7 ms·

Just because an authoritarian government made a decision doesn’t necessarily mean the decision was authoritarian. In the U.S., it’s somehow become popular opin

by birbs 5y ago

Just because an authoritarian government made a decision doesn’t necessarily mean the decision was authoritarian. In the U.S., it’s somehow become popular opinion that the government shouldn’t do anything. Without the ability to make coordinated decisions, the U.S. has predictably fallen behind on a wide variety of metrics (income equality, health care, education, mass transit, etc.) You should reflect on why you view a government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing.

sergiomattei 5y ago
But this is authoritarian. Why should the government control how I manage my time? I'm pretty sure this site would be pretty outraged if the government decided we could only code 3 hours a week. And please don't use the "but coding is constructive!1!" argument. A good use of time is defined by whoever spends it, not whatever someone else's idea of wasting time is. As a case in point, playing hours of Splitgate has kept me sane during the pandemic as a college student locked in a room for 1.8 years. I meet on Discord with friends and discuss topics while playing. I've made more friends gaming than physically in the past year. That's pretty constructive if you ask me.
- yuy910616 5y ago
  People can't be left to their own accord.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    If you believe this then surely you'd want less government since you can't leave these people to their own accord and also making decisions.
    - yuy910616 5y ago
      there is a strong correlation between strong government and higher GDP. Weak economies are weak because of corrupt and weak government. So that would be my case for government action - collectively or through a good dictator. Your logic seems good but is removed from history and reality.
      - analognoise 5y ago
        Why is GDP implicitly the thing we should maximize? It's like this weird unstated thing everyone agrees on without critical examination. I'd rather have less GDP and no CCP; I'd also "sacrifice" max GDP for universal healthcare, fewer wars, jail reform...all kinds of things.
        ericmay 5y ago
        Yea. Also if you want to look at GDP - US is #1. And on a per-capita basis we're just below Norway and ahead of countries like Denmark and the UK. Personally I'd propose things like longevity, obesity, parks per-capita, household wealth, etc.
        analognoise 5y ago
        Yeah infant mortality, press freedom, corruption index, childhood educational rankings? There are a TON of things I'd put over GDP.
        yuy910616 5y ago
        And if you look at the past 200 years that we've made large progress towards all the things you mentioned, with each of those accomplishments have been enabled by...GDP growth
        yuy910616 5y ago
        GDP is the thing we should measure because without it, you can't have all the things you mentioned - you might be able to not start wars but you still need a strong army. To say that money isn't everything is already a luxury
        analognoise 5y ago
        I never said it wasn't important, but we literally have the largest GDP - we won, game over! And we don't have universal healthcare. It's like we've confused a metric (GDP) with success; we maximized the metric and can't even wake up and realize it's not what we were actually trying to accomplish.
- actacntact 5y ago
  > Why should the government control how I manage my time? It doesn't. Unless you're under 18. > As a case in point Age aside - as this law is worded, Discord wouldn't be restricted, offline games wouldn't be restricted, non-gameplay-as-a-service online gaming like voice-chat DND or P2P fightcade matches wouldn't be restricted, other forms of media aren't restricted, and you still have 3 hrs/week for the restricted subset if you must. I don't see why your stated benefits require a majority of your time to be spent on a gameplay-as-a-service game, so I don't see anything constructive in your life that would be prevented by this law in particular. And it's this law in particular that positivity is being expressed for. In light of the recent (read: ongoing over the past decade+) design trends of gameplay-as-a-service games in East Asia regions, which something like Splitgate doesn't fit the profile for.
- birbs 5y ago
  The government is controlling how children spend their time. In the U.S., the government mandates a lot about how children spend their time. They need to go to school and they aren’t allowed to buy alcohol or tobacco. Children under 16 aren’t allowed to spend any time driving an automobile, etc.
