Tencent and NetEase Lose $80 Billion in Value as China Announces New Rules to Limit Game Spending - News

Sorry no, freedoms can contradict each other, that is basic knowledge. And companies as a whole act in difference to individuals, the individuals are in a framework that defines their decisions, not completely free. I don't give a crap about freedoms of companies and if you would at all care about freedoms of individuals you would as well. Companies are authoritarian organizations, nothing democratic, not free.

And it is funny you describe companies as collectives of individuals, because governments and states are also collectives of individuals.

Yes a company is run by people, but you refuse to acknowledge a very basic principle. Personal goals are inherently different from company goals. When a company decides actions, the personal goals will not be considered, but economical goals (which means profit maximization). Most CEOs strives for profit maximization with little regard to civil disadvantages, whether or not his own beliefs are contradicting it. Therefore, it is absolutely correct to limit exploitation and addiction inducing practices for a better society. Rules and regulations are necessary. By your logic, no crime whatsoever should be punished because the action was done by choice and in free will. Because why the fuck should I be held accountable for, let's say, thievery, because I decided that I should steal a car and my freedom to do so is so much more important than other peoples misery. I hope you understand that the world doesn't work when everybody does whatever he wants.
In the context of the article, it is beneficial to the chinese society when there are less gaming addicted people. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Companies aren't people.

Companies primary focus is to extract as much profit as they can in order to appease shareholders, in-fact it is a legal requirement for them to do so.
And this is often done at the expense of the customer.

Case in point: Closed ecosystems, propriety form factors, forced services and more.

A good example of this is where Intel made a ton of backroom deals to keep AMD from gaining any marketshare a few decades ago, which prevented AMD's development and then Intel then stagnated for a decade with stupidly high prices and products that didn't offer any tangible benefits year on year.

Intel was eventually found to be in violation of the law.

Microsoft was found to employ similar tactics with Windows and it's Web Browsers, which thankfully Government intervention resolved.

The workers, who tend to be the bulk of what makes up a company, tend not to decide a company's direction or ethics.

The companies obligations to make as much money as they can for the companies top 1% and to pay as little tax as possible tends to dictate a companies ethics and direction.

If you want to go deeper onto healthcare, I am more than happy to provide endless amounts of evidence how our Government run-Health system beats the pants off the American one.

Again. We have cheaper healthcare, better healthcare, longer life expectancy, lower mortality rates and more.
I've been to the USA and seen how much of an embarrassment that system is.

Government intervention doesn't take away your freedoms, it can provide genuine benefits and they often do... But the American culture seems adverse to it, while large swathes of Europe and Oceania embrace it and reap the positives.

Again...

People before companies.
People before profits.

When people start supporting billion/trillion dollar companies over the hard working individual, then that is an issue and a conflict of their own personal interest.