China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week(reuters.com)
reuters.com
China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-rolls-out-new-rules-minors-online-gaming-xinhua-2021-08-30/
1,102 comments
I have mixed feelings about this.
Younger me learned a lot of problem solving skills and most importantly spent a lot of time learning how to read by playing RPGs and games that required lots of reading. My reading skills would not have been as advanced if i wasn't playing text heavy games that had a lot of plot like Square Enix games and the CRPGs of the time.
Modern games though are clearly designed to get you as addicted as possible and to play as long as possible to an extent that made the old school 90s RPGs grinds look tame and mild. (the grinds in those games basically existing to make sure you had to play long enough to not be able to return it to the store or beat it via rental)
Modern UX of games is designed so that you dont have to really read or understand the game mechanics even to be able to play and get into that feedback loop. To the point where when a game comes along like Dark Souls that asks you to learn the game systems to beat it, gamers go gah gah over "how hard" it is.
Younger me learned a lot of problem solving skills and most importantly spent a lot of time learning how to read by playing RPGs and games that required lots of reading. My reading skills would not have been as advanced if i wasn't playing text heavy games that had a lot of plot like Square Enix games and the CRPGs of the time.
Modern games though are clearly designed to get you as addicted as possible and to play as long as possible to an extent that made the old school 90s RPGs grinds look tame and mild. (the grinds in those games basically existing to make sure you had to play long enough to not be able to return it to the store or beat it via rental)
Modern UX of games is designed so that you dont have to really read or understand the game mechanics even to be able to play and get into that feedback loop. To the point where when a game comes along like Dark Souls that asks you to learn the game systems to beat it, gamers go gah gah over "how hard" it is.
My 6yo son really, really wanted to play Breath of the Wild. He loves Zelda, my wife loves Zelda, my best friend's girlfriend is over the moon with Zelda, etc. I always played Link in Mario Kart, to the point where, when he was 2 or 3, he was in Best Buy with my wife and saw a Breath of the Wild Switch case and said "is daddy!"
Of course, after a few requests a year and a bit ago, my wife had to give him an ultimatum: "I'm not going to come over here every time there's words. If you want to play this game, you have to read it yourself."
Apparently, it worked; he's about to go into Grade 2 but already has incredibly strong reading skills, including about a grade 2.5 reading level in French (we're English-speakers but he's in French immersion).
I didn't like how much Switch he was playing last year when the pandemic started and schools closed, but he wouldn't have learned to read nearly as fast if it weren't for Breath of the Wild. He seems to be well ahead of his classmates, and he's only getting stronger (and more independent as a result) as time goes by.
We're pretty particular about what games he plays, but the ones he's interested in typically have a substantial amount of reading involved (compared to, say, Doom when I was a teenager).
I'm excited that he'll be able to (if not willing to) play my old favorites; Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, and Secret of Mana, to name a few. I guess we'll see if he's interested.
Of course, after a few requests a year and a bit ago, my wife had to give him an ultimatum: "I'm not going to come over here every time there's words. If you want to play this game, you have to read it yourself."
Apparently, it worked; he's about to go into Grade 2 but already has incredibly strong reading skills, including about a grade 2.5 reading level in French (we're English-speakers but he's in French immersion).
I didn't like how much Switch he was playing last year when the pandemic started and schools closed, but he wouldn't have learned to read nearly as fast if it weren't for Breath of the Wild. He seems to be well ahead of his classmates, and he's only getting stronger (and more independent as a result) as time goes by.
We're pretty particular about what games he plays, but the ones he's interested in typically have a substantial amount of reading involved (compared to, say, Doom when I was a teenager).
I'm excited that he'll be able to (if not willing to) play my old favorites; Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, and Secret of Mana, to name a few. I guess we'll see if he's interested.
That's so funny this exact thing happened to me at the same age, and with Zelda as well. I was 6 years old when Ocarina of Time came out and had this exact experience of my parents getting fed up with reading the text to me and being forced to read it myself. I definitely think it helped me become a strong reader early in life. Good for you, I think this is a good idea.
What other games do you recommend? …uhhh asking for my 6 year old son who loves Super Mario 3D World… Zelda BoW is my next purchase
I fortunately bought a used Wii U bundle with a stash of games and controllers off eBay pre pandemic “for the kids” and I realized while playing with them that I far prefer them playing games than staring at the TV. We are talking and laughing and arguing and explaining the whole time during Mario. Kids TV shows just seem to send kids to this zombie state. I hadn’t considered the reading aspect of certain games.
I fortunately bought a used Wii U bundle with a stash of games and controllers off eBay pre pandemic “for the kids” and I realized while playing with them that I far prefer them playing games than staring at the TV. We are talking and laughing and arguing and explaining the whole time during Mario. Kids TV shows just seem to send kids to this zombie state. I hadn’t considered the reading aspect of certain games.
The Labo sets are a blast, although not much reading, but good hand eye coordination
Every modern gamer knows that this is an exception nowadays most kids just want to play a looter shooter point click rinse repeat for a thousand hours
Yes Zelda BotW being the 33rd(1) most sold video game ever shows that this is an exception!
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_gam...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_gam...
Identical thing happened between me and my younger brother. He'd use me to read game text to him for a while until I got fed up with it. I had learned to read from the game text myself. (The game was an old space RPG-like game called Escape Velocity.)
I think it really depends. I have way too many personal anecdotes of people I knew from back in the day (middle/high school) who gamed like 8 hours a day. Most of those people were _addicted_, and a handful went on to drop out of college and aren't really doing that great today. They still play 8+ hours a day..
I remember I'd ask them if they wanted to study, or if they want to go hiking or do something IRL, but they'd always refuse and prefer to play some MMO and get high level loot there. Personally, the people I used to play some MMOs with were huge into merchanting and controlling the in-game economies, and I think there's a different complexity involved in running spreadsheets and following trends vs following what an addon tells you to press next. These guys were much older than me, and they taught me a lot about basic economics. Most games are designed to have people keep playing an endless grind, but purely focusing on in-game money and controlling the economy was not something the games would have designed by default.
I think by default, most young people would benefit (esp mental health wise) by having their video game usage cut down. As I grow older, it is insane how cigarettes or gambling aren't the only addictive things. Kids are exposed to it from a young age by trading their time for something meaningless. And I'd argue that people like you and me who feel they learned problem solving or how economies work (through gaming as kids) are quite rare.
I remember I'd ask them if they wanted to study, or if they want to go hiking or do something IRL, but they'd always refuse and prefer to play some MMO and get high level loot there. Personally, the people I used to play some MMOs with were huge into merchanting and controlling the in-game economies, and I think there's a different complexity involved in running spreadsheets and following trends vs following what an addon tells you to press next. These guys were much older than me, and they taught me a lot about basic economics. Most games are designed to have people keep playing an endless grind, but purely focusing on in-game money and controlling the economy was not something the games would have designed by default.
I think by default, most young people would benefit (esp mental health wise) by having their video game usage cut down. As I grow older, it is insane how cigarettes or gambling aren't the only addictive things. Kids are exposed to it from a young age by trading their time for something meaningless. And I'd argue that people like you and me who feel they learned problem solving or how economies work (through gaming as kids) are quite rare.
As a kid I got into Eve Online (an MMO) and started to learn to program front end by creating Eve related websites for in-game currency (yes the TOS allows it). My code got forked and I still see it being used.
With the right game there is so much opportunity for growth in transferrable skills. It would have been hard to motivate myself to learn about databases, creating backend services, using SSO for login, rate limits when you're trying to scrape mass amounts of data, validating inputs to guard against bad actors, reading api docs, etc all to help make more in-game currency by exploiting inefficiencies in the world market to make profits from trading or creating internal tools. I learned about chain of command, opsec, and dealing with HR within my "guild."
Minecraft also helped to that regard with creating mods & server plugins for friends.
Sadly I think these opportunities are decreasing with the shift to mobile gaming. How are you supposed to mod a mobile game? How are you supposed to open the game's jar file and overwrite some files when you can't modify the download from the iOS store? How are you supposed to play with spreadsheets on an ipad?
I can see how my unhealthy 8-9hr/day addiction during my teens could have turned out terrible if I was born in this current generation. Thankfully it built a good foundation for a career.
I don't get kids these days with being able to play mindless mobile games. The closest thing to a game I have on my phone to a game is AnkiDroid (spaced repetition notecard software).
With the right game there is so much opportunity for growth in transferrable skills. It would have been hard to motivate myself to learn about databases, creating backend services, using SSO for login, rate limits when you're trying to scrape mass amounts of data, validating inputs to guard against bad actors, reading api docs, etc all to help make more in-game currency by exploiting inefficiencies in the world market to make profits from trading or creating internal tools. I learned about chain of command, opsec, and dealing with HR within my "guild."
Minecraft also helped to that regard with creating mods & server plugins for friends.
Sadly I think these opportunities are decreasing with the shift to mobile gaming. How are you supposed to mod a mobile game? How are you supposed to open the game's jar file and overwrite some files when you can't modify the download from the iOS store? How are you supposed to play with spreadsheets on an ipad?
I can see how my unhealthy 8-9hr/day addiction during my teens could have turned out terrible if I was born in this current generation. Thankfully it built a good foundation for a career.
I don't get kids these days with being able to play mindless mobile games. The closest thing to a game I have on my phone to a game is AnkiDroid (spaced repetition notecard software).
I had a friend decide to quit high school over Everquest.
I love gaming but I saw what early MMOs did and it freaked me out so bad I never touched WOW, but did play others such as Guild Wars, POE and such.
I had such fun with early MUDs and couldn't wait until real-time MP gaming was possible. When it got here it was immediately defied. Man Diablo 2 was so much fun, and I made so much money, I wish my kids could experience that, instead of games being shitty and costing exorbitant amounts.
Now it's all just a cash grab/casino/skinner box/insert evil
I love gaming but I saw what early MMOs did and it freaked me out so bad I never touched WOW, but did play others such as Guild Wars, POE and such.
I had such fun with early MUDs and couldn't wait until real-time MP gaming was possible. When it got here it was immediately defied. Man Diablo 2 was so much fun, and I made so much money, I wish my kids could experience that, instead of games being shitty and costing exorbitant amounts.
Now it's all just a cash grab/casino/skinner box/insert evil
This reminds me of when I realized Diablo 3 could be completely automated after seeing a wow bot mining in action. Some of the bots I was running were playing better than humans on the top of the charts meanwhile my friends were spending their entire life trying to keep up with my bots.
Ah I had an older friend who ran EverQuest 2 bots and traded the rare item drops or something for money (rmt). He was poorer so it's how he afforded playing other games.
Yep, besides learning servers in Minecraft, I learned logic gates and very fundamental Computer Science concepts from Redstone when I was a kid. My parents were always good at regulating, but there were definitely weeks I'd play for hours.
If someone is putting off other important things in their life to play video games then that's definitely a problem. However, if people want to set aside 100% of their free time to play video games, I don't think that's any worse than other things people do with their time that we (as a society) hold in high regard such as becoming a chess grandmaster, practicing violin 12 hours / day, watching football games nonstop, etc. None of these things are actually "productive," the sole purpose is to spend time having fun.
Struggling to come up with a logical counter argument but learning a musical instrument is deeply satisfy as is listening to someone live who is good. Also maybe just in terms of being attractive to other people saying you are a level 122 mage in world of ever crack does not quite have the same allure as being able to captivate a room with your piano playing.
Edit when I was about 12 I started playing the guitar non stop, I remember clearly thinking to myself this is way better than playing the super nes. I didn't touch games for another five years, I gave Goldeneye a go at a friend's house and reignighted that addiction.
Edit when I was about 12 I started playing the guitar non stop, I remember clearly thinking to myself this is way better than playing the super nes. I didn't touch games for another five years, I gave Goldeneye a go at a friend's house and reignighted that addiction.
> Also maybe just in terms of being attractive to other people saying you are a level 122 mage in world of ever crack does not quite have the same allure as being able to captivate a room with your piano playing.
That is really the main gist of it, women don't care much about video gaming and therefore society condemns it.
Men on the other hand will probably be way more excited about your skills and endeavours in a video game than your ability to play piano, you can listen to the best pianists in the world at any time but sharing stories and thoughts about games is something you need friends for. Evidence: There are tons of discussions about games and gaming everywhere, in youtube channels, outside classrooms etc, while basically nobody talks about how piano practice went. Piano is good to show that you are fit and attract a mate, it isn't good to make friends. And therefore piano is seen as a noble hobby while gaming is seen as a waste of time.
Even listening to music is seen as better than gaming, so the mastery or creative or productive aspects has nothing to do with it.
