7 ms·

China thinks that video games (specifically, the online variety) are harmful enough to children that it needs to be regulated at a federal level and children's

• joshschreuder 5y ago
  I don’t agree that the restrictions are objectively similar. Cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling all have very well researched and understood physical and psychological problems over decades. I’m not aware of any such research done into the effects of playing video games more than three hours per week (though would be interested to read it), so there’s a good chance that this is more than “government looking after the wellbeing of their citizens” in the same way as restrictions on the other things you mentioned.
  • lhorie 5y ago
    They cite myopia as a specific clinical reason and while there is some evidence correlating "near-work" activities (screen time, studying, etc) and nearsightedness, I personally think that's a weird way to slice a policy (especially considering the correlation isn't very strong). To be fair, it's not the only factor they cited, so I'm willing to concede it's an attempt at a "two birds with one stone" sort of policy. The other major factor that was mentioned was addiction. I'm not sure there are studies on this, but at least anecdotally, a lot of people seem to think it is a problem. Some other comments are also mentioning that this is more a restriction on companies providing services to underage audiences, and we do have a bunch of legal restrictions on how companies are allowed to interact with children; see COPPA.
  • whatevertrevor 5y ago
    Not to mention dumping video games into blanket "addictive gambling" is a very tenuous argument. Plenty of games that don't have lootboxes, require creative problem solving that can be played for hours on end with socialization elements mixed in too. I'm really shocked by the somewhat puritanical take on video games at hacker news of all places.
  • gnull 5y ago
    If there is no extensive research on gaming, it doesn't mean gaming should not be limited. Since we don't know how harmful gaming is, keeping it widely available might be as dangerous as limiting it. Keeping games available is as much of a decision as limiting them. Why do you think picking the former option requires extensive research and the latter doesn't?
    • alentist 5y ago
      Because one is forcing people to do something while the other is letting people choose for themselves.
      • gnull 5y ago
        Does this mean its outcome is inherently better and it should be the default decision? I find this super questionable, especially when we talk about children.
        • alentist 5y ago
          The burden of proof is on you.
    • throwaway675309 5y ago
      Number one there absolutely is extensive research on gaming and its potential physiological ramifications. Number two even if there weren't, by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research. A.k.a. we don't know what long term ramifications may be caused by extensive winking, so will be restricting to the amount of winking you can perform to 50 winks per day.
      • gnull 5y ago
        > Number one there absolutely is extensive research on gaming and its potential physiological ramifications. The parent comment suggested there isn't, and the reply I gave was modulo this assumption. If you say there is extensive research, give it to the parent comment. > by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research You do a strawman argument here, your interpretation of my argument is self-servingly absurd. The parent comment wanted to discard one of the alternatives because there's too little research. I objected saying that if there's not enough research, this makes the two alternatives equally favorable (not that it strengthens the other alternative!).
  • tshaddox 5y ago
    Is there research suggesting that the physical and psychological problems caused by cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling are significantly reduced at age 18 or 21?
    • slumpt_ 5y ago
      A lot of folks don’t agree with those restrictions either. If a child is accompanied by their lawful guardian, I see no reason they shouldn’t be able to use any of the above.
  • beaunative 5y ago
    Well. I don't think you need research to know that gaming consumes time, and for those addicted a lot of them. Cigarettes and alcohol on the other hand, is not about the time you put in doing it, it's about the time afterwards. So there is a subtle difference.
• bogwog 5y ago
  > It's a big double standard to call their flavor of restrictions "authoritarian", while being ok with (or even strongly in favor of) our flavor of restrictions, even though the two are objectively similar in nature. Our restrictions came about through a democratic process (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...), not because our supreme leader decided he knows what's best for us. Not sure where you're coming from with calling the two situations similar. They're obviously entirely different. > My advice is to be careful of using loaded terminology such as "authoritarian" How is that a loaded term? What other word would you use to describe the Chinese government?
  • nearbuy 5y ago
    > Our restrictions came about through a democratic process A democratic process where most of the people affected weren't allowed to vote.
    • rsanek 5y ago
      Not sure how this is at all relevant? In both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. Or do you mean they should be allowed to have a say in this?
      • erklik 5y ago
        It does seem relevant. Whether some supreme leader decides what's better for you, or some other random group decides what's better for you. What's the difference? Either way, you aren't doing the deciding, and the change enforced upon wasn't really democratic to you.
      • thephyber 5y ago
        The vast vast majority of citizens in either country do not play a part in legislation. The USA has lobbying, which is seen by the rest of the OECD countries as a legalized form of bribery. This allows regulated industries to corrupt and otherwise influence the regulation of their own industry. The USA might very well have similar restrictions to China on say prize boxes in video games if not for the outsized effect of industries on legislators. The US also has a history of actual disenfranchisement and state legislators gerrymandering away the influence of a large minority of votes for Congress. The effect is that the US actually has a complicated system of perverting the democratic system, whereas the Chinese system doesn’t even try to appear democratic, thereby appearing at least more honest about what it is.
• cenophor 5y ago
  > I've heard from various Mainland Chinese people: that many of them thinks western media brainwashes us (think the thing about Olympic photo coverage of Chinese medalists) and many condemn westerner take on social matters (the US' handling of [COVID], for example, is seen as a "proof" that the our infatuation with freedom has severe failings). That's clearly anecdotal because I worked and lived there for a year recently and what you said is only what *some* of them think. I have spoken to many people, particularly those who are yonung and educated, who don't think like what you have said. Many people are also very eager to speak to foreigners about their governments and, in some extreme cases, they openly criticize their own for exactly the same reasons that much of the HN crowd probably would. Also, I was just a regular worker who wasn't anyone's boss, and I spoke to them in Chinese. I'm not interested in debating against anecdotes with more anecdotes, but I think what you said is not the whole story of "their side" and is potentially manipulative even if it wasn't your intention to be. I also don't think "authoritarian" is a loaded word, it's just an indication of how likely or unlikely someone is willing to work with others openly. The important thing is what to do to fix it, hopefully, together, after realizing what the issues could be, not toning in down and making everyone comfortable with some illusions in the first place.
  • seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    It depends on your environment. Say if you are at a university or something with students it will be very different than if you are working for a tech company with your Chinese co-workers. Also, southerners tend to be less nationalistic than northerners, so if you are in Beijing it is very different than if you are in Shanghai or Shenzhen (though if you are working at a tech company, your co-workers will be from all over China). I've had co-workers who were really harmonious river crab, and some that were very non-harmonious grass mud horse...all in the same team. Outside of work, I didn't really talk about politics at all, it just never seemed to be that important beyond a lunch topic. China was going in the right direction under Hu, if only because Hu was a weak leader. The authoritarian uptick really came back with Xi, and now that Xi has basically become president for life, it is really reinforced. It is a bit disheartening to see China move to being more liberal to more authoritarian all in a few short years. The trend probably won't change for a generation or two.
• fouric 5y ago
  > We on the west do exactly the same thing for things like cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. At least in the case of alcohol, the guardians of a child are explicitly allowed to "override" that restriction (with some caveats e.g. in some states you have to be in a private residence) - so, at least there, it's pretty clear that the law is there to protect random underage children (something something executive function not completely developed until roughly age 25) from making huge mistakes with dangerous things that are still allowed to be sold. If the same does not apply to cigarettes or gambling, that's an oversight. I don't believe the Chinese law under discussion has any sort of exception. Moreover, the difference in scientific evidence for the harmfulness of cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling is significantly greater than the evidence for the harmfulness of video games.