4 ms·

Okay, putting asbestos underwear on: In most modern societies, we agree that children have limitations on the "people should be free to live their lives as the

by hakfoo 8y ago

Okay, putting asbestos underwear on: In most modern societies, we agree that children have limitations on the "people should be free to live their lives as they want" mindset. Otherwise, we'd be letting four year olds subsist solely on candy, hot dogs, and twenty hours a day of the Best of Elsagate. We've traditionally trusted the compromise for that to parents. But parenting is hard. We're running on a mix of science and lore for a lot of it. Even beyond that, a lot of parents may not follow best practices, despite the best of intentions. Then add the too busy/doesn't care/actually incompetent parents. The state has an enormous vested interest in the next generation coming out well-skilled and socially balanced. But they can't put a child development expert into every house in the country 24/7. They've had to trust parents who are spotty at best at their job, because there were limits on how they could intervene. For the first time, we have wildly popular entertainment products that phone home and do remote work as part of normal operation. This makes a technical intervention possible in a way they couldn't do with prior moral panics (TV, comic books, bawdy novels). In some ways, this is actually a tame and tolerant way to deal with the fear of gaming abuse. They're not saying adults can't have games, or even that kids can't-- just restricting usage when you reach a level that implies they're sacrificing something else (school, sleep, or family life) to make the hours. I wonder if a future evolution of this would integrate into directly the schools and the social credit concept-- if you can play Fortnite II: Electric Boogaloo 14 hours a day and somehow maintain straight As, it will let you, but bludgeon your character when your grades slip.

tudorconstantin 8y ago
We can't put an education expert in every home, but we can put all the children in "correct child raising institutions" where they'll follow strict schedules, intense education and balanced diets. So that we'll be sure the kids will be productive elements for the society when they grow up. I bet in a few generations people would start asking questions like "if it wouldn't be the state, who would raise our children?". Joking aside, it's not the state's role to raise our children. It's only role should be to make sure the kids are not abused and that's it.
- Scipio_Afri 8y ago
  I think you're clearly missing that industry benefits from getting children hooked on games, be it free to play games on a console or phone which might be tied to a parent's credit card. More traditional, not free to play, games also have the same effect, buy the game and keep buying expansion packs or the next iteration of the game. If the kid is old enough, in their teens, they might drain their bank account which was to be used as a college tuition/cost of living fund. We regulate gambling for good reason. Some of these games, with loot boxes and leveling, manipulate people using known psychologic techniques to make them get that dopamine hit by getting little rewards. You're missing how industry practices can become manipulative and abusive because they are chasing short term profit for themselves and not long term societal benefits. Regulations come into play to ensure that our society does not suffer due to excessive greed/profit creating manipulative or abusive situations for consumers. Just because China seems to be willing to regulate to the benefit of their overall society this time in a way that isn't harmful to people's rights (only minors and limited penalty), does not make up for their horrible human rights record and their ongoing abuses. I say this as an American who was probably a bit too hooked on a few video games as a kid, playing 6-7 hours after school most days on one game in particular through highschool. An automatic opt in for minors, with an optional ability for parents to opt out their kids, seems like a slightly better way to go if you want parents to have more control over this policy. Behavioral economics says you should allow people to opt out, but by default they should have the policy applied because it takes time and effort to opt in (e.g. opt in vs opt out in policies for organ donation in countries around the world, opt out policy leads to much higher organ donation rates) What is most highly problematic about this policy is that this system is using the Chinese system of having to identify yourself online and their continued monitoring of you and all your activities, grading them and judging you. It is huge human rights issue in regards to ability to make your thoughts known - political or otherwise. If they implemented it in a way that doesn't use that Chinese social credit system, then I wouldn't have any issue with it.
- dTal 8y ago
  > it's not the state's role to raise our children Why not? "It takes a village to raise a child", they say. The state is the embodiment of communal action. > It's only role should be to make sure the kids are not abused Where is the line between abuse (where the state should intervene) and simply neglectful or poor parenting (which can be very damaging)?
thatoneuser 8y ago
I don't care if you do an analysis on the effects of games on kids and Sue the companies that do it. But don't take freedom away from citizens. Even if it's in the name of good. That's how china's bullshit starts.

by hakfoo 8y ago

tudorconstantin 8y ago

We can't put an education expert in every home, but we can put all the children in "correct child raising institutions" where they'll follow strict schedules, intense education and balanced diets. So that we'll be sure the kids will be productive elements for the society when they grow up. I bet in a few generations people would start asking questions like "if it wouldn't be the state, who would raise our children?". Joking aside, it's not the state's role to raise our children. It's only role should be to make sure the kids are not abused and that's it.

Scipio_Afri 8y ago
I think you're clearly missing that industry benefits from getting children hooked on games, be it free to play games on a console or phone which might be tied to a parent's credit card. More traditional, not free to play, games also have the same effect, buy the game and keep buying expansion packs or the next iteration of the game. If the kid is old enough, in their teens, they might drain their bank account which was to be used as a college tuition/cost of living fund. We regulate gambling for good reason. Some of these games, with loot boxes and leveling, manipulate people using known psychologic techniques to make them get that dopamine hit by getting little rewards. You're missing how industry practices can become manipulative and abusive because they are chasing short term profit for themselves and not long term societal benefits. Regulations come into play to ensure that our society does not suffer due to excessive greed/profit creating manipulative or abusive situations for consumers. Just because China seems to be willing to regulate to the benefit of their overall society this time in a way that isn't harmful to people's rights (only minors and limited penalty), does not make up for their horrible human rights record and their ongoing abuses. I say this as an American who was probably a bit too hooked on a few video games as a kid, playing 6-7 hours after school most days on one game in particular through highschool. An automatic opt in for minors, with an optional ability for parents to opt out their kids, seems like a slightly better way to go if you want parents to have more control over this policy. Behavioral economics says you should allow people to opt out, but by default they should have the policy applied because it takes time and effort to opt in (e.g. opt in vs opt out in policies for organ donation in countries around the world, opt out policy leads to much higher organ donation rates) What is most highly problematic about this policy is that this system is using the Chinese system of having to identify yourself online and their continued monitoring of you and all your activities, grading them and judging you. It is huge human rights issue in regards to ability to make your thoughts known - political or otherwise. If they implemented it in a way that doesn't use that Chinese social credit system, then I wouldn't have any issue with it.
dTal 8y ago
> it's not the state's role to raise our children Why not? "It takes a village to raise a child", they say. The state is the embodiment of communal action. > It's only role should be to make sure the kids are not abused Where is the line between abuse (where the state should intervene) and simply neglectful or poor parenting (which can be very damaging)?

thatoneuser 8y ago

I don't care if you do an analysis on the effects of games on kids and Sue the companies that do it. But don't take freedom away from citizens. Even if it's in the name of good. That's how china's bullshit starts.