  - rank0 5y ago
    So why can’t you use the same logic to justify any arbitrary regulation? I don’t agree that having SOME laws means that the government should be able to pass ANY law.
    - solatic 5y ago
      To justify any arbitrary regulation imposed on children. No child owns his own life or decision making. Typically parents make most decisions, the government makes some others e.g. mandatory schooling, setting standards that parents most abide by if they don't want their children taken away from them (sufficient food and shelter etc.).
- fma 5y ago
  I live in the state of Georgia where most of the state belives in the "smaller the government the better". Alcohol sales can't happen during certain hours on Sundays...all because of...wait for it...religion. LOL. Why should the government tell stores & restaurants when they can or cannot sell alcohol? How can the government tell me when I can, or cannot buy/consume alcohol. How is that a benefit to society? Why is it in a country codified for separation of religion and government are they allowed to have this in law?
- est 5y ago
  > Why should the government control how I manage my time? The government didn't. They just put online-game service providers to the same category as alcohol or drugs.
ericmay 5y ago
> Just because an authoritarian government made a decision doesn’t necessarily mean the decision was authoritarian. True. > In the U.S., it’s somehow become popular opinion that the government shouldn’t do anything. Amongst some people and some topics. Liberals don't think the government should do anything about heroin needles and homeless people, and conservatives don't think the government should do anything about gay conversion camps (arbitrary examples). This is the core of how democracy works. What you're seeing here actually is a breakdown in homogeneity when you have 300+ million people trying to make decisions when they have different values. > Without the ability to make coordinated decisions, the U.S. has predictably fallen behind on a wide variety of metrics (income equality, health care, education, mass transit, etc.) Which depends again on factors such as demographics, etc. and is largely a function of the lack of homogeneity. Not to mention all sorts of compelling arguments. Like we have people who won't take a vaccine, but we were also one of the first countries to roll out mass vaccinations. It's not simple. > You should reflect on why you view a government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing. I think many people do reflect on that. It's a precarious balance of liberty, management of a nation state, and many other things. I don't think it's wise to try and over-simplify these things into "well the government just wants you to be healthy". Ok. Let's ban all junk food, alcohol, cars, high-end restaurants, skydiving, and make everybody walk 10,000 steps/day or else they go to jail. I mean, why would you view the government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing?
- enkid 5y ago
  Your examples are awful. Liberals, if there was such a thing as a monolithic block, are the ones that want to use government resources to combat people using dirty needles, and want to provide shelters for the homeless. Some conservatives probably want to make conversion therapy mandatory, some want it to be allowed, and some probably want it outlawed. I think I understand what you're saying with the rest, but you're overally generic and incorrect examples makes it really hard to actually support your point.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
alfalfasprout 5y ago
Because in the US a large number of us value the freedom to live our lives as we choose. Given that a policy like this one effectively allows the government to intervene in an activity that does not harm others (only oneself) it stands that we in the US view it as appalling. Other societies may look at it differently and feel ok delegating decisions about how their lives should be lived to their government. I, for one, would never be OK with that.
- em500 5y ago
  Oh please, the US government actively intervenes trying to prevent minors from seeing adults having sex, an activity that does not harm others (and even whether it harms minors who view it is questionable). But I've yet to hear an American state that they view it as "appalling" that children can't watch porn.
throwawayswede 5y ago
If what the article says is true, this is the definition of authoritarianism.

