3 ms·

In China it is the law that minors have restrictions on playing video games between 10pm and 8am. I suspect that on this forum there would be a mix of opinion

In China it is the law that minors have restrictions on playing video games between 10pm and 8am. I suspect that on this forum there would be a mix of opinion about if that is a good idea or not. I mean, personally I think it should be up to parents to manage this, but I can totally see how some would have the opposite opinion about it. I don't think it's totally out of bounds as a concept for government to regulate this. I have seen plenty of people calling for laws regulating mystery boxes for example on this very forum, and you could have the exact same parental responsibility argument there too. The main difference is that in the US, were such a law passed, then tech companies would do some minimum amount of compliance such as requiring that you send a picture of ID or some such and then call it done. If minors manage to get around that by getting photos of their parents ID, well, what is a company to do? In China the government doesn't care about your excuses. Children are playing your game anyway? Well, we are shutting you down then. The result is this kind of thing.

sadgrip 5y ago
Well I'm very interested to see how this plays out. Knowing what I know about kids it seems like China is making the mistake helicopter parents. Some of the already over achieving kids might respond well to this but frankly as ridiculous as it sounds this is how you end up building generations who resent their government.
ajot 5y ago
> I have seen plenty of people calling for laws regulating mystery boxes for example on this very forum, and you could have the exact same parental responsibility argument there too. Although I totally get your point, I think there's a difference between both laws. "Loot box law" would limit what a company (or any legal person) can do, trying to save some physical person (a child) from some kind of harm (addiction) effected from the company.The "gaming law" limits what the physical person can do with their own time. I understand how a law that limits third-parties (and mostly, companies) is perceived different than a law that limits the self (or invades the responsibilities of the parents inside a family).

sadgrip 5y ago

Well I'm very interested to see how this plays out. Knowing what I know about kids it seems like China is making the mistake helicopter parents. Some of the already over achieving kids might respond well to this but frankly as ridiculous as it sounds this is how you end up building generations who resent their government.

ajot 5y ago

> I have seen plenty of people calling for laws regulating mystery boxes for example on this very forum, and you could have the exact same parental responsibility argument there too. Although I totally get your point, I think there's a difference between both laws. "Loot box law" would limit what a company (or any legal person) can do, trying to save some physical person (a child) from some kind of harm (addiction) effected from the company.The "gaming law" limits what the physical person can do with their own time. I understand how a law that limits third-parties (and mostly, companies) is perceived different than a law that limits the self (or invades the responsibilities of the parents inside a family).