5 ms·

What about child protection service, school, free lunch at school, healthcare, and more comparably age 21 restriction for alcohol consumption? Those are all exa

What about child protection service, school, free lunch at school, healthcare, and more comparably age 21 restriction for alcohol consumption? Those are all examples of 'jurisdiction over raising children'.

bjt2n3904 5y ago
Physically abusing your child by chaining them to the radiator is not a parenting decision. Providing lunch at something the child is required to be at by law is not a parenting decision. Requiring annual physicals is not a parenting decision, nor a health care decision. However, requiring a specific treatment is both. Alcohol consumption is a grey area, and a cultural choice the country has made. Why not make the driving age 14? 18? It's a question of maturity. But this is a poor comparison. While alcohol has an objective measure of physical harm (ie: LD50, a measurable and detrimental effect on developing minds), video games do not. Listing these as examples is not a justification for the government deciding for a parent how much time their child can spend on video games. And for disclosure, I think a time limit is a much needed societal thing. But the government must not be the one to make that decision.
- beaunative 5y ago
  A parents' can ask their kid to limit video game time, but can't have the video gaming industry to enforce it. A national government can. That's the issue. And if a parent really feels their kids deserve more video game time, they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism, that simple.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    That simple? Until they decide to make it a felony to evade this system in that way.
    - beaunative 5y ago
      I mean that's just a prejudice false target, right now it's just a departmental policy with effect only to businesses.
  - blueblisters 5y ago
    The equivalent of regulating video game playing times for children would be regulating when a child gets to have their favourite dessert, when they get to go out to meet their friends etc. These are all highly context-dependent individual parenting decisions that the government should have very little say in. Especially in the form of rules like restricting play time to 8 PM on Weekends. The government can ask video game industry to provide enforcement mechanisms in the form of parental controls, which incidentally are quite widely adopted by most tech companies without government intervention in the West.
    - beaunative 5y ago
      I doubt dessert is comparable to video games, I will eventually get full with desserts, but potentially unlimited time with video games. The timeframe when a parents have a say in children's activity is already limited by compulsory k-12 schooling. What's the difference?
      - blueblisters 5y ago
        You can get harmed by a lot of things in excess, including desserts, well before you get physiologically or mentally exhausted by having too much of it. The difference is there is a long tail of activities that a family might be engaged in during non-school hours, especially a weekend evening. This is something a government can't possibly fathom or account for in an overarching policy. If a person chooses to have a child, they should be deemed to have enough agency to determine what's good for them. If a State wants to be the nanny, why stop at video games? Why not prescribe precise caloric intake, meal times, study times, sleep times, extracurriculars, and more? Just an illustration of how absurd this policy is.
        pojzon 5y ago
        This policy is about predatory industry practices that make use of natural brain functions to make kids addicted to certain games while also spending absurd amounts of money on it. But in my opinion they should have just disabled this business model completely. It seems like they want to limit the inflow of cash but not by a lot.
  - jrandm 5y ago
    > they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism Current technology means statements like this are not necessarily true (these are all referring to the same story, Chinese language link last): https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/tencent_facial_recognition_gaming_curfew/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/tencent_facial_recogn... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/video-game-facial-recognition-tencent.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/video-game-facia... https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Cr17TKWQ3XcuNzDw085OLw https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Cr17TKWQ3XcuNzDw085OLw > the new feature sees the company check accounts registered in adults’ names if > they are playing games between 10:00PM and 8:00AM. The company will then run a > facial recognition test and, if it identifies someone who is not the account > holder, they’ll be booted offline. “Anyone who refuses or fails face > verification will be treated as a minor,” according to a machine translation of > Tencent’s QQ post.
- hoseja 5y ago
  It used to be a parenting decision till like one or two hundred years ago.

bjt2n3904 5y ago

Physically abusing your child by chaining them to the radiator is not a parenting decision. Providing lunch at something the child is required to be at by law is not a parenting decision. Requiring annual physicals is not a parenting decision, nor a health care decision. However, requiring a specific treatment is both. Alcohol consumption is a grey area, and a cultural choice the country has made. Why not make the driving age 14? 18? It's a question of maturity. But this is a poor comparison. While alcohol has an objective measure of physical harm (ie: LD50, a measurable and detrimental effect on developing minds), video games do not. Listing these as examples is not a justification for the government deciding for a parent how much time their child can spend on video games. And for disclosure, I think a time limit is a much needed societal thing. But the government must not be the one to make that decision.

beaunative 5y ago
A parents' can ask their kid to limit video game time, but can't have the video gaming industry to enforce it. A national government can. That's the issue. And if a parent really feels their kids deserve more video game time, they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism, that simple.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  That simple? Until they decide to make it a felony to evade this system in that way.
  - beaunative 5y ago
    I mean that's just a prejudice false target, right now it's just a departmental policy with effect only to businesses.
- blueblisters 5y ago
  The equivalent of regulating video game playing times for children would be regulating when a child gets to have their favourite dessert, when they get to go out to meet their friends etc. These are all highly context-dependent individual parenting decisions that the government should have very little say in. Especially in the form of rules like restricting play time to 8 PM on Weekends. The government can ask video game industry to provide enforcement mechanisms in the form of parental controls, which incidentally are quite widely adopted by most tech companies without government intervention in the West.
  - beaunative 5y ago
    I doubt dessert is comparable to video games, I will eventually get full with desserts, but potentially unlimited time with video games. The timeframe when a parents have a say in children's activity is already limited by compulsory k-12 schooling. What's the difference?
    - blueblisters 5y ago
      You can get harmed by a lot of things in excess, including desserts, well before you get physiologically or mentally exhausted by having too much of it. The difference is there is a long tail of activities that a family might be engaged in during non-school hours, especially a weekend evening. This is something a government can't possibly fathom or account for in an overarching policy. If a person chooses to have a child, they should be deemed to have enough agency to determine what's good for them. If a State wants to be the nanny, why stop at video games? Why not prescribe precise caloric intake, meal times, study times, sleep times, extracurriculars, and more? Just an illustration of how absurd this policy is.
      - pojzon 5y ago
        This policy is about predatory industry practices that make use of natural brain functions to make kids addicted to certain games while also spending absurd amounts of money on it. But in my opinion they should have just disabled this business model completely. It seems like they want to limit the inflow of cash but not by a lot.
- jrandm 5y ago
  > they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism Current technology means statements like this are not necessarily true (these are all referring to the same story, Chinese language link last): https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/tencent_facial_recognition_gaming_curfew/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/tencent_facial_recogn... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/video-game-facial-recognition-tencent.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/video-game-facia... https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Cr17TKWQ3XcuNzDw085OLw https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Cr17TKWQ3XcuNzDw085OLw > the new feature sees the company check accounts registered in adults’ names if > they are playing games between 10:00PM and 8:00AM. The company will then run a > facial recognition test and, if it identifies someone who is not the account > holder, they’ll be booted offline. “Anyone who refuses or fails face > verification will be treated as a minor,” according to a machine translation of > Tencent’s QQ post.
hoseja 5y ago
It used to be a parenting decision till like one or two hundred years ago.