4 ms·

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 p

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.
cloverich 5y ago
One is adding something (school), the other is taking something away. Further it takes a leisure activity away which is (to your point) performed exclusively outside of school. A more pointed discussion that still allows the benefit of government policy is why mandate a limit rather than mandating a system that allows parents to usefully set the limit? A related discussion would be if I claimed that TV and fiction novels are worse for kids than games, so we should allow unlimited games but limit all fiction books and all TV to 3 hours a week for everyone.
- beaunative 5y ago
  Time can't be increased or decreased. You have 24 hours in a day, no more, no less. Adding something to the schedule is only more stringent than having a blocklist of activities where you'd at least have a choice. I don't want to start an argument on the effect and difference of fiction books / tv to games. You point is effectively that those choices may be arbitrary, however games are much more addictive than those that you've mentioned. Realistically, I've seen kids play too much games whose grades dropped like hell, but few watching too much TV, much less reading too much novel. Games can be addictive and difficult to maintain, while the same can hardly be said to TV and novels. I agree that government-mandated limit would be too much, and less preferrable than a government-mandated system that allows parent to set the limit. You would effectively be requiring game companies to acquire and collect information on the parents of the child playing the game. I expect a government-mandated default unless with explicit written approval from parents which would seems still rather easy to circumvent for the lack of better ways.

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.

cloverich 5y ago

One is adding something (school), the other is taking something away. Further it takes a leisure activity away which is (to your point) performed exclusively outside of school. A more pointed discussion that still allows the benefit of government policy is why mandate a limit rather than mandating a system that allows parents to usefully set the limit? A related discussion would be if I claimed that TV and fiction novels are worse for kids than games, so we should allow unlimited games but limit all fiction books and all TV to 3 hours a week for everyone.

beaunative 5y ago
Time can't be increased or decreased. You have 24 hours in a day, no more, no less. Adding something to the schedule is only more stringent than having a blocklist of activities where you'd at least have a choice. I don't want to start an argument on the effect and difference of fiction books / tv to games. You point is effectively that those choices may be arbitrary, however games are much more addictive than those that you've mentioned. Realistically, I've seen kids play too much games whose grades dropped like hell, but few watching too much TV, much less reading too much novel. Games can be addictive and difficult to maintain, while the same can hardly be said to TV and novels. I agree that government-mandated limit would be too much, and less preferrable than a government-mandated system that allows parent to set the limit. You would effectively be requiring game companies to acquire and collect information on the parents of the child playing the game. I expect a government-mandated default unless with explicit written approval from parents which would seems still rather easy to circumvent for the lack of better ways.