That is really the main gist of it, women don't care much about video gaming and therefore society condemns it.
Men on the other hand will probably be way more excited about your skills and endeavours in a video game than your ability to play piano, you can listen to the best pianists in the world at any time but sharing stories and thoughts about games is something you need friends for. Evidence: There are tons of discussions about games and gaming everywhere, in youtube channels, outside classrooms etc, while basically nobody talks about how piano practice went. Piano is good to show that you are fit and attract a mate, it isn't good to make friends. And therefore piano is seen as a noble hobby while gaming is seen as a waste of time.
Even listening to music is seen as better than gaming, so the mastery or creative or productive aspects has nothing to do with it.
As a man, I don't want to hear about your video-game exploits either. I play, but I definitely don't want to define my personality or hear/tell stories about it.
I think the difference is that a video-game is (as you said and viewed by me at least) as mostly consumptive rather than creative or constructive. I'm playing a game I know I'm dicking around and wasting time, the same as if I'm watching a movie or (even) reading a book for fun.
I'd say that some games are more constructive, like Minecraft or other games where you're building something or creating a story yourself... but I think what's being targeted is largely RNG lootbox online grind games. There's also an argument that top tier professional gaming isn't really that much different than being good at some other sport... and that's kind of an unfortunate side-effect.
The title is a bit misleading as there's no provision for 'offline' games.
Culturally for me... regulating media time seems like a parent's responsibility, and maybe this does give parents the tools to do that as the child could use their parent's account with their permission fairly easily.
I'd be against a similar thing where I live, but as I am not a Chinese citizen nor do I plan on living there, I can't say my opinion is worth much.
However, I think people are making this out to be much worse than it is as there's (for a long time) been a provision that children under a certain age can't sign up for online accounts (in the US) without a parent's explicit permission (with the implication that that the parent takes responsibility for monitoring the child's activity). This makes that implication more explicit as the child must use the parent's account most of the time.
This is one way of solving the 'online games have predatory practices against children / teens,' I don't think this is how I'd solve it, but again, not really my business.
I think the difference is that a video-game is (as you said and viewed by me at least) as mostly consumptive rather than creative or constructive. I'm playing a game I know I'm dicking around and wasting time, the same as if I'm watching a movie or (even) reading a book for fun.
I'd say that some games are more constructive, like Minecraft or other games where you're building something or creating a story yourself... but I think what's being targeted is largely RNG lootbox online grind games. There's also an argument that top tier professional gaming isn't really that much different than being good at some other sport... and that's kind of an unfortunate side-effect.
The title is a bit misleading as there's no provision for 'offline' games.
Culturally for me... regulating media time seems like a parent's responsibility, and maybe this does give parents the tools to do that as the child could use their parent's account with their permission fairly easily.
I'd be against a similar thing where I live, but as I am not a Chinese citizen nor do I plan on living there, I can't say my opinion is worth much.
However, I think people are making this out to be much worse than it is as there's (for a long time) been a provision that children under a certain age can't sign up for online accounts (in the US) without a parent's explicit permission (with the implication that that the parent takes responsibility for monitoring the child's activity). This makes that implication more explicit as the child must use the parent's account most of the time.
This is one way of solving the 'online games have predatory practices against children / teens,' I don't think this is how I'd solve it, but again, not really my business.
So I ski. I don’t really define my life or personality around skiing, but I would be a little miffed if I could only ski for 3 hours a week in the winter because the government thinks I’m not being productive enough.
For children, it’s common to participate in sports for way more than 3 hours a week, and yet the government does not feel inclined to involve itself there.
Allowing leisure time to be dictated by the government is not a good path to go down.
No matter the health benefits, allowing people to go down a suboptimal path that makes them happier is the essence of a free society.
For children, it’s common to participate in sports for way more than 3 hours a week, and yet the government does not feel inclined to involve itself there.
Allowing leisure time to be dictated by the government is not a good path to go down.
No matter the health benefits, allowing people to go down a suboptimal path that makes them happier is the essence of a free society.
Actually the Chinese government is cracking down on excessive homework and after-school tutoring programs since they create an overly competitive academic environment and prevent kids from participating in activities like sports. So they are getting involved there. https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/chinas-private-tutor-ban-kills...
That piece reads like a big propaganda ad it says they want kids to not be in school so that they can "play more and work out"
Which is exactly what the government is banning playing. Seems to me that they just want these kids to work or "help out on the farm" as Americans say. Which is totally fine with me humans should start working as kids to prepare them doesn't make sense that you wait till you're 20 to start working.
Seems to you based on what?
It's not really about women. The levels in video games are manufactured goals. Making music sound good is an innate goal. In the same way making a beautiful build in Minecraft is also an innate goal and so is finding a creative way to optimize your factory in Factorio, which is why that's a lot more impressive to people outside the game than becoming a level 121 mage.
There is no difference really, becoming level 121 isn't a difficulty goal and doesn't matter but getting into masters league in Starcraft or similar will impress a ton of people since it is really hard. Similarly nobody will care about you spending a year learning Piano if can't play anything decent afterwards. And most people who practice instruments don't learn how to play well so their efforts were in vain, and unlike the level 121 mage they didn't even have fun doing it.
Getting into master's league on StarCraft is only impressive to people who play StarCraft. Being able to play beautiful songs on the piano is impressive to everyone.
You're comparing achieving a goal to working towards it. It will take roughly three to four years to reach master's league on StarCraft for even talented people. Meanwhile, almost everyone can play the piano or the guitar well enough to impress laypeople after 2 years of lesser daily effort.
You're comparing achieving a goal to working towards it. It will take roughly three to four years to reach master's league on StarCraft for even talented people. Meanwhile, almost everyone can play the piano or the guitar well enough to impress laypeople after 2 years of lesser daily effort.
> Meanwhile, almost everyone can play the piano or the guitar well enough to impress laypeople after 2 years of lesser daily effort.
I don't see this. Lots of kids were forced to learn an instrument but I don't know many who plays an instrument well enough that anyone would want to listen to them. Sure people get a bit impressed that you can play anything at all, but it isn't like they find it enjoyable to listen to it.
> Getting into master's league on StarCraft is only impressive to people who play StarCraft
This isn't true, most gamers who are loosely aware of what StarCraft is would be very impressed. Like people read articles about starcraft pros and talked about how impressive/insane those were without ever playing the game. Being really good at any game at all will impress a lot of people and especially so for the more famous ones.
But of course they would just be impressed and end it at that. Similarly being able to play piano really well would just impress people, very few actually wants to listen to piano music as an activity. Piano might impress a few more, but I doubt it would make you more friends and conversations than being good at Starcraft, at least among young men. And if we instead take some more popular game today like Fortnite then 100% being good at Fortnite will be way more important for your male social life than being good at an instrument.
I don't see this. Lots of kids were forced to learn an instrument but I don't know many who plays an instrument well enough that anyone would want to listen to them. Sure people get a bit impressed that you can play anything at all, but it isn't like they find it enjoyable to listen to it.
> Getting into master's league on StarCraft is only impressive to people who play StarCraft
This isn't true, most gamers who are loosely aware of what StarCraft is would be very impressed. Like people read articles about starcraft pros and talked about how impressive/insane those were without ever playing the game. Being really good at any game at all will impress a lot of people and especially so for the more famous ones.
But of course they would just be impressed and end it at that. Similarly being able to play piano really well would just impress people, very few actually wants to listen to piano music as an activity. Piano might impress a few more, but I doubt it would make you more friends and conversations than being good at Starcraft, at least among young men. And if we instead take some more popular game today like Fortnite then 100% being good at Fortnite will be way more important for your male social life than being good at an instrument.
Kids that are forced to do piano once a day do not expend anywhere near the effort that someone trying to get to master's league on StarCraft does.
It's not true that few people want to listen to someone's music as an activity. Just go to most parties where someone can play the guitar or piano well and if there is such an instrument you'll see people play them. Happens very often in my friend groups.
It's not true that few people want to listen to someone's music as an activity. Just go to most parties where someone can play the guitar or piano well and if there is such an instrument you'll see people play them. Happens very often in my friend groups.
A guy playing guitar surrounded by women, yes that is even a meme, but I've never seen that happen at a party with mostly men nor have I seen a woman play an instrument at a party. It seems to mainly be a way for men to demonstrate value to women. There are of course other situations, but this is what I've seen and this is what most of the internet have seen since it is even a meme as I said. Example of guitar guy meme:
https://everythreeweekly.com/2013/12/that-guy-who-brings-aco...
Another example:
https://old.reddit.com/r/starterpacks/comments/76k1c0/guy_th...
To me it doesn't look like people appreciate them, at least not the men.
https://everythreeweekly.com/2013/12/that-guy-who-brings-aco...
Another example:
https://old.reddit.com/r/starterpacks/comments/76k1c0/guy_th...
To me it doesn't look like people appreciate them, at least not the men.
No, not surrounded by women. Just guys, one or two with a guitar, playing music while the rest sing along. Sometimes next to a campfire with beers in hand. It's genuinely very fun.
I'm sure some people try to force it and it gets annoying. Humans love being musical in groups though and always have.
I'm sure some people try to force it and it gets annoying. Humans love being musical in groups though and always have.
> > Getting into master's league on StarCraft is only impressive to people who play StarCraft
> This isn't true, most gamers who are loosely aware of what StarCraft is would be very impressed.
"most gamers".
Q. E. D.
> This isn't true, most gamers who are loosely aware of what StarCraft is would be very impressed.
"most gamers".
Q. E. D.
I play piano too, and also find it deeply satisfying but I also have friends who find playing video games deeply satisfying and I don't think one is worse than the other. As I am not a professional musician at the end of the day I only do it for my own enjoyment and if viewed through the lens of "productivity" it is a complete waste of time, anyone could just find the songs I play on spotify, played by someone far better than me.
The difference, for me, is consumption vs production.
If you spend tons of time learning an instrument, you will probably find yourself interesting in creating music. Maybe it's not going to be playing in a band, or recording albums. It might just be playing music around the campfire. But that is an activity in which you are producing something, bringing music into the world. I feel the same about any of "the arts". You're inherently going to be engaged in the act of creating something.
With gaming, consumption is more the rule. You play a level, a campaign, a story. If you create something, bring something new into the world, it is most likely going to be external to the game (like the posters who mention that they built websites and utils for their favorite games).
There are obviously exceptions on both sides. Games like Minecraft, Factorio, etc are obviously creative. Games like Roblox or Mario Maker allow people to create content and put it into the game. Game review videos, Twitch streaming, etc, allow people to build content with games at the center. These are creative/productive pursuits, and I think they have some inherent value (even if it's kind of a bummer that these creations are largely limited to being enjoyed within the game).
As an exception on the musical side, you could, for example, learn guitar exclusively through Rocksmith, and only ever use your guitar as a controller for a game.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using your free time to do "consumptive" stuff. I enjoy gaming here and there. I listen to music. I watch TV. But for me personally, I find that I get a lot more satisfaction out of "creative" activities.
One last point - you get good at what you spend your time doing. I tend to really enjoy games that ask a lot of skill from their players - roguelikes, tight platformers, Souls games, Doom on nightmare mode, etc. But when I finish a game, I no longer have any use for the skills I developed. Whereas skills I develop in the pursuit of something creative/productive can be used in all kinds of situations for the rest of my life.
Edit: I started rambling and forgot the point. With all of this said - I would never want the government to limit how I spend my time. That's a job for parents when you're young, and it's a job for your own sense of what makes you happy when you're an adult. These kinds of lessons aren't things that can be downloaded into you from outside. Realizations about what makes a person fulfilled tend, in my experience, to come from within.
If you spend tons of time learning an instrument, you will probably find yourself interesting in creating music. Maybe it's not going to be playing in a band, or recording albums. It might just be playing music around the campfire. But that is an activity in which you are producing something, bringing music into the world. I feel the same about any of "the arts". You're inherently going to be engaged in the act of creating something.
With gaming, consumption is more the rule. You play a level, a campaign, a story. If you create something, bring something new into the world, it is most likely going to be external to the game (like the posters who mention that they built websites and utils for their favorite games).
There are obviously exceptions on both sides. Games like Minecraft, Factorio, etc are obviously creative. Games like Roblox or Mario Maker allow people to create content and put it into the game. Game review videos, Twitch streaming, etc, allow people to build content with games at the center. These are creative/productive pursuits, and I think they have some inherent value (even if it's kind of a bummer that these creations are largely limited to being enjoyed within the game).