by birbs 5y ago

sergiomattei 5y ago

But this is authoritarian. Why should the government control how I manage my time? I'm pretty sure this site would be pretty outraged if the government decided we could only code 3 hours a week. And please don't use the "but coding is constructive!1!" argument. A good use of time is defined by whoever spends it, not whatever someone else's idea of wasting time is. As a case in point, playing hours of Splitgate has kept me sane during the pandemic as a college student locked in a room for 1.8 years. I meet on Discord with friends and discuss topics while playing. I've made more friends gaming than physically in the past year. That's pretty constructive if you ask me.

yuy910616 5y ago
People can't be left to their own accord.
- ericmay 5y ago
  If you believe this then surely you'd want less government since you can't leave these people to their own accord and also making decisions.
  - yuy910616 5y ago
    there is a strong correlation between strong government and higher GDP. Weak economies are weak because of corrupt and weak government. So that would be my case for government action - collectively or through a good dictator. Your logic seems good but is removed from history and reality.
    - analognoise 5y ago
      Why is GDP implicitly the thing we should maximize? It's like this weird unstated thing everyone agrees on without critical examination. I'd rather have less GDP and no CCP; I'd also "sacrifice" max GDP for universal healthcare, fewer wars, jail reform...all kinds of things.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Yea. Also if you want to look at GDP - US is #1. And on a per-capita basis we're just below Norway and ahead of countries like Denmark and the UK. Personally I'd propose things like longevity, obesity, parks per-capita, household wealth, etc.
        analognoise 5y ago
        Yeah infant mortality, press freedom, corruption index, childhood educational rankings? There are a TON of things I'd put over GDP.
        yuy910616 5y ago
        And if you look at the past 200 years that we've made large progress towards all the things you mentioned, with each of those accomplishments have been enabled by...GDP growth
      - yuy910616 5y ago
        GDP is the thing we should measure because without it, you can't have all the things you mentioned - you might be able to not start wars but you still need a strong army. To say that money isn't everything is already a luxury
        analognoise 5y ago
        I never said it wasn't important, but we literally have the largest GDP - we won, game over! And we don't have universal healthcare. It's like we've confused a metric (GDP) with success; we maximized the metric and can't even wake up and realize it's not what we were actually trying to accomplish.
actacntact 5y ago
> Why should the government control how I manage my time? It doesn't. Unless you're under 18. > As a case in point Age aside - as this law is worded, Discord wouldn't be restricted, offline games wouldn't be restricted, non-gameplay-as-a-service online gaming like voice-chat DND or P2P fightcade matches wouldn't be restricted, other forms of media aren't restricted, and you still have 3 hrs/week for the restricted subset if you must. I don't see why your stated benefits require a majority of your time to be spent on a gameplay-as-a-service game, so I don't see anything constructive in your life that would be prevented by this law in particular. And it's this law in particular that positivity is being expressed for. In light of the recent (read: ongoing over the past decade+) design trends of gameplay-as-a-service games in East Asia regions, which something like Splitgate doesn't fit the profile for.
birbs 5y ago
The government is controlling how children spend their time. In the U.S., the government mandates a lot about how children spend their time. They need to go to school and they aren’t allowed to buy alcohol or tobacco. Children under 16 aren’t allowed to spend any time driving an automobile, etc.
- rank0 5y ago
  So why can’t you use the same logic to justify any arbitrary regulation? I don’t agree that having SOME laws means that the government should be able to pass ANY law.
  - solatic 5y ago
    To justify any arbitrary regulation imposed on children. No child owns his own life or decision making. Typically parents make most decisions, the government makes some others e.g. mandatory schooling, setting standards that parents most abide by if they don't want their children taken away from them (sufficient food and shelter etc.).
fma 5y ago
I live in the state of Georgia where most of the state belives in the "smaller the government the better". Alcohol sales can't happen during certain hours on Sundays...all because of...wait for it...religion. LOL. Why should the government tell stores & restaurants when they can or cannot sell alcohol? How can the government tell me when I can, or cannot buy/consume alcohol. How is that a benefit to society? Why is it in a country codified for separation of religion and government are they allowed to have this in law?
est 5y ago
> Why should the government control how I manage my time? The government didn't. They just put online-game service providers to the same category as alcohol or drugs.

ericmay 5y ago

> Just because an authoritarian government made a decision doesn’t necessarily mean the decision was authoritarian. True. > In the U.S., it’s somehow become popular opinion that the government shouldn’t do anything. Amongst some people and some topics. Liberals don't think the government should do anything about heroin needles and homeless people, and conservatives don't think the government should do anything about gay conversion camps (arbitrary examples). This is the core of how democracy works. What you're seeing here actually is a breakdown in homogeneity when you have 300+ million people trying to make decisions when they have different values. > Without the ability to make coordinated decisions, the U.S. has predictably fallen behind on a wide variety of metrics (income equality, health care, education, mass transit, etc.) Which depends again on factors such as demographics, etc. and is largely a function of the lack of homogeneity. Not to mention all sorts of compelling arguments. Like we have people who won't take a vaccine, but we were also one of the first countries to roll out mass vaccinations. It's not simple. > You should reflect on why you view a government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing. I think many people do reflect on that. It's a precarious balance of liberty, management of a nation state, and many other things. I don't think it's wise to try and over-simplify these things into "well the government just wants you to be healthy". Ok. Let's ban all junk food, alcohol, cars, high-end restaurants, skydiving, and make everybody walk 10,000 steps/day or else they go to jail. I mean, why would you view the government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing?

enkid 5y ago
Your examples are awful. Liberals, if there was such a thing as a monolithic block, are the ones that want to use government resources to combat people using dirty needles, and want to provide shelters for the homeless. Some conservatives probably want to make conversion therapy mandatory, some want it to be allowed, and some probably want it outlawed. I think I understand what you're saying with the rest, but you're overally generic and incorrect examples makes it really hard to actually support your point.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

alfalfasprout 5y ago

Because in the US a large number of us value the freedom to live our lives as we choose. Given that a policy like this one effectively allows the government to intervene in an activity that does not harm others (only oneself) it stands that we in the US view it as appalling. Other societies may look at it differently and feel ok delegating decisions about how their lives should be lived to their government. I, for one, would never be OK with that.

em500 5y ago
Oh please, the US government actively intervenes trying to prevent minors from seeing adults having sex, an activity that does not harm others (and even whether it harms minors who view it is questionable). But I've yet to hear an American state that they view it as "appalling" that children can't watch porn.

throwawayswede 5y ago

If what the article says is true, this is the definition of authoritarianism.