10 ms·

Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom? BTW, nothing in the article about limits on TikTok or YouTube or whathaveyougot. Th

by tgv 5y ago

Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom? BTW, nothing in the article about limits on TikTok or YouTube or whathaveyougot. That's as much opium as gaming, IMO.

brodouevencode 5y ago
> apart from restricting freedom? Do you need any more than that? From the western point of view this is the apex reason. EDIT: To add - it is true in the west that minors don't enjoy all the same freedoms as adults. However for most things those decisions are made by the parents and not the state.
- hollerith 5y ago
  Individual freedom might still be the most important organizing principle in the US, but in Western Europe?
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    Not sure why you're getting downvoted, there's something to this comment. Western Europe is where Judeo-Christian values married up with Greek and Roman societal models and produced (yes, there are obvious exceptions like religion) democracy, free speech, and capitalism. I also understand that this particular statement is a blanket statement open to nuance and is partially incorrect, but it's mostly correct. However in very recent times (hate speech mandates) this seems to be changing.
- omarhaneef 5y ago
  We restrict a lot of freedoms for the under-18 crowd though. Purely in terms of freedom -- without arguing for any other pros and cons -- is this worse than mandatory school attendance, or not being able to vote, or take medical decisions for themselves, or whatever else kids cannot do these days.
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    The big difference is that those decisions are pushed to the parents and not the state. Minors are not fully mentally equipped to make some of the decisions that adults have the right/ability to make.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Parents in many Western countries do not have the choice of what their child spends most of their day doing, as well as some medical procedures.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Parents don't get to decide whether their kids get to vote (or whether they go to school, in most of the west, without having to at least fill out some complicated forms or having to go to court.)
      - brodouevencode 5y ago
        There are economic reasons for this (most minors aren't mentally fully developed enough to make some life changing decisions such as in voting/medical decisions/etc.)
        ngngngng 5y ago
        Do you have evidence that most adults are mentally developed enough for this?
- allannienhuis 5y ago
  Not saying this is a good thing (in fact I think it's a silly rule), but: kids in the western world have their 'freedoms' restricted all of the time. There are plenty of things that kids can't participate in or see. Those are mandated by various levels of the state, for the safety/benefit of the child (ostensibly). And parents are constantly adjusting the things their kids can or can't do, often requiring kids to ask permission to do most things. Its a way of protecting them from their immature decision making ability (with functional parents anyway). So I think the aversion is more based on the surprise that it seems to go 'further' than we'd expect in the west, and politics/culture turns that into something to criticize the CPC (or whatever governing body responsible) for because COMMUNISTS!!!
  - Xplune13 5y ago
    The main problem here is shoehorning of government between people's lives. Every parent has their own way of doing things. Some parents may allow kids to play longer, some may not but government should not be involved in this matter. I don't think this is a case of "because..... communists". This move is rightly criticized in my opinion.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      > government should not be involved in this matter. But this is just a declaration, not an argument (there's nothing wrong with that.) Should parents be able to let their children smoke or do porn?
      - gmadsen 5y ago
        I'm fairly sure that US parents do have the ability to give their children tobacco and porn. They just can't purchase it themselves
        ragnarok451 5y ago
        Depends on the state but at least in TX parents would be liable for a fine if caught giving their children tobacco (https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/tobacco/regulatory.php https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/tobacco/regulatory.php). Of course that's not enforceable but it is a limit the state is attempting to create. Wrt porn the parent comment was referring to "creating" porn, which is certainly illegal for a parent to facilitate in the entire US
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Just because you have one reason doesn't mean you shouldn't have others. There's nothing to discuss about whether it restricts freedom or not; not even the people who instituted the restriction would deny that it was a restriction.
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    Would you mind giving some examples of that? Sure I understand the classic "you can scream FIRE in a crowded theater" case, but what else are you thinking?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Here are a few things commonly limited to Western minors by the state or a reasonable proxy; alcohol, tobacco, movies, video games, being outside(curfew laws), pornography, music, fireworks, driving. And much like with this new Chinese law, many minors violate all of those restrictions often with parental approval.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hn8788 5y ago
It should be up to the parents, not the government. And like you said, it's banning one form of entertainment that is no worse than the others.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  > It should be up to the parents, not the government. I mean, isn't this what Korean and Japan's policies effectively are as well? Doesn't seem to help much. Children were not raised in isolation with two parents for most of history, an entire community was looking out for them as well that was incapable of being overwhelmed with that responsibility partially owing to higher child/birth mortality rates. But now we've put the onus of rearing functioning adults on precisely two people whose own personality and parenting traits are widely variable to begin with, if not influenced by the side effects of this two parent only viewpoint themselves.
  - thomastjeffery 5y ago
    Unfortunately, especially in China, government is not the equivalent of tribal community. Government is instead made up of a tiny number of politicians who are even more poorly equipped to make such personal decisions for millions of children.
bpodgursky 5y ago
I would be shocked if that wasn't in the works, fwiw (YouTube obvious is banned, but whatever the native equivalent is).
brundolf 5y ago
The time I spent in virtual worlds as a child remains one of the most cherished experiences of my life. They brought me happiness at times when nothing else did. They stoked my imagination and gave me a sense of wonder. They were one of the few avenues I had for connecting with my peers. It wasn't some waste of time that I regret when I look back as an adult.