As an exception on the musical side, you could, for example, learn guitar exclusively through Rocksmith, and only ever use your guitar as a controller for a game.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using your free time to do "consumptive" stuff. I enjoy gaming here and there. I listen to music. I watch TV. But for me personally, I find that I get a lot more satisfaction out of "creative" activities.
One last point - you get good at what you spend your time doing. I tend to really enjoy games that ask a lot of skill from their players - roguelikes, tight platformers, Souls games, Doom on nightmare mode, etc. But when I finish a game, I no longer have any use for the skills I developed. Whereas skills I develop in the pursuit of something creative/productive can be used in all kinds of situations for the rest of my life.
Edit: I started rambling and forgot the point. With all of this said - I would never want the government to limit how I spend my time. That's a job for parents when you're young, and it's a job for your own sense of what makes you happy when you're an adult. These kinds of lessons aren't things that can be downloaded into you from outside. Realizations about what makes a person fulfilled tend, in my experience, to come from within.
Totally agreed. Paradox is that most sports are basically same as non-exceptional games you said, but it treated very well from society.
That's true - although the physical activity from sports is probably a net good for _players_ on average. I enjoy lifting weights, but that doesn't really fall into either of my categories - I'm not really consuming or creating anything when I'm lifting. You could argue maybe that I'm 'consuming' my workout plan (which I didn't create). Or that I'm 'creating' muscle, but that's a bit of a stretch :)
Either way though, I agree that _watching_ sports TV is firmly in the "consumption" category.
Either way though, I agree that _watching_ sports TV is firmly in the "consumption" category.
There is a real difference between the two. The primary goal of playing an instrument is to make something that sounds good. The goals of video games are generally manufactured.
The exception are games like Minecraft. But if someone builds a computer in Minecraft or finishes a beautiful build that can actually be captivating to people that don't play it.
The exception are games like Minecraft. But if someone builds a computer in Minecraft or finishes a beautiful build that can actually be captivating to people that don't play it.
> The primary goal of playing an instrument is to make something that sounds good.
It could be argued the primary goal of playing games is to make an experience that feels good.
Based on the popularity of let's play videos and streamers I suspect the legitimacy of both activities will converge.
It could be argued the primary goal of playing games is to make an experience that feels good.
Based on the popularity of let's play videos and streamers I suspect the legitimacy of both activities will converge.
The highest paid pianists in the world make roughly the same as the highest paid esports players. Both groups are exceptionally talented and driven multi-multi-millionaires with massive fan bases. These things can be attractive to some people, even if the source of the attributes is videogames over piano.
The older I get the less alluring music artists are to me. they're basically just following a set of rules tooting a horn or strumming a string. really not that impressive. especially when you pick one up and learn the magic goes away.
And if you personally don’t care about being attractive to other people for a variety of reasons?
South Korea has built a collective sense of value around Starcraft, but it feels too far removed from meatspace where we will likely occupy for a long time yet. Music seems more valuable, along with the ability to tell a good story. Sometimes they overlap. I’ve been enjoying Fire Draw Near, a podcast by Ian Lynch about the folk-music tradition of Ireland. “Work, Rest, Play, Die” by The Subhumans has melodic roots in an old tune, and he makes similar connections with “One” by Metallica.
A value-test I use is: “how useful/feasible is this activity if I don’t have a computer or similar technology that is predicated on significant infrastructure?”
Telling stories, playing physical games, making music (with our bodies, at least; humming, whistling, drumming, singing); these are elegant, as in = depth / complexity (per James Portnoy of Extra Credits, RE games).
A value-test I use is: “how useful/feasible is this activity if I don’t have a computer or similar technology that is predicated on significant infrastructure?”
Telling stories, playing physical games, making music (with our bodies, at least; humming, whistling, drumming, singing); these are elegant, as in = depth / complexity (per James Portnoy of Extra Credits, RE games).
> A value-test I use is: “how useful/feasible is this activity if I don’t have a computer or similar technology that is predicated on significant infrastructure?”
That would discount most hugely important activities like, say, medicine. In general, I don't think testing against dependency on modern infrastructure is useful, except when you're preparing for a post-apocalyptic world.
That would discount most hugely important activities like, say, medicine. In general, I don't think testing against dependency on modern infrastructure is useful, except when you're preparing for a post-apocalyptic world.
By the way, is playing chess online or against a local AI regarded as a video game or is there an exemption for traditional games? For sure Chinese professional weiqi (go) players played a lot of games online when they were younger than 18.
"Gaming addiction" is 99% depression and similar disorders. It's just not a thing on its own, it's a symptom.
Undervalued comment that doesn't vibe with mainstreams interpretation of "gaming addiction." I only became "addicted" after both my parents almost died of medical conditions. It's easier to write it off as "gaming addiction" in the same way certain drugs are "gateway drugs."
The vast majority of depressed people do not demonstrate symptoms of gaming addiction. Even if one were to accept the argument that gaming addiction is always caused by underlying depression, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered separately from garden variety depression - there is often a nasty positive feedback loop between depressive symptoms and addictive symptoms. Besides, psychiatry in general needs to be increasing the precision of its definitions if we are going to get anywhere with new treatments.
Ironically, depression is often caused by other underlying disorders (e.g. Autism), yet if the symptoms are met there will be a comorbid diagnosis, rather than saying that depression is just a symptom. It can be difficult to disentangle cause and effect for a lot of comorbid diagnoses, and also many existing treatments address symptoms rather than causes. So the distinction you are making hardly exists in the field at large (at this time).
As for the deeper question, "could an otherwise healthy person develop gaming addiction?", I'm inclined to answer yes. It of course depends on how you define "otherwise healthy", as I'm sure we could identify genetic risk factors for gaming addiction, and I bet they will correlate with risk factors for addiction, ADHD, etc. However I've certainly seen people who were functioning well but perhaps a bit bored at school/work or a bit anxious in social situations take a complete nose dive when they got hooked on the "right" game.
I'm curious if you would say the same thing about gambling addiction?
Edit: just to add I am 100% against anything like what China is doing. I think we need more resources to help those who are spending more time gaming than they would like, which involves recognizing it as a legitimate issue. I also wouldn't mind some restrictions on the tactics game companies can take to make their games addictive, although the details of that would require careful consideration.
Ironically, depression is often caused by other underlying disorders (e.g. Autism), yet if the symptoms are met there will be a comorbid diagnosis, rather than saying that depression is just a symptom. It can be difficult to disentangle cause and effect for a lot of comorbid diagnoses, and also many existing treatments address symptoms rather than causes. So the distinction you are making hardly exists in the field at large (at this time).
As for the deeper question, "could an otherwise healthy person develop gaming addiction?", I'm inclined to answer yes. It of course depends on how you define "otherwise healthy", as I'm sure we could identify genetic risk factors for gaming addiction, and I bet they will correlate with risk factors for addiction, ADHD, etc. However I've certainly seen people who were functioning well but perhaps a bit bored at school/work or a bit anxious in social situations take a complete nose dive when they got hooked on the "right" game.
I'm curious if you would say the same thing about gambling addiction?
Edit: just to add I am 100% against anything like what China is doing. I think we need more resources to help those who are spending more time gaming than they would like, which involves recognizing it as a legitimate issue. I also wouldn't mind some restrictions on the tactics game companies can take to make their games addictive, although the details of that would require careful consideration.
The vast majority of depressed people do not exhibit exactly the same symptoms.
No shit, that doesn't change anything I said. The definition of depression is hilariously vague, the last thing we should do is lump additional (relatively) well defined issues under "just depression". Besides, there are certain symptoms that do appear in a high percentage of patients, gaming addiction is most definitely not one of them. The point is not about aligning symptom profiles exactly between individuals, it's about looking at classes of symptoms across a broader population. Nobody in their right mind would say addiction is "just a symptom of depression", even though it can be correlated with depression to a similar extent as gaming addiction can be.
If you want to get your message across to these types of people, you should first consider MMOs IRL. The friends, the responsibility, the schedules, and the socio-political skills are all very real.
It’s better to refer to hiking, etc as AFK.
Credentials: I grew up on 40+ hours a week of video games. I’ve played more than a year worth of screen time in World of Warcraft, I’ve gotten a Bachelors of Computer Engineering, and worked at Amazon for 8 years.
Meanwhile, I’ll tell you first hand, playing WoW from 16 to 19 prepared me more for being successful and getting promoted at Amazon than my 4 years of university.
It’s better to refer to hiking, etc as AFK.
Credentials: I grew up on 40+ hours a week of video games. I’ve played more than a year worth of screen time in World of Warcraft, I’ve gotten a Bachelors of Computer Engineering, and worked at Amazon for 8 years.
Meanwhile, I’ll tell you first hand, playing WoW from 16 to 19 prepared me more for being successful and getting promoted at Amazon than my 4 years of university.
This is hacker news self selection talking. The filter: The few who found computer science through gaming and made a cushion of a life which let's us the time luxury to post on an online forum in the middle of a Monday(at least it is the middle of a Monday for me). Meanwhile countless lives went into backbreaking labour work if that in the "below the API" sort of uber and amazon delivery work. These lives and their stories will rarely be represented here. I am speaking for a friend who went into construction and got injured and is on disability at the age of 35. He said he could have made so much more of his life had he not played 24/7 video games for several of his most precious formative years during high-school and early college (of which he dropped out).
To clarify, I’m not advocating for gaming-abuse. I believe in a balance.
I’m just letting the grand parent know that to get their point across better they need to realize MMOs specifically should be considered IRL and it’s better to use “AFK” or “non-digital” to differentiate in person interactions rather than “IRL”.
Specifically in the grand parent’s post, they ”blame” MMOs and gaming-abuse for their friends “issues”. However, it’s a more apt analogy to view over use of MMOs as a form of workaholism than to view it as a form of drug-addiction. It’ll help you to get them to find a balance.
And similarly I advocate a similar vocabulary switch from “IRL” to “AFK” to differentiate Zoom/FaceTime vs non-Zoom/FaceTime activities.
I’m just letting the grand parent know that to get their point across better they need to realize MMOs specifically should be considered IRL and it’s better to use “AFK” or “non-digital” to differentiate in person interactions rather than “IRL”.
Specifically in the grand parent’s post, they ”blame” MMOs and gaming-abuse for their friends “issues”. However, it’s a more apt analogy to view over use of MMOs as a form of workaholism than to view it as a form of drug-addiction. It’ll help you to get them to find a balance.
And similarly I advocate a similar vocabulary switch from “IRL” to “AFK” to differentiate Zoom/FaceTime vs non-Zoom/FaceTime activities.
Was this Runescape per chance?
Runescape and World of Warcraft :)
I learned about contracts and hiring people when I was a 9 year old running a lobster fishing company with contractors haha.
I learned about contracts and hiring people when I was a 9 year old running a lobster fishing company with contractors haha.
I've mentioned this view a few times: computers are the modern double-edged sword.
On one hand you can learn pretty much anything academic just by sitting in front of one. Quantum physics, history of Rome, food chemistry, and so on. Use it right, and you can really have access to a huge amount of knowledge that I never could as a child.
On the other hand, it is the biggest addiction danger in the house. It's legal for you to invite corporations into your home to try to persuade you to sit and grind away at some game, forever. You can waste your whole life in the comfort of your own Skinner box. All your opportunities to go and socialize with real people, out in society, you can just skip. What to exercise? Meh. Want a nice meal with family? Meh. Want to look at nature? LOL no.
Anecdote:
A friend of mine was playing very heavily for some time, maybe a couple of times a week. He goes into a café, sits down next to another fellow, who'd been there far longer: "oh hey man, I've been here for two days. My boss will get pissed off if I don't show up to work tomorrow. But Everquest..."
My buddy comes in two nights later, guy is in the same seat playing EverQuest. "Shit man, I got fired. He called me and told me. Anyway I gotta level up." At that point my friend got quite scared of the power of this stuff. Me as well, nearly 20 years later.
To cap it off, the dude's job was to be the attendant at another computer café. Yes. He could have just sat his ass at work and gotten paid for it, but somehow he'd lost his job by sitting at a different café and not finding the motivation to stop.
On one hand you can learn pretty much anything academic just by sitting in front of one. Quantum physics, history of Rome, food chemistry, and so on. Use it right, and you can really have access to a huge amount of knowledge that I never could as a child.
On the other hand, it is the biggest addiction danger in the house. It's legal for you to invite corporations into your home to try to persuade you to sit and grind away at some game, forever. You can waste your whole life in the comfort of your own Skinner box. All your opportunities to go and socialize with real people, out in society, you can just skip. What to exercise? Meh. Want a nice meal with family? Meh. Want to look at nature? LOL no.
