn Millennials into a generation of serial killers.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that blaming the media entirely is misguided, but I've seen firsthand too many examples of media reinforcing gun culture and presenting it as heroic to young people who then grow up to think guns are cool and fun if not a moral right. Again, I literally watched someone go through the path of playing CoD -> becoming obsessed with guns -> becoming interested in having the chance to shoot people for real -> joining the army with the express intent of getting to shoot people -> being disappointed that the army was mostly chores and patrols instead of actively shooting people on exciting missions like in CoD.

Now, was CoD to blame for that? Nah, he was surely dealing with a whole host of other issues but watching the way he reacted to the game and used it as a jumping-off point into interest in the guns featured I'd say it was a contributing factor. I definitely don't think media portrayal of gun violence is the root cause of real-life gun violence but I have spent years seeing it feed into the pile of many other reinforcing factors in America that promote guns and frame their users as heroes. I understand that's not the way it hits people in other countries but it hits people that way here big time. I don't think it's off-base to say it's at most a contributing factor, at least in America where the culture is already priming people for it.
 
0
don't want to challenge how accessible it is to acquire guns in this country, no, gotta go after media

condolences for the people who lost their lives in Uvalde but you'd have a better chance suing the police department -- who is also a key component to what happened in Uvalde
 
Silky said:
don't want to challenge how accessible it is to acquire guns in this country, no, gotta go after media
Click to expand...
They are absolutely challenging it. The press conference where the governor and state reps showed up to give lip service turned into a shouting match where people were removed as locals and victims' families were blaming the state for not doing anything about gun control. Parents of kids who were killed ran for local office on a platform of gun control lost their elections. It absolutely sucks, but do not think these people aren't challenging gun access.

Silky said:
condolences for the people who lost their lives in Uvalde but you'd have a better chance suing the police department -- who is also a key component to what happened in Uvalde
Click to expand...
They are.
Well technically not the local police but the Texas State police, after settling with the city.
 
If they can show proof that Activision goes out of its way to market these games to children ... then the fact is they have a case.
 
0
Cheddarchet said:
The marketing angle is actually a fair point, but I don't think that's something Activision has any control over, does it? Wouldn't Meta be at fault for the targeted marketing, or is there something else I'm missing?
Click to expand...
Doesn't Activision have to pay millions of dollars for the ad spots?
 
0
There is certainly a problem with the way guns and violence are portrayed in video games, but the same criticisms can be levied against legacy media too.

For me the problem isn't even violence but the way games like CoD propagandise warfare, to make it appealing to young people. But that doesn't seem to be what they're attacking here.
 
Isn't CoD rated M? It's pegi 18 here at least.

I know that those are usually ignored but that should pretty much make them not guilty
 
Zemya said:
Isn't CoD rated M? It's pegi 18 here at least.

I know that those are usually ignored but that should pretty much make them not guilty
Click to expand...
IIRC unlike PEGI and USK, there is nothing mandating that you can't sell games to people under below the stated age rating.

Which... look, I have my issues with the USK and how Germany handles game sales, but I'm also of the opinion that maybe you shouldn't let kids buy stuff that is not meant for kids.
 
0
spekkeh said:
Activision can definitely be to blame here:


Click to expand...

This is by far the most disgusting practice I’ve ever witnessed in the gaming industry. I’m not even exaggerating I don’t see what can come close to this. Arms companies and the American 2A lobby (which is the same thing btw) are responsible for every single school shooting. To everyone saying “can’t blame videogames” they’re not blaming the videogame, they’re blaming Activision for letting weapons manufacturers advertise guns on their fucking gun shooting game. I hope they get ripped to shreds in court.
 
Smash Kirby said:
Didn't the FBI know about this person and they on their radar? Why aren't they being sued as well?
Click to expand...
The shooter at Sandy Hook? They probably aren’t being sued because they shot themselves dead during the police response.
The FBI? No idea. Seems like they had easy access to a lot of legally owned guns and ammo without any reason to be on a federal database, something that caused a lot of debate but no tangible result afterwards.
A gun safe was found in a bedroom and investigators found more than 1,400 rounds of ammunition and other firearms.[129] At home, Lanza had access to three more firearms: a .45 Henry rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle.[130][131][132] These were legally owned by Lanza's mother, who was described as a gun enthusiast.
Click to expand...
en.m.wikipedia.org

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org




The claim here is in relentless targeted advertising of specific real weapons to teenagers, something enabled through commercial deals between Activision and the gun manufacturer, and then the algorithm serving targeted ads on Meta. The case claims that all this commercial activity contributes to glorifying gun violence and real life weapons specifically to kids now interested in guns to a far greater extent than (fictional) games have in the past. I have no doubt that if the shooter had survived, there would be civil claims against them from representatives of the victims’ families while they serve life imprisonment for mass murder too. The suits also seek accountability from the police for waiting an hour to go in as well.
 
Last edited:
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I would say movies and video games are probably significantly responsible for the positive image guns have in the United States and that positive image is responsible for mass shootings.
Click to expand...
Literally almost every single country are under the same cultural influences that glorifies guns and killing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom