5 ms·

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Make an app you market as suitable for teens, show your working that led you to decide that suitability.

bongodongobob 3y ago
Is it? That's entirely unprecedented. Teens are one of the biggest demographics for games. Are game developers now requires to be adolescent behavioralists? "EXPLAIN THIS FUN GAME!" "Well we wanted to make a fun game, so we made it fun." "THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!"
- conradfr 3y ago
  Video games have advisory ratings though.
  - snehk 3y ago
    TikTok has a rating of 12+ on the app stor in EU.
- afavour 3y ago
  In what way is assessing the age suitability of a game unprecedented? Games have had movie-like age guidelines for decades now. And besides: > The app is called TikTok Lite and offers the chance to "to complete challenging tasks and earn great rewards!" > Tasks include watching vids, liking content, or following other users. Rewards include Amazon vouchers, PayPal gift cards, or TikTok's in-app currency that can be used to tip other members. Is this a “game”? Really?
  - bongodongobob 3y ago
    I was speaking in general terms. I suppose you could consider it one. I just don't see what all the hysteria is about.
    - afavour 3y ago
      Well that makes sense, the problem is less visible when you generalize everything down to “an app” or “a game” or “a paper stick you put in your mouth”.
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      If TikTok made a "game" where you watch and click ads to earn gift cards, I do expect EU would also ask TikTok to "explain this so-called game".
- remedan 3y ago
  Video games already have to prove their suitability to receive an age rating.
- skhunted 3y ago
  If the game is deliberately made to be addictive, leads to emotional distress and is overall harmful then curbs should be put in place. Game developers should not be adolescent behavioralists; the regulators should be.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  I think you mean "explain this non-fun, stress-inducing addiction generator" "well, we wanted to make a lot of money with incredibly low effort, so we just found out how to best psychologically manipulate users into being unable to leave and stress them into giving us money while they're there in various ways." "wait why was this not already illegal" The difference to a game is that a game is first and foremost designed to be entertaining and the user starts playing and stick around with it because they like the entertainment. An addiction to a non-malicious game could be considered like an addiction to good food. Not great, but you're addicted to what you like. Some games (and foods) are more addictive than others, and some games are particularly malicious and are occasionally struck down against or hung out for their methods, but it's overall seen as okay. These apps are not meant to be entertaining. They use stress, FOMO or outright manipulation to make you return. This addiction is more like being addicted to cigarettes. One can argue whether even self-harm should be up to the individual, but no sane individual would argue that cigarettes are good or that tobacco companies are anything other than evil. If the cigarette was invented now, would we have allowed them to proliferate? Drawing the line is hard, and I don't like others making decisions for me, but I also don't like society forcing you to join an abusive platform as you'd otherwise miss out on whatever basic societal functions people put there, so enforcing that platforms play nice seems fair.
_heimdall 3y ago
That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before. Requiring every company to prove why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control over what is and isn't acceptable for any citizen to have access to. That's some seriously distopian shit in my opinion.
- _visgean 3y ago
  > Requiring every company to price why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control they dont require every company. Just the largest in this segment.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Is that limitation specifically defined in the law? I.e. does the law granting power to require this spell out how segments are defined and that only the largest by a specified metric can be regulated this way? Short of that its just a current norm for how the law is enforced. Nothing stops the next regulator from expanding that power.
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Large_online_platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Large_onl... ?
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        My understanding of the DSA is that its focused on content moderation and disclosure of how content algorithms work. Whether the content is addictive really isn't directly related, that's a measure of how users respond to the content rather than how its fed to them. That said, this app, like so many other social media apps, is trash. People should be choosing not to use it regardless of regulations.
        3y ago

bongodongobob 3y ago

Is it? That's entirely unprecedented. Teens are one of the biggest demographics for games. Are game developers now requires to be adolescent behavioralists? "EXPLAIN THIS FUN GAME!" "Well we wanted to make a fun game, so we made it fun." "THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!"

conradfr 3y ago
Video games have advisory ratings though.
- snehk 3y ago
  TikTok has a rating of 12+ on the app stor in EU.
afavour 3y ago
In what way is assessing the age suitability of a game unprecedented? Games have had movie-like age guidelines for decades now. And besides: > The app is called TikTok Lite and offers the chance to "to complete challenging tasks and earn great rewards!" > Tasks include watching vids, liking content, or following other users. Rewards include Amazon vouchers, PayPal gift cards, or TikTok's in-app currency that can be used to tip other members. Is this a “game”? Really?
- bongodongobob 3y ago
  I was speaking in general terms. I suppose you could consider it one. I just don't see what all the hysteria is about.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Well that makes sense, the problem is less visible when you generalize everything down to “an app” or “a game” or “a paper stick you put in your mouth”.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    If TikTok made a "game" where you watch and click ads to earn gift cards, I do expect EU would also ask TikTok to "explain this so-called game".
remedan 3y ago
Video games already have to prove their suitability to receive an age rating.
skhunted 3y ago
If the game is deliberately made to be addictive, leads to emotional distress and is overall harmful then curbs should be put in place. Game developers should not be adolescent behavioralists; the regulators should be.
arghwhat 3y ago
I think you mean "explain this non-fun, stress-inducing addiction generator" "well, we wanted to make a lot of money with incredibly low effort, so we just found out how to best psychologically manipulate users into being unable to leave and stress them into giving us money while they're there in various ways." "wait why was this not already illegal" The difference to a game is that a game is first and foremost designed to be entertaining and the user starts playing and stick around with it because they like the entertainment. An addiction to a non-malicious game could be considered like an addiction to good food. Not great, but you're addicted to what you like. Some games (and foods) are more addictive than others, and some games are particularly malicious and are occasionally struck down against or hung out for their methods, but it's overall seen as okay. These apps are not meant to be entertaining. They use stress, FOMO or outright manipulation to make you return. This addiction is more like being addicted to cigarettes. One can argue whether even self-harm should be up to the individual, but no sane individual would argue that cigarettes are good or that tobacco companies are anything other than evil. If the cigarette was invented now, would we have allowed them to proliferate? Drawing the line is hard, and I don't like others making decisions for me, but I also don't like society forcing you to join an abusive platform as you'd otherwise miss out on whatever basic societal functions people put there, so enforcing that platforms play nice seems fair.

_heimdall 3y ago

That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before. Requiring every company to prove why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control over what is and isn't acceptable for any citizen to have access to. That's some seriously distopian shit in my opinion.

_visgean 3y ago
> Requiring every company to price why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control they dont require every company. Just the largest in this segment.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Is that limitation specifically defined in the law? I.e. does the law granting power to require this spell out how segments are defined and that only the largest by a specified metric can be regulated this way? Short of that its just a current norm for how the law is enforced. Nothing stops the next regulator from expanding that power.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Large_online_platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Large_onl... ?
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      My understanding of the DSA is that its focused on content moderation and disclosure of how content algorithms work. Whether the content is addictive really isn't directly related, that's a measure of how users respond to the content rather than how its fed to them. That said, this app, like so many other social media apps, is trash. People should be choosing not to use it regardless of regulations.
      - 3y ago