Anecdote:
A friend of mine was playing very heavily for some time, maybe a couple of times a week. He goes into a café, sits down next to another fellow, who'd been there far longer: "oh hey man, I've been here for two days. My boss will get pissed off if I don't show up to work tomorrow. But Everquest..."
My buddy comes in two nights later, guy is in the same seat playing EverQuest. "Shit man, I got fired. He called me and told me. Anyway I gotta level up." At that point my friend got quite scared of the power of this stuff. Me as well, nearly 20 years later.
To cap it off, the dude's job was to be the attendant at another computer café. Yes. He could have just sat his ass at work and gotten paid for it, but somehow he'd lost his job by sitting at a different café and not finding the motivation to stop.
Personal anecdote. For a couple of years, I was deeply addicted to early version of Final Fantasy 11. Thing was hard, punishing and effectively required dedicated player base. I have some great memories, but there was a moment, when I started calling in sick to camp a monster. Fortunately, I eventually managed to stop on my own, but I still get occasional pangs ( but thankfully today's FFXI is a shell of itself for a variety of reasons ).
I was lucky. I am certain there are people way more obsessive than me.
I was lucky. I am certain there are people way more obsessive than me.
I remember an acquaintance calling it “EverCrack” 20 years ago…
All good points, but the main issue here is the government, in this case the CCP, dictating game play. It's the parent's responsibility to dictate when and how their children play games not the government.
If the government wants to go after game developers because their games are addictive that's one thing. Dictating to the players is a level of control free citizens should never experience. Although, in this case, citizens of China are hardly free in the first place.
If the government wants to go after game developers because their games are addictive that's one thing. Dictating to the players is a level of control free citizens should never experience. Although, in this case, citizens of China are hardly free in the first place.
Where is the line compared to government enforcing parents to not leaving their kids alone in a car or home, or sending their kids to school?
How do we measure what level of control we have/deserve on our kids?
I'm not disagreeing, just arguing that there are cases where one could argue that the government is overstepping on how we parent our kids.
How do we measure what level of control we have/deserve on our kids?
I'm not disagreeing, just arguing that there are cases where one could argue that the government is overstepping on how we parent our kids.
These arguments have already happened. You are arguing about paternalism. These debates are common in policy classes, specifically about libertarianism. Clearly, people that believe in the freedom of choice would hate this. However to your questions:
> parents to not leaving their kids alone in a car
Infringes on the freedom of the child to live or not endure conditions beyond what a normal person should endure
> sending their kids to school
The other questions start getting more into removing the freedom of the parents to choose at the expense of the best interest of the individual being affected (in the government's point of view).
There is a lot of academic material with well defined terms about these subjects. Americans will err towards individual freedoms rather than the government directing more than will European countries (and obviously communist countries; yes you can find specific examples to contradict this statement, it's a generality, an average of all policies). But Americans are trending towards more paternalistic policies over the last fifty years (Standard disclaimer: To those who will derive an intent out of this statement, it is not supporting or not supporting it, simply an observation).
> parents to not leaving their kids alone in a car
Infringes on the freedom of the child to live or not endure conditions beyond what a normal person should endure
> sending their kids to school
The other questions start getting more into removing the freedom of the parents to choose at the expense of the best interest of the individual being affected (in the government's point of view).
There is a lot of academic material with well defined terms about these subjects. Americans will err towards individual freedoms rather than the government directing more than will European countries (and obviously communist countries; yes you can find specific examples to contradict this statement, it's a generality, an average of all policies). But Americans are trending towards more paternalistic policies over the last fifty years (Standard disclaimer: To those who will derive an intent out of this statement, it is not supporting or not supporting it, simply an observation).
OTOH an individual parent has to expend a lot more effort to create controls than a government. An individual parent can't mandate technology companies install controls that automatically regulate their child's play; they have to manually monitor+manage it at some cost of time+effort to themselves.
A wonkish trick would be for the government to mandate controls with sensible defaults but allow parents to tune them I guess?
A wonkish trick would be for the government to mandate controls with sensible defaults but allow parents to tune them I guess?
Does anyone expect this to be effective though?
From the article:
> Previously, China had limited the length of time under-18s could play video games to 1.5 hours on any day and three hours on holidays under 2019 rules.
Is this actually going to be enforced somehow? And if so, how is that enforcement going to be different than what happened over the last two years?
From the article:
> Previously, China had limited the length of time under-18s could play video games to 1.5 hours on any day and three hours on holidays under 2019 rules.
Is this actually going to be enforced somehow? And if so, how is that enforcement going to be different than what happened over the last two years?
The government is not dicating parents/kids.
The government IS dictating game developers not to provide service to children who want to play outside of the said periods.
What you said is impossible to enforce.
The government IS dictating game developers not to provide service to children who want to play outside of the said periods.
What you said is impossible to enforce.
It should be noted that this is for online gaming only, but that kind of gaming is extremely popular in China. My wife (who isn't affected by this) has this one Chinese online game that she plays for hours every weekend.
"(who isn't affected by this)"
LMAO. Even if you didn't mention it. Likely no one would think you married an underaged girl.
LMAO. Even if you didn't mention it. Likely no one would think you married an underaged girl.
I read it as "who doesn't live in China", but I guess we all first see what we've conditioned ourselves to look for first.
The regulated game are mostly online game.
It's like social media, sometimes kids have to play it to be in part of the community. Individual parents can't change this.
The feelings you (I have the same feelings about his as you do) have about this are at an individual level.
State mandating how much time someone should spend doing a particular activity is a totally different topic.
Even though I agree with the overall intention of this rule/law I vehemently oppose a state imposing such restrictions.
State mandating how much time someone should spend doing a particular activity is a totally different topic.
Even though I agree with the overall intention of this rule/law I vehemently oppose a state imposing such restrictions.
On top of the fact no kid is every going to be legally liable for the breach and therefore no overly unfair oppression is applied on them, you say "someone", but kids have to be taught how to become someone.
Look it's clear it's not their fault the parents are so busy and exhausted by the rat race they cant handle properly their only child they made under family pressure. The gov regulates the consequence of years of inaction while trying to fix the root cause maybe.
I live in China, I m happy kids waste their intelligence and tuition fee on addictive lootboxes game, but mine, ill be way more strict than the government. No way he gets exposed to this kind of shit. Whatever it takes.
My parents threw the computer out when they saw me at 12 playing (addictive for the time but nowhere near what they have now) online games, which forced me to read because nothing else, well if that s what it takes, that s what it takes.
Look it's clear it's not their fault the parents are so busy and exhausted by the rat race they cant handle properly their only child they made under family pressure. The gov regulates the consequence of years of inaction while trying to fix the root cause maybe.
I live in China, I m happy kids waste their intelligence and tuition fee on addictive lootboxes game, but mine, ill be way more strict than the government. No way he gets exposed to this kind of shit. Whatever it takes.
My parents threw the computer out when they saw me at 12 playing (addictive for the time but nowhere near what they have now) online games, which forced me to read because nothing else, well if that s what it takes, that s what it takes.
But do you really not know anyone who plays video games who is as successful as you are?
[deleted]
Technically, the state doesn't place restrictions on the kids, which is legally impossible, they place restrictions on the digital entertainment business where they are required to allow entry for kid for no longer than said duration.
> Technically, the state doesn't place restrictions on the kids, which is legally impossible,
What makes that legally impossible in China? (edit or do you just mean hard to enforce? I thought you meant something different by "legally impossible", I may have misunderstood).
What makes that legally impossible in China? (edit or do you just mean hard to enforce? I thought you meant something different by "legally impossible", I may have misunderstood).
Kids can't be criminally punished/sued, not for things like these.
Kids can be sued for damages to others which ultimately their parents/guardians would be required to pay which doesn't exist in this case.
This is similar to how age restriction for alcohol is enforced in the US, interestingly, age restriction on alcohol consumption wasn't enforced in China, though made into law.
Kids can be sued for damages to others which ultimately their parents/guardians would be required to pay which doesn't exist in this case.
This is similar to how age restriction for alcohol is enforced in the US, interestingly, age restriction on alcohol consumption wasn't enforced in China, though made into law.
thanks!
The hills are high and the emperor is far away.
I have mixed feelings about whether or not restricting a child's video game usage is a good idea.
However, I think that the state imposing these restrictions is vastly superior to having parents impose the same restrictions. The amount of time a kid is allowed to play games should not be related to what family they happen to be part of or which parents they happen to have.
However, I think that the state imposing these restrictions is vastly superior to having parents impose the same restrictions. The amount of time a kid is allowed to play games should not be related to what family they happen to be part of or which parents they happen to have.
Not sure if serious. You're implying a state should have more control over where a child's attention goes over their parents?
You have to differentiate real games from casino games. Many popular games have a substantial casino element and are basically skinners boxes and need to be controlled like casino games. I saw job postings a little while ago for mobile games that require experience making slot machines
There are a lot of games that fall into grey areas, possibly accidentally, and those are harder to deal with. Loot boxes and mmos are so obviously gambling that I don’t even know what to say
There are a lot of games that fall into grey areas, possibly accidentally, and those are harder to deal with. Loot boxes and mmos are so obviously gambling that I don’t even know what to say
As much as I’ve moved on from solo games (Atari 2600 & Commodore 64 & Nintendo scarified the seed, then it grew roots into Lemmings on my 386, Heroes of Might and Magic 3, Command & Conquer, Diablo 2, Morrowind, World of Warcraft [after 2005 it was mostly a solo experience] and Hearthstone, for examples), I can think of better activities in hindsight. Games were largely an escape for me, as were books, but at least with many books there’s more exposure to what it means to be human. Brainstem wrapped in the hydrostatic comfort of a videogame meant I could avoid observing my emotions and deciding what to do. I’m still learning to take responsibility for my own actions.
I’m not alone in this relationship with games, nor am I necessarily representative in my experiences. I’m sharing as a caution to others for whom videogames are all-consuming.
Healthier alternatives that scratch the itch for me are co-op games that aren’t great solo (I only play with close friends now, as a way to keep in touch and work together), tabletop RPGs like Mouse Guard, and physically exploring outside, as I’m thoroughly an Explorer on Bartle’s chart[0]. Also reading/listening to stories, playing music (another form of story that isn’t so far removed from our physical existence as videogames are), playing physical games/sports, drawing/painting (but not in Skyrim, etc :), and gardening, etc. I won’t bar my child from videogames, because they can backfire. Instead I’ll try to model healthy use of the pass-time as a brief mental gear-switch.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_type...
I’m not alone in this relationship with games, nor am I necessarily representative in my experiences. I’m sharing as a caution to others for whom videogames are all-consuming.
Healthier alternatives that scratch the itch for me are co-op games that aren’t great solo (I only play with close friends now, as a way to keep in touch and work together), tabletop RPGs like Mouse Guard, and physically exploring outside, as I’m thoroughly an Explorer on Bartle’s chart[0]. Also reading/listening to stories, playing music (another form of story that isn’t so far removed from our physical existence as videogames are), playing physical games/sports, drawing/painting (but not in Skyrim, etc :), and gardening, etc. I won’t bar my child from videogames, because they can backfire. Instead I’ll try to model healthy use of the pass-time as a brief mental gear-switch.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_type...
> at least with many books there’s more exposure to what it means to be human.
Games could do this as well as books. (And certainly not every book does it much). Occasionally games do. Mostly not.
Games could do this as well as books. (And certainly not every book does it much). Occasionally games do. Mostly not.
There are also many books that don't.
> Modern games though are clearly designed to get you as addicted as possible and to play as long as possible…
The de-facto example of this nowadays is World of a Warcraft.
For those unaware, WoW charges you $15 per month play, as well as $60 every two years for the latest expansion.
This has resulted in a company that designs every last detail to be completed at the pace they determine to be correct, with a “story cliffhanger” at the end of each patch.
An applicable quote from one of the largest WoW content creators goes along the lines of “WoW used to be a game that made you want to waste your time. Now it’s a game that simply waste your time.”
The de-facto example of this nowadays is World of a Warcraft.
For those unaware, WoW charges you $15 per month play, as well as $60 every two years for the latest expansion.
This has resulted in a company that designs every last detail to be completed at the pace they determine to be correct, with a “story cliffhanger” at the end of each patch.
An applicable quote from one of the largest WoW content creators goes along the lines of “WoW used to be a game that made you want to waste your time. Now it’s a game that simply waste your time.”
My reading skills were nurtured by books. My history interest was nurtured by video games. My tech interest was nurtured by finagling with goddamn interrupt priorities and boot disks to get games to run.