- tgv 5y ago
  Reading did that for me. > They were one of the few avenues I had for connecting with my peers Three hours a week isn't much, but it doesn't have to be gaming to connect with people of your age, isn't it? > It wasn't some waste of time that I regret when I look back as an adult. I don't think it's what worries the Chinese government. Or me. I'm quite sure that e.g. a 1 hr/day limit would be a good thing. You can say "parents", but at one point children stop listening. Then what do you do?
  - brundolf 5y ago
    > Reading did that for me. Reading decidedly did not do that for me. I didn't have the attention span for/interest in most books. > but it doesn't have to be gaming to connect with people of your age, isn't it? Socializing was always difficult for me. Gaming was one of the few things I could mention and my peers would say "oh, me too!" > I'm quite sure that e.g. a 1 hr/day limit would be a good thing That would be more than twice the limit described > You can say "parents", but at one point children stop listening. Then what do you do? My parents actually did limit me to 30m/day on weekdays (they took the limits off on weekends). I don't know why you suggest that I could've simply ignored them (but somehow couldn't ignore a government mandate?). When I would reach my limit for the day I'd generally do what homework I had (fair enough), and then... do nothing. Mindlessly watch TV out of total boredom. Looking back, I'm not sure why they thought that was better. Anyway: the common theme for this and all other totalitarian ideas is that individuals are different people with different needs, and what's best for one isn't best for others.
    - gmadsen 5y ago
superkuh 5y ago
I really hate when people compare normal environmental stimuli that come in through our senses to highly addictive drugs that directly modulate our brain's mechanisms of determining salience and want. It's damaging to perpetuate this no matter how common of a new wives tale it is.
- TroisM 5y ago
  > It's damaging to perpetuate this no matter how common of a new wives tale it is. Probably not
moogly 5y ago
Deathknell for esports.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Maybe the opposite. China isn't banning kids from watching people play video games. Substitute drug.
  - moogly 5y ago
    Uh, I'm talking about competing, not just spectating. Like how, currently, a Chinese team (PSG.LGD) is the favourite to win The International in Dota2 in a month's time (prize pool: 40 million dollars).
  - kcb 5y ago
    Where will the esport players come from?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
duxup 5y ago
Probably for the exact reason you note. The idea here is they should be doing something better with their time right? But as you note no limits on other time eating activities with their own negative effects. I think it would be better to use a carrot here and hopefully encourage / try to encourage better choices... or even if they want to target games just outlaw the specifics of the problem, loot boxes, and so on.
obmelvin 5y ago
An obvious difference between many modern games and video platforms are the micro-transactions, which I think do clearly put them in a different category.
jimbilly22 5y ago
apart from freedom...just a little human right. no biggie.
caskstrength 5y ago
> Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom? Why would it be good? I played a lot of computer games as a kid and loved it. Why should it be restricted to just 3 hours a week? So children can grow up to be really good cogs in the system, thinking what politicians want them to think, working a "proper" job, having exactly as much children as party wants them to have in that particular period, etc.?
koboll 5y ago
Lots of reasons this might be a shortsighted, footgun decision. Kids might use drinking or other more actually-damaging vices as substitute goods. Has the potential to generate mass resentment and foment agitation for political freedom. Et cetera.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Other than restricting freedom? I do not see a downside. In fact- it makes me nervous. That's a lot more time to be productive compared to their western counterparts. And I think gaming in moderation is very positive.
npteljes 5y ago
And offline games. I was perfectly addicted with 0 internet, thank you very much. Although I do understand that the world wasn't ever-connected back then.
mullingitover 5y ago
> Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom? Children don't have freedoms, they have whatever their parents decide they can have. As a child in the US, your parents can legally assault you and can send you to what is effectively prison ('military schoool,' but same concept). You rarely hear any complaints about this being a crisis. If parents in China want their kids playing more video games they can just create an account for them and it's business as usual. This is more of a signal from the top that excessive screen time for children isn't a thing that society approves of.
gwright 5y ago
I have no opinion on whether playing games for 3 or 5 or 8 hours a week is good or bad for people under 18. I do feel like a government (never mind central government) having the power to legislate at that level of micro-management is very bad. There would seem to be absolutely no limiting principle to what is appropriate or not appropriate to be legislated if you accept this level of government oversight as acceptable.
rehitman 5y ago
Freedom is extremly important. The point here is not that Video game is good or bad or how many hours of it is OKay. The point is this is something that must be enforced at family level, or at most at school level. Government forcing this for more than a billion people is just wrong and most likely hurt them in the long run. For example, Who said those days are okay, maybe someone has to work on Weekend. Maybe some kid function better if she plays an hour of game at lunch time. Everyone is different. China has done similar things few decades ago in other industries (e.g., enforcing farming policies). The result was millions of people starve to death.
overgard 5y ago
Because play is important for children, and video games provide play? There's a WIDE variety of what you can find in video games, not all of them are casino like skinner boxes, many of them can provide good and even educational entertainment. I know for myself, the reason I work in tech is because of my love for video games as a kid got me into computers. Being a programmer is a huge blessing economically, and I never would have done it if I hadn't spent all that time lost in video games.
- floatboth 5y ago
  Since this is aimed at online, it's probably aimed at casino style ones.
  - overgard 5y ago
    I think that's a fairly misinformed statement, there's a vast library of online multiplayer games that are not casino like in the least bit.
    - floatboth 5y ago
      Yeah, like, Quake 3/Live, CS 1.6, MTA/SAMP… Unfortunately even the current Counter-Strike incarnation has a fucking casino in it. Arguably more optional than in other games but still there.

