That's also a common argument, and it's also not quite seeing the point. I will say, I don't know where you live, but at least in the UK they've done a lot to make people aware of the dangers, while simultaneously stripping almost all ability to market products.

Gambling machines were recently giving strict spending limits because of exactly the effect I described. People wouldn't realise they were throwing away all of their money.

More to the point, it's not about the existence of addictive things. You can become addicted to pretty much anything that is in any way "consumable." The reason why freemium games are different is because they are specifically designed to ensare addicts. These games aren't interested in the casual player who might spend a little bit of money, they're all about the people who will be consumed by the game and spend exorbitant amounts.

This might be fine for you, but it isn't for a lot of people, and it's very ethically questionable not to care about the people who will be victimised by these practices. I don't know why you would be opposed to these measures, unless you're okay with a game being free for you at the expense of others, which is scapegoating.

And no, they won't be free of their susceptibility to addiction, but you're letting off malovalent actors for their efforts in extorting the vulnerable by acting like this kind of monetisation isn't a problem.