Thinking about this a different way. We have seen the games that come out that exist to get you to play as long as possible look like.
What will the games that exist to be so awesome that if you get to play only an hour a day that want you to come back again look like? Will they make sure that hour is highly enjoyable and engaging instead of grindy? Is that a more sustainable model for game devs?
At least its a change from the current skinner boxes....
Maybe it will just be stronger skinner boxes. "Tune in next week for the exciting conclusion!" or "Get X Bonus if you log in tommorow!" is probably what will happen....
What will the games that exist to be so awesome that if you get to play only an hour a day that want you to come back again look like? Will they make sure that hour is highly enjoyable and engaging instead of grindy? Is that a more sustainable model for game devs?
At least its a change from the current skinner boxes....
Maybe it will just be stronger skinner boxes. "Tune in next week for the exciting conclusion!" or "Get X Bonus if you log in tommorow!" is probably what will happen....
For me the prime example of good, challenging, but non-addictive game is GCompris, a collection of kids activities. Open source as well.
Sadky, all the 8 year olds in my sons cohort will just say 'bah'. But they have touch builds so time to look at the src. Thanks!
I'm sure there are a lot of culture differences, but as a westerner I have no mixed feelings on this -- I think it's just insane. This is what parents are supposed to be in charge of doing.
Too many modern parents are not up to being a parent unfortunately.
It’s a hard work to maintain work/life balance while at the same time be a model for your children.
It takes A LOT of discipline and we all know how much discipline most ppl have..
It’s a hard work to maintain work/life balance while at the same time be a model for your children.
It takes A LOT of discipline and we all know how much discipline most ppl have..
> Too many modern parents are not up to being a parent unfortunately.
>
> It’s a hard work to maintain work/life balance while at the same time be a model for your children.
The problem here is not the parent, its the work demanding 40+ hours per week and a society that means both parents have to work.
The problem here is not the parent, its the work demanding 40+ hours per week and a society that means both parents have to work.
It's limited to the online game because the check is on server side rather than client (console/phone) side since it utilizes national ID data you provide when registering.
Do you have a source for that? From the article it sounds like the expectation is that all games should be implementing mechanisms to limit this. But that could just be poor reporting by Reuters ( not unsurprising for a breaking foreign government regulation change like this )
The Xinhua article on it (which I think is fairly authoritative) is clearer that it applies only to online games: http://www.news.cn/english/2021-08/30/c_1310157673.htm
Specifically,
> Online game providers can only offer one-hour services to minors from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, as well as on official holidays, according to the document made public on Monday.
> [...]
> The official said that parents and minors can decide on by themselves how long the children will play other games that are conducive to minors' growth, except online games.
Specifically,
> Online game providers can only offer one-hour services to minors from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, as well as on official holidays, according to the document made public on Monday.
> [...]
> The official said that parents and minors can decide on by themselves how long the children will play other games that are conducive to minors' growth, except online games.
The ban is on providing video game services to minors outside some hours : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28357167
What about the Alibaba South China Morning Post then?
https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3146918/china-limit...
I see phrasing like
> The notice also states that companies must strictly implement the real-name registration and login system in their games and not provide access to video games for those who are unregistered.
But nothing clarifying if they have drawn any distinction between online games that require a persistent connection to servers to function and “offline” games that are stand alone single player experiences with no online connectivity required.
> The notice also states that companies must strictly implement the real-name registration and login system in their games and not provide access to video games for those who are unregistered.
But nothing clarifying if they have drawn any distinction between online games that require a persistent connection to servers to function and “offline” games that are stand alone single player experiences with no online connectivity required.
Not knowing much about the great firewall, but taking in context from the article, it seems like they'd only really be able to limit "modern" games, which are always connected.
If you can somehow get your hands on an SNES and FF6 cart, or (more likely) figure out how to get an emulator and ROM to your computer, no one will be the wiser. So, if anything, this will be a boon to older console games.
If you can somehow get your hands on an SNES and FF6 cart, or (more likely) figure out how to get an emulator and ROM to your computer, no one will be the wiser. So, if anything, this will be a boon to older console games.
that are almost non existent in red China
Modern games is a bit of a blanket statement.
There are tons of modern games (arguably the majority when you consider the size of the market) that are not skinner boxes.
If all you're looking at is AAA games and mobile crap, then sure. But there's more to games than that stuff.
There are tons of modern games (arguably the majority when you consider the size of the market) that are not skinner boxes.
If all you're looking at is AAA games and mobile crap, then sure. But there's more to games than that stuff.
Goodness. If this was the US, I would be losing my mind over such legislation.
We must not convince the law makers that video games can be beneficial. That puts the wrong emphasis on the conversation.
The emphasis must be, you have no jurisdiction when it comes to raising children. Your laws are invalid. Even if video games are detrimental, you do not decide what is the best interest for a child, the parents do.
We must not convince the law makers that video games can be beneficial. That puts the wrong emphasis on the conversation.
The emphasis must be, you have no jurisdiction when it comes to raising children. Your laws are invalid. Even if video games are detrimental, you do not decide what is the best interest for a child, the parents do.
What about child protection service, school, free lunch at school, healthcare, and more comparably age 21 restriction for alcohol consumption? Those are all examples of 'jurisdiction over raising children'.
Physically abusing your child by chaining them to the radiator is not a parenting decision.
Providing lunch at something the child is required to be at by law is not a parenting decision.
Requiring annual physicals is not a parenting decision, nor a health care decision. However, requiring a specific treatment is both.
Alcohol consumption is a grey area, and a cultural choice the country has made. Why not make the driving age 14? 18? It's a question of maturity. But this is a poor comparison. While alcohol has an objective measure of physical harm (ie: LD50, a measurable and detrimental effect on developing minds), video games do not.
Listing these as examples is not a justification for the government deciding for a parent how much time their child can spend on video games.
And for disclosure, I think a time limit is a much needed societal thing. But the government must not be the one to make that decision.
Providing lunch at something the child is required to be at by law is not a parenting decision.
Requiring annual physicals is not a parenting decision, nor a health care decision. However, requiring a specific treatment is both.
Alcohol consumption is a grey area, and a cultural choice the country has made. Why not make the driving age 14? 18? It's a question of maturity. But this is a poor comparison. While alcohol has an objective measure of physical harm (ie: LD50, a measurable and detrimental effect on developing minds), video games do not.
Listing these as examples is not a justification for the government deciding for a parent how much time their child can spend on video games.
And for disclosure, I think a time limit is a much needed societal thing. But the government must not be the one to make that decision.
A parents' can ask their kid to limit video game time, but can't have the video gaming industry to enforce it. A national government can.
That's the issue.
And if a parent really feels their kids deserve more video game time, they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism, that simple.
That's the issue.
And if a parent really feels their kids deserve more video game time, they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism, that simple.
The equivalent of regulating video game playing times for children would be regulating when a child gets to have their favourite dessert, when they get to go out to meet their friends etc. These are all highly context-dependent individual parenting decisions that the government should have very little say in. Especially in the form of rules like restricting play time to 8 PM on Weekends.
The government can ask video game industry to provide enforcement mechanisms in the form of parental controls, which incidentally are quite widely adopted by most tech companies without government intervention in the West.
The government can ask video game industry to provide enforcement mechanisms in the form of parental controls, which incidentally are quite widely adopted by most tech companies without government intervention in the West.
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?
The timeframe when a parents have a say in children's activity is already limited by compulsory k-12 schooling. What's the difference?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism
Current technology means statements like this are not necessarily true (these are all referring to the same story, Chinese language link last):
https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/tencent_facial_recogn...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/video-game-facia...
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Cr17TKWQ3XcuNzDw085OLw
Current technology means statements like this are not necessarily true (these are all referring to the same story, Chinese language link last):
https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/tencent_facial_recogn...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/video-game-facia...
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Cr17TKWQ3XcuNzDw085OLw
> the new feature sees the company check accounts registered in adults’ names if
> they are playing games between 10:00PM and 8:00AM. The company will then run a
> facial recognition test and, if it identifies someone who is not the account
> holder, they’ll be booted offline. “Anyone who refuses or fails face
> verification will be treated as a minor,” according to a machine translation of
> Tencent’s QQ post.That simple? Until they decide to make it a felony to evade this system in that way.
I mean that's just a prejudice false target, right now it's just a departmental policy with effect only to businesses.
It used to be a parenting decision till like one or two hundred years ago.
I disagree. Children deserve a lot of protection, and anybody can become a parent. A lot of people are far too bad at parenting to leave the decisions to them completely. Some intervention is needed.
Good grief. This debate is so devoid of reason, it's difficult to have a discussion.
Saying that video games is outside the jurisdiction of the government is NOT saying there needs to be no guard rails.
Further more, yes. There are a lot of bad parents. The people who would be installed as the benevolent parental decision makers for society would be the worst of all.
Saying that video games is outside the jurisdiction of the government is NOT saying there needs to be no guard rails.
Further more, yes. There are a lot of bad parents. The people who would be installed as the benevolent parental decision makers for society would be the worst of all.
(USA centric view) You cannot legislate parents into being good parents. You cannot pass laws that protect children from bad parenting as best case result you may get the state to intervene and put the child in a foster system where there's a 50% chance that they end up in an even worse place.
Laws against child labor might be an example most of us would agree are called for, instead of just leaving it up to the parents whether children should work in mines and sweatshops or not.
Although I have no doubt someone will show up and say that should be left up to parents too.
Although I have no doubt someone will show up and say that should be left up to parents too.
Children have assisted their parents in their work as they are able from an early age for millennia. It serves to train them in useful skills they will need as adults and also to improve the family's financial prospects, which is beneficial to the entire family including the child. Increasing wealth, in some areas, has allowed for the luxury of allowing children to prepare for adulthood in less immediately productive ways, such as schooling—but that does not imply that it is wrong for children to work. Most parents care deeply for their children's welfare; in general you can trust that if parents are asking their children to work they are doing so for the children's benefit. If you would prefer that they didn't need to work the solution is to offer them a better option, not take away one of the few ways they have to improve their situation.
So the only possible thing that can be legislated is a foster system?!
Even the US already does far more than that, like making alcohol illegal for minors.
Even the US already does far more than that, like making alcohol illegal for minors.
Speaking as a parent of two kids, I mostly agree, but also think that some amount of law-making in the interest of children is appropriate and fair. Drawing the line is the interesting part.
Precisely. But the statement, "the government has no business making parenting decisions" needs no qualification. It is an axiomatic statement, and it should not be a controversial statement.
Like you say, what is considered a parenting decision? Reasonable people can have a discussion about this.
But I'm shocked how many people seem to think A) the government actually should make parenting decisions, and B) that things like banning child abuse is an example of the government making a parenting decision.
Neither of these things are reasonable, and so the discussion about what qualifies as a parenting decision will also be unreasonable.
Like you say, what is considered a parenting decision? Reasonable people can have a discussion about this.
But I'm shocked how many people seem to think A) the government actually should make parenting decisions, and B) that things like banning child abuse is an example of the government making a parenting decision.
Neither of these things are reasonable, and so the discussion about what qualifies as a parenting decision will also be unreasonable.
The us limits kids access to most gaming establishments in the country to 0 hours.
Is the same true for alcohol and tobacco?
yeah this is mostly for the genshin impact/gacha games that are super popular and are made purely to suck money or time for grinding. I doubt they will put to much effort into policing drm free games running locally.
In a parallel world they just attack this problem directly and outlaw lootbox/gacha gambling entirely for all ages. It’s obvious that such design is meant to prey on intrinsic feedback loops in the human brain, so why not just go straight to the source. People will still find ways to gamble, but at least elsewhere it’s generally explicitly labeled as such.
Going even straighter to the source is patching the CVEs in human brain.
> I have mixed feelings about this.
I don't. If this were to be proposed in America I would view it as extreme government over-reach.
I don't. If this were to be proposed in America I would view it as extreme government over-reach.
> If this were to be proposed in America I would view it as extreme government over-reach.
It is an extreme government overreach, whether in the US or China. It's an abuse of human rights. China is about one step away from treading into classic Mao Communist cultural attack mode.
The interesting thing about pursuing so much control, is that more control requires ever more control, it's a negative spiral. More oppression requires ever greater oppression to keep the system from rupturing.
Anyone championing this as borderline acceptable, those people have little terrifying monsters inside, little psycho dictators, yearning to violently oppress and control people. Societies are always filled with these little monsters running around trying to violently control people, they always have to be pushed back against.
In China's case, Xi is pursuing a new cultural revolution, as he sees fit to implement. One thing after another is being taken out, targeted.
