> 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.
Really? I can't name a democratic government that doesn't restrict/ban things they consider harmful to minors. If the CCP or Sweden or whomever else has come to the conclusion that the "excessive modern online gaming" is tantamount to gambling, it's a reflection on their values / evaluations (or even just the differing characteristics of popular games in their country), not the relative reach/control exhibited by their governmental system.
> It’s about more than just online games. It’s about control.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Politics and governance is about compromise and deciding where to draw lines, not slippery-slope absolutism about vague ideals and fervent dogmas that are all-too-easily impinged.
> I’m sure the great firewall is perfectly fine as well?
If you can't differentiate between "control of information and discourse across the entire population" and "control of how long (not even 'whether or not') minors can play online videogames" that's your problem.
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.