5 ms·

They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. You can probably see where this is goi

They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. You can probably see where this is going. Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time.

skohan 4y ago
You don’t think sparing hundreds of thousands of children from harm in the Netherlands accomplishes anything? Is it useless to ban children from using cocaine and rocket-propelled grenade launchers in the US just because they’re not banned in Somalia?
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  The Internet does make a country's regulations of such services weaker, yet does provide some barrier. Businesses will weigh the risks of being discovered and banned if they don't comply.
- jakogut 4y ago
  Rocket propelled grenade launchers are federally legal [0] in the United States. Furthermore, there are no federal restrictions on children using legal firearms under adult supervision. I don't think it affects the point you're making, I just thought it might be interesting to share. [0] https://otbfirearms.com/airtronics-llc-rpg-live-dd-modernized-with-rails-fde-psrl-1/ https://otbfirearms.com/airtronics-llc-rpg-live-dd-modernize...
zamadatix 4y ago
> They will just move on to countries with less regulation If there is worthwhile money to be made they'll already be going to those countries regardless what countries with regulation do.
leodriesch 4y ago
Maybe if it’s just two countries right now, but if this ban would become EU wide gaming companies would have to care.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  Why would they have to care? They could just block the EU region and publish to other countries instead. Plenty of games, especially from Asia, already block all EU countries from playing. Usually they're looking to sell a license or don't know how to enter the market. Nevertheless, they are absolutely willing to block the EU region. I see so many Europeans repeating the line that if Europe regulates X together, then companies will have to care, because they can't ignore the European market. This might be true in other industries, but it's not true in gaming. I would even say that it's more common for the European market to be treated as second class than not when it comes to online games.
  - synu 4y ago
    Isn’t that mission accomplished from the EU perspective, though? Whether they don’t care very much and left, or whether they care a lot and left, as long as the level of caring was sufficient that they were forced to take the gambling for kids stuff with them that seems like a win. The alternative is to not care at all and keep selling in the EU anyway even if it’s made illegal, which seems unlikely at the level of scale it’s happening today.
    - Aerroon 4y ago
      Because I like playing some of these games. I don't want to be stuck with the 5 games that are officially EU approved. Asking for this kind of regulation is basically asking for legally mandated region-locks for online games. It's back to being a second class player in another region, where technically you're not allowed to play via VPN and you might get randomly banned. Also, it's not about the children. Children don't make their own money - they only have money that parents give them. Even if these games banned children from playing them, a lot of the people complaining about it still wouldn't stop. The problem for them is that they can't make their friends stop playing these games, so they want the government to stop them instead. I don't like when games monetize stuff like Diablo Immortal does. I hate it. But I'm certain that when legislation does arrive it'll be broad enough that other stuff gets caught up in it and the people advocating for it will just shrug their shoulders and go "lol i didn't care about games anyway".
horsawlarway 4y ago
I don't understand this comment at all. > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. You can probably see where this is going. Great - they've moved on from my country because of the ban. > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. Just above you told me what it was accomplishing. And if it "just moves one appearance of [capitalism making it so that businesses have desirable incentives that would make them willing to literally instill gambling problems in children] out of sight for a period of time" then also GREAT! That's what the legislation was FOR. If the legislation stops working, we can discuss again then.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  This is a common trope. When you're arguing against something that is obviously good, there's not many avenues left, so you hit the same three again and again: * According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. * The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." * Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
  - eurasiantiger 4y ago
    None of those apply here.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. This is #3, a threat that any type of action will harm poor people. > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. This is #2, futility in its widest sense. Not just this ban won't work, no bans work!
jmuguy 4y ago
If you believe that, I have some leaded gasoline to sell you.
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  at the airport?
mejutoco 4y ago
> Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time If the ban is easy to enforce I do not think this is true. IMO it is when the ban is next to impossible to enforce when the crime just shifts (drugs, for instance)
nanna 4y ago
> They will just move on to countries with less regulation This knee-jerk application of libertarian ideology makes even less sense in this situation than usual. The gaming industry is dependent on improving computer hardware hardware, in-game sales rely on consumers with at least a certain degree of expendable capital. The core markets will always be countries that are well off, companies cant 'just go elsewhere' without significantly sacrificing their potential income. Also you do realise that the wealth of a country does not correlate directly to it's levels of education?
JaimeThompson 4y ago
So why don't cars and trucks still use leaded gasoline?
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  They do in many countries. Edit: Not any more. Even Algeria finally got their show together in 2021.
swayvil 4y ago
It's a good point, but unpopular. It's obnoxious how unpopular points get censored around here.