They took out all traces of freedom of speech, years ago. They isolated the people with the great firewall, to restrict foreign influence, control domestic influences, and keep the people contained. They installed aggressive censors at all tech and media companies. They eliminated all independent news and media. They've further cracked down on all religion, religious expression, religious worship. They banished nearly all foreign reporting from the country. They banished all joke apps. They banished all gay culture. They're culturally cleansing the Muslim Uyghur regions. They implemented the social credit scoring system. They've entirely taken over Hong Kong and are proceding with wiping out its formerly independent culture. They've installed direct party control over all major private corporations, tech or otherwise. They've neutered all of their most prominent business persons, one after another. They've purged, vanished numerous prominent celebrities. They're in the process of banning all negative discussions of anything economic/financial. They're initiating an effort to prevent any consequential companies from publicly listing stock overseas, looking to increase economic control and reduce foreign influence. They're wiping out private education (classic cultural revolution move on education). They're about to flip to a digital currency, to further increase the ease and application of economic controls over individuals. This is the short list of what they've done since Xi took power, and they're only just getting warmed up.
It's a science fiction nightmare, set to become real. This gaming restriction is just one little drop in the ocean of what they're doing broadly, it's all moving in concert.
It is an extreme government overreach, whether in the US or China. It's an abuse of human rights. China is about one step away from treading into classic Mao Communist cultural attack mode.
The interesting thing about pursuing so much control, is that more control requires ever more control, it's a negative spiral. More oppression requires ever greater oppression to keep the system from rupturing.
Anyone championing this as borderline acceptable, those people have little terrifying monsters inside, little psycho dictators, yearning to violently oppress and control people. Societies are always filled with these little monsters running around trying to violently control people, they always have to be pushed back against.
In China's case, Xi is pursuing a new cultural revolution, as he sees fit to implement. One thing after another is being taken out, targeted.
They took out all traces of freedom of speech, years ago. They isolated the people with the great firewall, to restrict foreign influence, control domestic influences, and keep the people contained. They installed aggressive censors at all tech and media companies. They eliminated all independent news and media. They've further cracked down on all religion, religious expression, religious worship. They banished nearly all foreign reporting from the country. They banished all joke apps. They banished all gay culture. They're culturally cleansing the Muslim Uyghur regions. They implemented the social credit scoring system. They've entirely taken over Hong Kong and are proceding with wiping out its formerly independent culture. They've installed direct party control over all major private corporations, tech or otherwise. They've neutered all of their most prominent business persons, one after another. They've purged, vanished numerous prominent celebrities. They're in the process of banning all negative discussions of anything economic/financial. They're initiating an effort to prevent any consequential companies from publicly listing stock overseas, looking to increase economic control and reduce foreign influence. They're wiping out private education (classic cultural revolution move on education). They're about to flip to a digital currency, to further increase the ease and application of economic controls over individuals. This is the short list of what they've done since Xi took power, and they're only just getting warmed up.
It's a science fiction nightmare, set to become real. This gaming restriction is just one little drop in the ocean of what they're doing broadly, it's all moving in concert.
And if that wasn't bad enough, then they banned Winnie The Pooh
| “The global scale of the China challenge is not just about China’s rise, it’s not just about the genocide,” says Josh, “It’s about what kind of world we want to live in.”
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh... https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh...
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh... https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh...
I'm sure they would think that in America, but there people tend favour personal interests over the greater good.
>Modern games though are clearly designed to get you as addicted as possible and to play as long as possible to an extent that made the old school 90s RPGs grinds look tame and mild
I try to tell my extended family this but I can tell that they choose not to listen. Games are no longer what they were growing up and you have to make sure your kid isn't playing a glorified slot machine. I plan to build a machine and only install certain games on there for the kids to avoid this very trap.
Parents today just don't understand how pernicious these companies have become. They used to include a hot girl in each game to keep you interested and prevent you from feeling bored. Sure it was lazy but that's all it was, lazy. Now, you have games like Genshin Impact that have weaponized sexuality to the point where people are pumping hundreds of dollars to see more sexuality in the game. Hearthstone's card packs function identically to Skinner boxes. League of Legends teases you with the prospect of going pro in gaming despite players have a higher chance to make it to the NFL than make it going pro in LoL.
I try to tell my extended family this but I can tell that they choose not to listen. Games are no longer what they were growing up and you have to make sure your kid isn't playing a glorified slot machine. I plan to build a machine and only install certain games on there for the kids to avoid this very trap.
Parents today just don't understand how pernicious these companies have become. They used to include a hot girl in each game to keep you interested and prevent you from feeling bored. Sure it was lazy but that's all it was, lazy. Now, you have games like Genshin Impact that have weaponized sexuality to the point where people are pumping hundreds of dollars to see more sexuality in the game. Hearthstone's card packs function identically to Skinner boxes. League of Legends teases you with the prospect of going pro in gaming despite players have a higher chance to make it to the NFL than make it going pro in LoL.
League of Legends suffers from a problem no one's figured out how to fix yet, or that would require so much effort, anyone capable of figuring it out would rather work for a FAANG, which is: How do you separate people who want to excel from people who just want to have "fun"?
You can't mix people with a hardcore attitude with people with a casual attitude. It'll result in disaster every single time, without fail, in any endeavor, ever. It never works, no matter what, and no one is going to be able to make it work. You have to separate them.
What's worse, the ban system for League of Legends favors shitty people over the people who actually want to do well. Someone can intentionally troll, die 29 times in a game, have 0 kills, 0 assists, and nothing happens. When the other four players try to win, but get frustrated at this single shitbag, and then say something, they get banned... instead of the obviously troller catching an instant permanent ban to teach them a lesson.
You can't mix people with a hardcore attitude with people with a casual attitude. It'll result in disaster every single time, without fail, in any endeavor, ever. It never works, no matter what, and no one is going to be able to make it work. You have to separate them.
What's worse, the ban system for League of Legends favors shitty people over the people who actually want to do well. Someone can intentionally troll, die 29 times in a game, have 0 kills, 0 assists, and nothing happens. When the other four players try to win, but get frustrated at this single shitbag, and then say something, they get banned... instead of the obviously troller catching an instant permanent ban to teach them a lesson.
Okay, so let me present you with my view of the game. It's going to be very different from yours, and it's fine if you disagree. In fact, in the first few years I played, I would have had a hard time agreeing as well. But I'd appreciate if you hear me out.
1) On average, ranked players play at a skill level consistent with their rating. In other words, even if they have the skills to play better but don't, their rating should reflect this--on average.
2) For each individual game, there can be some variance in individual performance. Sometimes matchups are lopsided, and sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes you're on the team that benefits, and sometimes you're not.
3) Trends are more useful than individual games. "Did I do better in the last game than the previous one?" is not always a useful question, so I'd rather ask "Did I do better in the last 10 games than the previous 10?" This follows from 1) and 2).
4) Morale affects the game, and my actions can affect morale. It's really easy and tempting to call out gameplay mistakes, but I think that only serves to hurt morale. If I still wanted to win the game, making my team feel bad hurts my chances. If I prefer to surrender, there are better ways to convince people.
So yeah, the reason I wrote this is because I've definitely had my share of upsetting losses, but I found that shifting my mindset helped me deal with it better.
1) On average, ranked players play at a skill level consistent with their rating. In other words, even if they have the skills to play better but don't, their rating should reflect this--on average.
2) For each individual game, there can be some variance in individual performance. Sometimes matchups are lopsided, and sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes you're on the team that benefits, and sometimes you're not.
3) Trends are more useful than individual games. "Did I do better in the last game than the previous one?" is not always a useful question, so I'd rather ask "Did I do better in the last 10 games than the previous 10?" This follows from 1) and 2).
4) Morale affects the game, and my actions can affect morale. It's really easy and tempting to call out gameplay mistakes, but I think that only serves to hurt morale. If I still wanted to win the game, making my team feel bad hurts my chances. If I prefer to surrender, there are better ways to convince people.
So yeah, the reason I wrote this is because I've definitely had my share of upsetting losses, but I found that shifting my mindset helped me deal with it better.
There's no denying that Dark Souls is hard. It's also fair. It's 100% your fault every time you die, and you know what you did wrong.
I don't. This isn't about just video games. It's about the CCP controlling everything down to the most minute aspect of everyone's life in China. At some point the people will revolt and it won't be pretty with a nation of 1.4 billion in civil war. I don't see how anyone in the west could think this is a good thing. I can understand this from parents, not from a government.
This. Old Games had lots of work from History, Mythology, Science and all sort other details in it. I mean even old Diablo I and II had a whole story book that came with it. Was it Lord of the Rings quality? No. But it is so much better than not reading a story book.
All the history lessons from games like Civilisation, Sim City helping you imagining a whole new world. RPG had lots of story telling.
Heck even MMORPG like World of Warcraft, you have to learn team building before any shit could get done. I often thought it as the ultimate leadership testing. Motivating people without any usual tools like promotion or salary rise.
Modern Mobile Games are bad. VERY bad. I would even argue it is worst than Social Media for kids. Some of them are designed to cause rage so your kids would rage spend to win. There is a reason why Nintendo thought it was wrong to do Mobile Games. It is simply not the type of games they want to be in.
I could go on, I have been ranting about Mobile Games for more than half a decade. Wishing Apple would do something about it. But 80% of all App Store Revenue coming from Games were too lucrative for them.
All the history lessons from games like Civilisation, Sim City helping you imagining a whole new world. RPG had lots of story telling.
Heck even MMORPG like World of Warcraft, you have to learn team building before any shit could get done. I often thought it as the ultimate leadership testing. Motivating people without any usual tools like promotion or salary rise.
Modern Mobile Games are bad. VERY bad. I would even argue it is worst than Social Media for kids. Some of them are designed to cause rage so your kids would rage spend to win. There is a reason why Nintendo thought it was wrong to do Mobile Games. It is simply not the type of games they want to be in.
I could go on, I have been ranting about Mobile Games for more than half a decade. Wishing Apple would do something about it. But 80% of all App Store Revenue coming from Games were too lucrative for them.
> Modern UX of games is designed so that you dont have to really read or understand the game mechanics even to be able to play and get into that feedback loop.
I wish this were true for me and GTA V. My friend and I really tried to do something in GTA V Online together this weekend with little to no success. I felt really stupid by not being able to play any mission together
I wish this were true for me and GTA V. My friend and I really tried to do something in GTA V Online together this weekend with little to no success. I felt really stupid by not being able to play any mission together
> Modern games though are clearly designed to get you as addicted as possible and to play as long as possible to an extent that made the old school 90s RPGs grinds look tame and mild.
You do realize the term "quarter muncher" isn't a modern one right? We had plenty of those types meth-level-addiction games back in the early days of gaming too.
You do realize the term "quarter muncher" isn't a modern one right? We had plenty of those types meth-level-addiction games back in the early days of gaming too.
mixed feelings because it's under 18, and therefore you dont feel that freedom of self is as important? Would you feel differently if this was for adults?
I think it's important to realize that children dont have the cognitive ability to resist certain things. Gambling skinner boxes are those things.
I would be completely oky with my kid binging on the latest Mario or Mario Kart. I would love to see them playing an RPG.
I dont want them playing Fortnite and other skinner box style games. They have teams designed to addict kids.
This probably sounds silly but i would be ok with a kid being "addicted" to something because its fun and enjoyable. But being addicted because a team of scientists designed it be maximally dopamine inducing doesnt seem ok to me. Maybe there is no difference at the end of the day.
But it feels like the kind of games that Nintendo puts out and the kind of games that EA puts out are VERY different.
I would be completely oky with my kid binging on the latest Mario or Mario Kart. I would love to see them playing an RPG.
I dont want them playing Fortnite and other skinner box style games. They have teams designed to addict kids.
This probably sounds silly but i would be ok with a kid being "addicted" to something because its fun and enjoyable. But being addicted because a team of scientists designed it be maximally dopamine inducing doesnt seem ok to me. Maybe there is no difference at the end of the day.
But it feels like the kind of games that Nintendo puts out and the kind of games that EA puts out are VERY different.
Our biggest problem with Fortnite is that it’s where the friends are so it’s a way, probably the primary way, for them to socialize - especially as some friends are on different continents.
I wish this wasn’t the case, but fighting a network effect is hard as a parent.
I wish this wasn’t the case, but fighting a network effect is hard as a parent.
Such a good point. As a burgeoning dramatist (lol) Square's SNES RPG work did so much for me. Massive, sprawling stories made very engaging by interaction. Point of fact, a Chrono Trigger fanfic was one of the first stories I wrote.