by tgv 5y ago

Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom? BTW, nothing in the article about limits on TikTok or YouTube or whathaveyougot. That's as much opium as gaming, IMO.

brodouevencode 5y ago

> apart from restricting freedom? Do you need any more than that? From the western point of view this is the apex reason. EDIT: To add - it is true in the west that minors don't enjoy all the same freedoms as adults. However for most things those decisions are made by the parents and not the state.

hollerith 5y ago
Individual freedom might still be the most important organizing principle in the US, but in Western Europe?
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted, there's something to this comment. Western Europe is where Judeo-Christian values married up with Greek and Roman societal models and produced (yes, there are obvious exceptions like religion) democracy, free speech, and capitalism. I also understand that this particular statement is a blanket statement open to nuance and is partially incorrect, but it's mostly correct. However in very recent times (hate speech mandates) this seems to be changing.
omarhaneef 5y ago
We restrict a lot of freedoms for the under-18 crowd though. Purely in terms of freedom -- without arguing for any other pros and cons -- is this worse than mandatory school attendance, or not being able to vote, or take medical decisions for themselves, or whatever else kids cannot do these days.
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  The big difference is that those decisions are pushed to the parents and not the state. Minors are not fully mentally equipped to make some of the decisions that adults have the right/ability to make.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Parents in many Western countries do not have the choice of what their child spends most of their day doing, as well as some medical procedures.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Parents don't get to decide whether their kids get to vote (or whether they go to school, in most of the west, without having to at least fill out some complicated forms or having to go to court.)
    - brodouevencode 5y ago
      There are economic reasons for this (most minors aren't mentally fully developed enough to make some life changing decisions such as in voting/medical decisions/etc.)
      - ngngngng 5y ago
        Do you have evidence that most adults are mentally developed enough for this?
allannienhuis 5y ago
Not saying this is a good thing (in fact I think it's a silly rule), but: kids in the western world have their 'freedoms' restricted all of the time. There are plenty of things that kids can't participate in or see. Those are mandated by various levels of the state, for the safety/benefit of the child (ostensibly). And parents are constantly adjusting the things their kids can or can't do, often requiring kids to ask permission to do most things. Its a way of protecting them from their immature decision making ability (with functional parents anyway). So I think the aversion is more based on the surprise that it seems to go 'further' than we'd expect in the west, and politics/culture turns that into something to criticize the CPC (or whatever governing body responsible) for because COMMUNISTS!!!
- Xplune13 5y ago
  The main problem here is shoehorning of government between people's lives. Every parent has their own way of doing things. Some parents may allow kids to play longer, some may not but government should not be involved in this matter. I don't think this is a case of "because..... communists". This move is rightly criticized in my opinion.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > government should not be involved in this matter. But this is just a declaration, not an argument (there's nothing wrong with that.) Should parents be able to let their children smoke or do porn?
    - gmadsen 5y ago
      I'm fairly sure that US parents do have the ability to give their children tobacco and porn. They just can't purchase it themselves
      - ragnarok451 5y ago
        Depends on the state but at least in TX parents would be liable for a fine if caught giving their children tobacco (https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/tobacco/regulatory.php https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/tobacco/regulatory.php). Of course that's not enforceable but it is a limit the state is attempting to create. Wrt porn the parent comment was referring to "creating" porn, which is certainly illegal for a parent to facilitate in the entire US