skohan 4y ago

You don’t think sparing hundreds of thousands of children from harm in the Netherlands accomplishes anything? Is it useless to ban children from using cocaine and rocket-propelled grenade launchers in the US just because they’re not banned in Somalia?

paulryanrogers 4y ago
The Internet does make a country's regulations of such services weaker, yet does provide some barrier. Businesses will weigh the risks of being discovered and banned if they don't comply.
jakogut 4y ago
Rocket propelled grenade launchers are federally legal [0] in the United States. Furthermore, there are no federal restrictions on children using legal firearms under adult supervision. I don't think it affects the point you're making, I just thought it might be interesting to share. [0] https://otbfirearms.com/airtronics-llc-rpg-live-dd-modernized-with-rails-fde-psrl-1/ https://otbfirearms.com/airtronics-llc-rpg-live-dd-modernize...

zamadatix 4y ago

> They will just move on to countries with less regulation If there is worthwhile money to be made they'll already be going to those countries regardless what countries with regulation do.

leodriesch 4y ago

Maybe if it’s just two countries right now, but if this ban would become EU wide gaming companies would have to care.

Aerroon 4y ago
Why would they have to care? They could just block the EU region and publish to other countries instead. Plenty of games, especially from Asia, already block all EU countries from playing. Usually they're looking to sell a license or don't know how to enter the market. Nevertheless, they are absolutely willing to block the EU region. I see so many Europeans repeating the line that if Europe regulates X together, then companies will have to care, because they can't ignore the European market. This might be true in other industries, but it's not true in gaming. I would even say that it's more common for the European market to be treated as second class than not when it comes to online games.
- synu 4y ago
  Isn’t that mission accomplished from the EU perspective, though? Whether they don’t care very much and left, or whether they care a lot and left, as long as the level of caring was sufficient that they were forced to take the gambling for kids stuff with them that seems like a win. The alternative is to not care at all and keep selling in the EU anyway even if it’s made illegal, which seems unlikely at the level of scale it’s happening today.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    Because I like playing some of these games. I don't want to be stuck with the 5 games that are officially EU approved. Asking for this kind of regulation is basically asking for legally mandated region-locks for online games. It's back to being a second class player in another region, where technically you're not allowed to play via VPN and you might get randomly banned. Also, it's not about the children. Children don't make their own money - they only have money that parents give them. Even if these games banned children from playing them, a lot of the people complaining about it still wouldn't stop. The problem for them is that they can't make their friends stop playing these games, so they want the government to stop them instead. I don't like when games monetize stuff like Diablo Immortal does. I hate it. But I'm certain that when legislation does arrive it'll be broad enough that other stuff gets caught up in it and the people advocating for it will just shrug their shoulders and go "lol i didn't care about games anyway".

horsawlarway 4y ago

I don't understand this comment at all. > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. You can probably see where this is going. Great - they've moved on from my country because of the ban. > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. Just above you told me what it was accomplishing. And if it "just moves one appearance of [capitalism making it so that businesses have desirable incentives that would make them willing to literally instill gambling problems in children] out of sight for a period of time" then also GREAT! That's what the legislation was FOR. If the legislation stops working, we can discuss again then.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This is a common trope. When you're arguing against something that is obviously good, there's not many avenues left, so you hit the same three again and again: * According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. * The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." * Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  None of those apply here.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. This is #3, a threat that any type of action will harm poor people. > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. This is #2, futility in its widest sense. Not just this ban won't work, no bans work!

jmuguy 4y ago

If you believe that, I have some leaded gasoline to sell you.

hprotagonist 4y ago
at the airport?

mejutoco 4y ago

> Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time If the ban is easy to enforce I do not think this is true. IMO it is when the ban is next to impossible to enforce when the crime just shifts (drugs, for instance)

nanna 4y ago

> They will just move on to countries with less regulation This knee-jerk application of libertarian ideology makes even less sense in this situation than usual. The gaming industry is dependent on improving computer hardware hardware, in-game sales rely on consumers with at least a certain degree of expendable capital. The core markets will always be countries that are well off, companies cant 'just go elsewhere' without significantly sacrificing their potential income. Also you do realise that the wealth of a country does not correlate directly to it's levels of education?

JaimeThompson 4y ago

So why don't cars and trucks still use leaded gasoline?

eurasiantiger 4y ago
They do in many countries. Edit: Not any more. Even Algeria finally got their show together in 2021.

swayvil 4y ago

It's a good point, but unpopular. It's obnoxious how unpopular points get censored around here.