On the other hand, my numerous hours spend playing WWE Attitude and Goldeneye probably wasn't exactly expanding my horizons.
I'm a new parent so I'm not sure how I'm going to navigate this myself but I assume the above will guide my own rule-making.
On the other hand, my numerous hours spend playing WWE Attitude and Goldeneye probably wasn't exactly expanding my horizons.
I'm a new parent so I'm not sure how I'm going to navigate this myself but I assume the above will guide my own rule-making.
Sure but there wasn't a monetary incentive path like we have today with the Internet and livestreaming. I still remember picking up my first copy of DOOM and playing with friends on a 28.8Kbps dialup modem.
This comic sort of represents those childhood sentiments experienced today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgDG_IEDc9A
This comic sort of represents those childhood sentiments experienced today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgDG_IEDc9A
I would say china is well placed to be producing excellemnt content for the world. Like the japanese have done for decades with their videogames and animation. China has some excellent video game content largely consumed within china. These kids are the future Game Designers, Programmers, Architects of this Industry. Its a tragedy and would have economic impact in future.
I guess I'm curious: What are you expecting minors who currently enjoy video games to do instead in their free time?
If they pick up reading and decide they like those endless fantasy series, is that better than playing a video game for the same amount of time? Why?
If they decide to watch TV or movies instead of video games, is that better? Why?
Should they spend that all that free time studying and doing homework instead? Why?
If they pick up reading and decide they like those endless fantasy series, is that better than playing a video game for the same amount of time? Why?
If they decide to watch TV or movies instead of video games, is that better? Why?
Should they spend that all that free time studying and doing homework instead? Why?
Dark soul is only hard because you have to memorize all the cheap shots ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrialAndErrorGam... ) level designers placed there
I think a big part of why I can quickly scan information on a page is from playing way too much Final Fantasy as a kid. To grind you need to do lots of combat, so I slowly dialed the "Response Rate" (i.e. speed at which text appears) until I could read all of the post-combat messages at the maximum setting.
[deleted]
If I haven't played Runescape my life for sure would be different now. Most likely worse. Had lots of fun, learned english, enjoying the grind, market economics,and got inspired to learn to program similar games. IMO sandbox games should be even encouraged.
Hmm, my problem with Dark Souls like games is mostly that it becomes easy when you understand the mechanics, but immediately also starts to be annoying because now your biggest enemy is timing issues and enemies just materializing behind you.
I'd say there's 4 kinds of games:
1. Sports. You practice, get good, compete.
2. Effort is rewarded. "Effort" is a very vague thing. It could be not dying/luck (roguelikes, Hearthstone), it could be clicking a button 1000 times. It could be problems (Factorio) or wiki games (DF, Stardew Valley). The reward is sometimes satisfaction (Factorio/chess), sometimes a movie-like denouement (FF), sometimes a thing of beauty (Civ, DF)
3. Socialization, e.g. Roblox, Minecraft, Among Us. Solve a problem together.
4. Actions lead to consequences, e.g. D&D, Reigns, AI Dungeon, The Sims.
The last one is the "purest" form of gaming, in that it's a medium that only games can do well. But it's also the hardest to do and difficult to make money off.
I'd hope that this kind of restrictions will lead to China making more Type 4 games. Hopefully games that can lead to a satisfactory conclusion within 2-3 hours like the average movie.
1. Sports. You practice, get good, compete.
2. Effort is rewarded. "Effort" is a very vague thing. It could be not dying/luck (roguelikes, Hearthstone), it could be clicking a button 1000 times. It could be problems (Factorio) or wiki games (DF, Stardew Valley). The reward is sometimes satisfaction (Factorio/chess), sometimes a movie-like denouement (FF), sometimes a thing of beauty (Civ, DF)
3. Socialization, e.g. Roblox, Minecraft, Among Us. Solve a problem together.
4. Actions lead to consequences, e.g. D&D, Reigns, AI Dungeon, The Sims.
The last one is the "purest" form of gaming, in that it's a medium that only games can do well. But it's also the hardest to do and difficult to make money off.
I'd hope that this kind of restrictions will lead to China making more Type 4 games. Hopefully games that can lead to a satisfactory conclusion within 2-3 hours like the average movie.
Your category (2) is extremely vague and all-encompassing. I'd split off at least two distinct categories:
5. Games that are about providing a certain experience: walking simulators, horror games, casual adventure games, story focused games. Here there, effort is often not really a focus at all and while you could say that you are "rewarded" for simply playing the game that is stretching it and could be applied to any game that is enjoyable in some way.
6. Puzzle games - here the challenge itself is the reward but unlike (1) the challenge is problem solving and not competition.
Of course like any genre system real games will not fit neatly in one of these categories but have aspects from multiple of them.
> The last one is the "purest" form of gaming, in that it's a medium that only games can do well.
Yeah no. While the interactive medium is a great tool for showing consequences, it is not required. Meanwhile many things in the other categories also benefit greatly from it.
> Hopefully games that can lead to a satisfactory conclusion within 2-3 hours like the average movie.
I wouldn't really want to hold the "average movie" as something games should strive for. I'm all for cutting down on grind, 2-3 hours is a really short time to learn complex mechanics or get immersed in the world and characters.
5. Games that are about providing a certain experience: walking simulators, horror games, casual adventure games, story focused games. Here there, effort is often not really a focus at all and while you could say that you are "rewarded" for simply playing the game that is stretching it and could be applied to any game that is enjoyable in some way.
6. Puzzle games - here the challenge itself is the reward but unlike (1) the challenge is problem solving and not competition.
Of course like any genre system real games will not fit neatly in one of these categories but have aspects from multiple of them.
> The last one is the "purest" form of gaming, in that it's a medium that only games can do well.
Yeah no. While the interactive medium is a great tool for showing consequences, it is not required. Meanwhile many things in the other categories also benefit greatly from it.
> Hopefully games that can lead to a satisfactory conclusion within 2-3 hours like the average movie.
I wouldn't really want to hold the "average movie" as something games should strive for. I'm all for cutting down on grind, 2-3 hours is a really short time to learn complex mechanics or get immersed in the world and characters.
Maybe I could rephrase it a bit. I don't mean all games should try to be short, but right now there are almost none.
Few game designers aspire to make a game that's done in 2 hours and worth $8.
Chess is a bloody complex game and you can play a round to full satisfaction in 15 minutes. You have your complexity, but it's enough to enjoy yourself 3 hours/week.
Most movies will immerse you in the world and the characters well within the first 15 minutes. Today, you have something like Fallout 4 where it takes an hour from customizing your character's face to leaving the vault.
I think Adam Cadre's games are a great example: http://adamcadre.ac/if.html
What separated the Interactive Fiction from Adventure genre was that IF was more on interacting with the player's actions. You could achieve a goal and unlock endings, or just explore. You could get a full story well within a couple hours because the games are designed to avoid you from getting stuck. Adventure games were plagued with resource management and metagaming; once you remove the unnecessary grind of puzzle solving, you get a denser game.
Few game designers aspire to make a game that's done in 2 hours and worth $8.
Chess is a bloody complex game and you can play a round to full satisfaction in 15 minutes. You have your complexity, but it's enough to enjoy yourself 3 hours/week.
Most movies will immerse you in the world and the characters well within the first 15 minutes. Today, you have something like Fallout 4 where it takes an hour from customizing your character's face to leaving the vault.
I think Adam Cadre's games are a great example: http://adamcadre.ac/if.html
What separated the Interactive Fiction from Adventure genre was that IF was more on interacting with the player's actions. You could achieve a goal and unlock endings, or just explore. You could get a full story well within a couple hours because the games are designed to avoid you from getting stuck. Adventure games were plagued with resource management and metagaming; once you remove the unnecessary grind of puzzle solving, you get a denser game.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Someone needs to build a game that’s hidden inside of a normal looking webpage or app and then distribute to Chinese teens
“I have mixed feelings about this.”
You have mixed feelings a about what?
This is an absolutely insane government overreach and unacceptable.
Micromanaging what people can do with their time like this is 1984.
I grew up, sometimes skipping school and playing games all day, I still passed school, I have a good job in software and a healthy happy life.
I’d prefer the following question is asked, why do these kids require “spiritual opium”? Maybe living in a polluted authoritarian genocidal hell hole makes people want to escape reality ?
You have mixed feelings a about what?
This is an absolutely insane government overreach and unacceptable.
Micromanaging what people can do with their time like this is 1984.
I grew up, sometimes skipping school and playing games all day, I still passed school, I have a good job in software and a healthy happy life.
I’d prefer the following question is asked, why do these kids require “spiritual opium”? Maybe living in a polluted authoritarian genocidal hell hole makes people want to escape reality ?
When you were a kid you had a lot of extra time and video games fill that voids.
As that kid I now regret not spending that time on something productive like reading interesting books or having a unique hobby (carving/skating/guitar etc)
Now I dont have time for anything and reflecting at that void space - it was filled with garbage - like running pokemon yellow 7 times in a row.
Now I dont have time for anything and reflecting at that void space - it was filled with garbage - like running pokemon yellow 7 times in a row.
Playing RuneScape is how I learned to type using home row.
unrelated question: what are your suggestiong for text based RPG games (browser based) for this day and age?
I haven't played a good game in nearly a decade. I used to play them for the story, then it all became too grindy, trainers became moneymakers (yeah I used cheats, sue me, I played for fun), everything needs a fking Internet connection and anticheat software that does god knows what.
Kinda sad.
There are still plenty of non-garbage games if you wade out further than AAA.
My friend group played Valheim a few months ago and it was spectacular (for the weekend anyways). It's a great game to lose your self in the environments and doesn't have any IAP rubbish.
My friend group played Valheim a few months ago and it was spectacular (for the weekend anyways). It's a great game to lose your self in the environments and doesn't have any IAP rubbish.
Even some AAA games have amazing story, but few and far between and a good number of the ones i'd point someone at are exclusive to ps4/ps5
I really don’t understand what people see in this game. It’s not bad, sure, but it’s almost a walking simulator.
Getting resources feels pretty grindy, and the abilities and leveling system feel lackluster to me.
Getting resources feels pretty grindy, and the abilities and leveling system feel lackluster to me.
[deleted]
It's fun to hang out in with a few friends. Solo play is like watching paint dry, playing with friends has that almost emergent feeling as all of you go off doing god knows what and end up making a mess of each other's work.
I highly recommend you dive into the indie and small-medium sized publisher world. There are a lot of games out there made by passionate individuals who are succeeding at creating enjoyable experiences. There are great stories, beautiful art, and interesting gameplay. You just have to dive a little deeper to find it.
There's plenty of exceptional story-based games out there. Personally I loved The Last of Us Part II last year, which has none of the issues you mentioned above. I'm currently playing Disco Elysium, which I also highly recommend.
It's pretty easy to find free cheat engine tables for any single player game for free. Paid cheats are really multi-player things, where you really shouldn't be cheating anyway
> I haven't played a good game in nearly a decade. I used to play them for the story, then it all became too grindy
That's on you. There are tons of amazing new video games with a good plot and a great gameplay. I'm not a huge gamer myself but the last one I did that checks those boxes was Horizon Zero Dawn.
That's on you. There are tons of amazing new video games with a good plot and a great gameplay. I'm not a huge gamer myself but the last one I did that checks those boxes was Horizon Zero Dawn.
I haven't played recent games, but are they really more grindy than e.g. EverQuest or the NES Square/Enix games?
If you want to unlock everything without spending real money, then yes they are often by far more grindy. Companies realized that putting huge grinds which you can pay to skip is by far the best way to make money from games so today this is in most games. This is the modern slot machine equivalent.
The "problem" with EverQuest wasn't the game, it was the people.
It's just like real life. You aren't supposed to be the hero. You aren't supposed to have all the best everything and a million platinum.
You're just another cog moving through the world, easily replaceable. That's how it was designed. The problem is that, strangely, in a game, people can't accept that, so they'll spend 18 hours a day playing, but for some reason won't spend 18 hours a day working, even when spending 18 hours a day working at something clearly - undeniably - yields better results than playing a game.
It's just like real life. You aren't supposed to be the hero. You aren't supposed to have all the best everything and a million platinum.
You're just another cog moving through the world, easily replaceable. That's how it was designed. The problem is that, strangely, in a game, people can't accept that, so they'll spend 18 hours a day playing, but for some reason won't spend 18 hours a day working, even when spending 18 hours a day working at something clearly - undeniably - yields better results than playing a game.
Ultima Online had more of that feeling than EverQuest (I played both). EQ was quite clearly a game in which you could make steady progress in power with proper grinding (and every 5 levels sucked thanks to a coding error).