pessimizer 5y ago
Just because you have one reason doesn't mean you shouldn't have others. There's nothing to discuss about whether it restricts freedom or not; not even the people who instituted the restriction would deny that it was a restriction.
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  Would you mind giving some examples of that? Sure I understand the classic "you can scream FIRE in a crowded theater" case, but what else are you thinking?
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Here are a few things commonly limited to Western minors by the state or a reasonable proxy; alcohol, tobacco, movies, video games, being outside(curfew laws), pornography, music, fireworks, driving. And much like with this new Chinese law, many minors violate all of those restrictions often with parental approval.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hn8788 5y ago

It should be up to the parents, not the government. And like you said, it's banning one form of entertainment that is no worse than the others.

imbnwa 5y ago
> It should be up to the parents, not the government. I mean, isn't this what Korean and Japan's policies effectively are as well? Doesn't seem to help much. Children were not raised in isolation with two parents for most of history, an entire community was looking out for them as well that was incapable of being overwhelmed with that responsibility partially owing to higher child/birth mortality rates. But now we've put the onus of rearing functioning adults on precisely two people whose own personality and parenting traits are widely variable to begin with, if not influenced by the side effects of this two parent only viewpoint themselves.
- thomastjeffery 5y ago
  Unfortunately, especially in China, government is not the equivalent of tribal community. Government is instead made up of a tiny number of politicians who are even more poorly equipped to make such personal decisions for millions of children.

bpodgursky 5y ago

I would be shocked if that wasn't in the works, fwiw (YouTube obvious is banned, but whatever the native equivalent is).

brundolf 5y ago

The time I spent in virtual worlds as a child remains one of the most cherished experiences of my life. They brought me happiness at times when nothing else did. They stoked my imagination and gave me a sense of wonder. They were one of the few avenues I had for connecting with my peers. It wasn't some waste of time that I regret when I look back as an adult.

tgv 5y ago
Reading did that for me. > They were one of the few avenues I had for connecting with my peers Three hours a week isn't much, but it doesn't have to be gaming to connect with people of your age, isn't it? > It wasn't some waste of time that I regret when I look back as an adult. I don't think it's what worries the Chinese government. Or me. I'm quite sure that e.g. a 1 hr/day limit would be a good thing. You can say "parents", but at one point children stop listening. Then what do you do?
- brundolf 5y ago
  > Reading did that for me. Reading decidedly did not do that for me. I didn't have the attention span for/interest in most books. > but it doesn't have to be gaming to connect with people of your age, isn't it? Socializing was always difficult for me. Gaming was one of the few things I could mention and my peers would say "oh, me too!" > I'm quite sure that e.g. a 1 hr/day limit would be a good thing That would be more than twice the limit described > You can say "parents", but at one point children stop listening. Then what do you do? My parents actually did limit me to 30m/day on weekdays (they took the limits off on weekends). I don't know why you suggest that I could've simply ignored them (but somehow couldn't ignore a government mandate?). When I would reach my limit for the day I'd generally do what homework I had (fair enough), and then... do nothing. Mindlessly watch TV out of total boredom. Looking back, I'm not sure why they thought that was better. Anyway: the common theme for this and all other totalitarian ideas is that individuals are different people with different needs, and what's best for one isn't best for others.
  - gmadsen 5y ago

superkuh 5y ago

I really hate when people compare normal environmental stimuli that come in through our senses to highly addictive drugs that directly modulate our brain's mechanisms of determining salience and want. It's damaging to perpetuate this no matter how common of a new wives tale it is.

TroisM 5y ago
> It's damaging to perpetuate this no matter how common of a new wives tale it is. Probably not

moogly 5y ago

Deathknell for esports.

pessimizer 5y ago
Maybe the opposite. China isn't banning kids from watching people play video games. Substitute drug.
- moogly 5y ago
  Uh, I'm talking about competing, not just spectating. Like how, currently, a Chinese team (PSG.LGD) is the favourite to win The International in Dota2 in a month's time (prize pool: 40 million dollars).
- kcb 5y ago
  Where will the esport players come from?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

duxup 5y ago

Probably for the exact reason you note. The idea here is they should be doing something better with their time right? But as you note no limits on other time eating activities with their own negative effects. I think it would be better to use a carrot here and hopefully encourage / try to encourage better choices... or even if they want to target games just outlaw the specifics of the problem, loot boxes, and so on.

obmelvin 5y ago

An obvious difference between many modern games and video platforms are the micro-transactions, which I think do clearly put them in a different category.

jimbilly22 5y ago

apart from freedom...just a little human right. no biggie.

caskstrength 5y ago

> Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom? Why would it be good? I played a lot of computer games as a kid and loved it. Why should it be restricted to just 3 hours a week? So children can grow up to be really good cogs in the system, thinking what politicians want them to think, working a "proper" job, having exactly as much children as party wants them to have in that particular period, etc.?

koboll 5y ago

Lots of reasons this might be a shortsighted, footgun decision. Kids might use drinking or other more actually-damaging vices as substitute goods. Has the potential to generate mass resentment and foment agitation for political freedom. Et cetera.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Other than restricting freedom? I do not see a downside. In fact- it makes me nervous. That's a lot more time to be productive compared to their western counterparts. And I think gaming in moderation is very positive.

npteljes 5y ago

And offline games. I was perfectly addicted with 0 internet, thank you very much. Although I do understand that the world wasn't ever-connected back then.

mullingitover 5y ago

> Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom? Children don't have freedoms, they have whatever their parents decide they can have. As a child in the US, your parents can legally assault you and can send you to what is effectively prison ('military schoool,' but same concept). You rarely hear any complaints about this being a crisis. If parents in China want their kids playing more video games they can just create an account for them and it's business as usual. This is more of a signal from the top that excessive screen time for children isn't a thing that society approves of.

gwright 5y ago

I have no opinion on whether playing games for 3 or 5 or 8 hours a week is good or bad for people under 18. I do feel like a government (never mind central government) having the power to legislate at that level of micro-management is very bad. There would seem to be absolutely no limiting principle to what is appropriate or not appropriate to be legislated if you accept this level of government oversight as acceptable.

rehitman 5y ago

Freedom is extremly important. The point here is not that Video game is good or bad or how many hours of it is OKay. The point is this is something that must be enforced at family level, or at most at school level. Government forcing this for more than a billion people is just wrong and most likely hurt them in the long run. For example, Who said those days are okay, maybe someone has to work on Weekend. Maybe some kid function better if she plays an hour of game at lunch time. Everyone is different. China has done similar things few decades ago in other industries (e.g., enforcing farming policies). The result was millions of people starve to death.

overgard 5y ago

Because play is important for children, and video games provide play? There's a WIDE variety of what you can find in video games, not all of them are casino like skinner boxes, many of them can provide good and even educational entertainment. I know for myself, the reason I work in tech is because of my love for video games as a kid got me into computers. Being a programmer is a huge blessing economically, and I never would have done it if I hadn't spent all that time lost in video games.

floatboth 5y ago
Since this is aimed at online, it's probably aimed at casino style ones.
- overgard 5y ago
  I think that's a fairly misinformed statement, there's a vast library of online multiplayer games that are not casino like in the least bit.
  - floatboth 5y ago
    Yeah, like, Quake 3/Live, CS 1.6, MTA/SAMP… Unfortunately even the current Counter-Strike incarnation has a fucking casino in it. Arguably more optional than in other games but still there.