Most high-budget, high-profile games coming out these days are not grindy at out. I'm sure you can find grindy games within certain genre niches, but there are good not-very-grindy games in just about every genre right now AFAIK.
Unless the genre is grindy, micro-payment games in which case... Consider not playing them.
Unless the genre is grindy, micro-payment games in which case... Consider not playing them.
Square Enix games and CRPGs induced advanced reading skills? It's been a few years since I played one, but in my humble opinion, we'd probably find it has a 5th or 6th grade reading level. Replacement-level activities will likely have the same impact on someone 10 years d or above.
You shouldn't have mixed feelings. This is an attack on human free will.
UK lets children drink.
UK lets children drink.
In UK you can't buy alcohol if you're below 18. You can drink alcohol in a public place if you're 16 and there is an accompanying adult buying it for you.
It's not quite a "free for all", but anyway, I doubt it relates to the issue at hand.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age#Europe
It's not quite a "free for all", but anyway, I doubt it relates to the issue at hand.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age#Europe
Those rules are for public drinking. There doesn't seem to be any age restriction for private alcohol consumption in the UK, or for that matter most of Europe.
The US similarly allows private underage consumption of alcohol - with more restrictions than in most parts of Europe - with parental consent and oversight. This varies from state to state in how it works and the limits, of course. Most states draw a strong legal distinction between underage drinking parties vs moderate underage consumption outside of a party context.
sure but if you're a kid you can't concretely drink in private if you can't buy alcohol.
Other countries don't have rules or don't enforce it, but the UK certainly does.
Source: I was an italian teen used to buy wine for my grandpa, but I could not get a beer at the supermarket in the UK.
Other countries don't have rules or don't enforce it, but the UK certainly does.
Source: I was an italian teen used to buy wine for my grandpa, but I could not get a beer at the supermarket in the UK.
Videogames are addicting as all hell and create NEETs. End of story. Parents who are lazy and just want their kids to stop bothering them just give them to their kids without realizing it can destroy their early socialization skills. I love videogames, but jesus I'd limit my kids use of it to either playing socially or with family. If it's alone, it had better be for short amounts of time.
Videogames should be social events. Not solitary escapes that cause people to become schizoids.
Videogames should be social events. Not solitary escapes that cause people to become schizoids.
> Parents who are lazy and just want their kids to stop bothering them just give them to their kids without realizing it can destroy their early socialization skills.
These hypothetical children have spent all day socializing at school- if that gets "destroyed" by a few hours of being left to their own devices, better stop them from reading and playing with Legos alone in their rooms too. Claiming video games ruin social skills because playing them is an activity performed alone is utter nonsense.
These hypothetical children have spent all day socializing at school- if that gets "destroyed" by a few hours of being left to their own devices, better stop them from reading and playing with Legos alone in their rooms too. Claiming video games ruin social skills because playing them is an activity performed alone is utter nonsense.
Kids need socializing with other kids beyond the 9-3 school days.
School is the most garbage area to foster socializing children. Not only is it in a controlled environment, but it has nothing to do with learning how to engage with people on a personal level outside of work.
> To the point where when a game comes along like Dark Souls that asks you to learn the game systems to beat it, gamers go gah gah over "how hard" it is.
Please, PLEASE, please let's not derail this thread to "Dark Souls players are the REAL skilled players and the rest of you all are crybabies" or something? I get PTSD reading any DS player's "opinion" these days.
DS doesn't require skill. DS is brutal and semi-random on purpose so you sink the maximum amount of time to beat it. Not much skill is required there. You have to invest the time to learn the moves and their patterns. After that happens beating the boss in question just requires you to be in non-vegetative state.
--
On topic: I too am with mixed feelings over this news but if this is going to stop the hyper-predatory mobile game companies from almost literally turning young people into zombies then I support the decision.
I worry what happens when inevitably they start saying "but CS:GO, Quake Champions and Deep Rock Galactic are addictive as well and we will prohibit them too!" but... we can't have it all at the same time, I suppose. :|
Really can't find a good balanced solution out of this jam. Can you?
Please, PLEASE, please let's not derail this thread to "Dark Souls players are the REAL skilled players and the rest of you all are crybabies" or something? I get PTSD reading any DS player's "opinion" these days.
DS doesn't require skill. DS is brutal and semi-random on purpose so you sink the maximum amount of time to beat it. Not much skill is required there. You have to invest the time to learn the moves and their patterns. After that happens beating the boss in question just requires you to be in non-vegetative state.
--
On topic: I too am with mixed feelings over this news but if this is going to stop the hyper-predatory mobile game companies from almost literally turning young people into zombies then I support the decision.
I worry what happens when inevitably they start saying "but CS:GO, Quake Champions and Deep Rock Galactic are addictive as well and we will prohibit them too!" but... we can't have it all at the same time, I suppose. :|
Really can't find a good balanced solution out of this jam. Can you?
People talking about the benefits of games reminds me of people talking about the benefits of, say, a glass of wine with every meal: it's worth looking into but at the same time it's the sort of thing that obviously doesn't scale linearly with the amount/intensity of consumption.
I similarly have mixed feelings as well, but for slightly different reasons. I've read about studies that say that musical training (which is often believed to translate to improvements in other cognitive aspects of life) doesn't actually correlate to said improvements, and I suspect that the same might be true for games (e.g. solving game puzzles doesn't necessarily mean you get better at school math or whatever)
This line of reasoning is also supported by research on correlation between games and violence (i.e. the consensus is that no such causation relationship exists).
All of these suggest (to me) that gaming is just its own activity without much impact on life other than opportunity cost itself.
However, there are some aspects of gaming that can affect overall well-being, specifically aspects related to repetitiveness (e.g. grinding). Repetitiveness is something that does come up in a lot of disciplines (e.g. its soothing effect in autist kids, or repetitiveness as tool in the context of meditation, etc).
The "addictive" aspect isn't necessarily a bad thing either, IMHO. Games are, almost by definition, supposed to be engaging. But that addictiveness may come in a form of trade-offs, for example, back in the day of grindy RPGs, delayed gratification was basically the entire point of grinding. The one aspect that I think is justly vilified is monetization strategies that tie to addictive elements of gameplay (especially the gacha variety) and this is something that I'd actually commend China for trying to address via regulation.
I similarly have mixed feelings as well, but for slightly different reasons. I've read about studies that say that musical training (which is often believed to translate to improvements in other cognitive aspects of life) doesn't actually correlate to said improvements, and I suspect that the same might be true for games (e.g. solving game puzzles doesn't necessarily mean you get better at school math or whatever)
This line of reasoning is also supported by research on correlation between games and violence (i.e. the consensus is that no such causation relationship exists).
All of these suggest (to me) that gaming is just its own activity without much impact on life other than opportunity cost itself.
However, there are some aspects of gaming that can affect overall well-being, specifically aspects related to repetitiveness (e.g. grinding). Repetitiveness is something that does come up in a lot of disciplines (e.g. its soothing effect in autist kids, or repetitiveness as tool in the context of meditation, etc).
The "addictive" aspect isn't necessarily a bad thing either, IMHO. Games are, almost by definition, supposed to be engaging. But that addictiveness may come in a form of trade-offs, for example, back in the day of grindy RPGs, delayed gratification was basically the entire point of grinding. The one aspect that I think is justly vilified is monetization strategies that tie to addictive elements of gameplay (especially the gacha variety) and this is something that I'd actually commend China for trying to address via regulation.
Video games work best as a lesser of many evils, and come with a few caveats: If you watch a lot of TV, it's hard to argue that video games are a worse use of your time. Video games do have some legitimate benefits, but it's probably hard to say that they are more beneficial than other things you could be doing with your time. (ie, reading difficult literature or articles vs. reading RPG text.)
However, people aren't robots, and can't spend 100% of their time doing things which are strictly beneficial. Sometimes you just have to relax and do what you like. Further, not all worthwhile activities truly benefit you in some measurable way. All those "play Mozart for your child to increase his intelligence" CDs were completely fraudulent. And by extension you could claim that listening to beautiful classical music does not actually really benefit you. But of course beautiful music is one of the best aspects of life. The only difference I would say is that it seems impossible to become addicted to classical music in the same way that someone might become addicted to video games.
In this sense, I agree with the parent that video game addiction is the greatest concern here, and is a direction video games have been moving in for a long time. It's interesting that he mentions very easy gameplay mixed with behavioral feedback loops. I can get QUITE wrapped up in Dark Souls, but I am never just playing it on autopilot. It's too hard, and requires too much of my focus. It's not to say that it's necessarily all that difficult, but I can't just zone out. If my mood is wrong, if I am impatient, if my focus is poor, I will play badly. This is explicitly not the case with addictive gameplay-loop games which approach television-levels of sloth in the sense that you can play them indefinitely with any amount of focus.
However, people aren't robots, and can't spend 100% of their time doing things which are strictly beneficial. Sometimes you just have to relax and do what you like. Further, not all worthwhile activities truly benefit you in some measurable way. All those "play Mozart for your child to increase his intelligence" CDs were completely fraudulent. And by extension you could claim that listening to beautiful classical music does not actually really benefit you. But of course beautiful music is one of the best aspects of life. The only difference I would say is that it seems impossible to become addicted to classical music in the same way that someone might become addicted to video games.
In this sense, I agree with the parent that video game addiction is the greatest concern here, and is a direction video games have been moving in for a long time. It's interesting that he mentions very easy gameplay mixed with behavioral feedback loops. I can get QUITE wrapped up in Dark Souls, but I am never just playing it on autopilot. It's too hard, and requires too much of my focus. It's not to say that it's necessarily all that difficult, but I can't just zone out. If my mood is wrong, if I am impatient, if my focus is poor, I will play badly. This is explicitly not the case with addictive gameplay-loop games which approach television-levels of sloth in the sense that you can play them indefinitely with any amount of focus.
Sure but I’m not really comfortable with this level of government interference with peoples lives.
No one ever stopped me from playing soccer for 5 hours a day when I was younger, and in high school sports practice was a 3 hour minimum.
This restricts game play to 3 hours per week. That means essentially you can’t play video games for leisure … while at the same time you are forced to do a minimum of 40 hours a week in education (normal school + cram school + homework).
If you can only play a video game for 25 minutes a day, you might as well never play.
No one ever stopped me from playing soccer for 5 hours a day when I was younger, and in high school sports practice was a 3 hour minimum.
This restricts game play to 3 hours per week. That means essentially you can’t play video games for leisure … while at the same time you are forced to do a minimum of 40 hours a week in education (normal school + cram school + homework).
If you can only play a video game for 25 minutes a day, you might as well never play.
I'm in no way supportive of China's actions here, and was just commenting on video gaming and addiction in general.
We restrict our kids to 30 min /day of screens. Try telling them it's not worth it. They are absolutely rabid about it.
Assuming your children are not 17 ...
Interesting. Is it a huge deal if they miss their 30 minutes a day?
I probably allow my kids too much time with screens, but the flip side is that, if they don't have screen access for a few days, they don't really care. They'll read some books or play outside, no big deal. I get wary of setting hard limits on their screen time, because (knowing their personalities) they would then never accept if they didn't get that time for whatever reason, and constantly be trying to make sure they get their screen time, rather than the current state of affairs where missing their screens for a day or two doesn't phase them one bit.
I probably allow my kids too much time with screens, but the flip side is that, if they don't have screen access for a few days, they don't really care. They'll read some books or play outside, no big deal. I get wary of setting hard limits on their screen time, because (knowing their personalities) they would then never accept if they didn't get that time for whatever reason, and constantly be trying to make sure they get their screen time, rather than the current state of affairs where missing their screens for a day or two doesn't phase them one bit.
The concept of "Screen Time" is so insane. You can do everything on a "screen" from writing the next great American novel to watching porn. So, is X hours of screen time too much? Depends on what you're doing with it.
I'm reluctant to invoke the 'kids nowadays' trope. However - While there's a lot someone can do with a computer, the days of picking up marketable skills due to having to fight through technology to get a game to work are long gone. Portable touch-screen devices are tuned for content consumption and not content creation. Large industries exists today with refined abilities to grab and hold the attention of young minds.
All of that taken together means the odds of 'screen time' being a productive endeavour are IMO much smaller than they once were. If the overwhelming odds are your kid is going to be sucked into a skinner box for the duration of their screen time it seems prudent to put limits on that which might limit the damage being done.
Of course none of this is a substitute for knowing your kid as an individual and tailoring conditions to what's best for them, versus any kind of blanket rule stuff.
All of that taken together means the odds of 'screen time' being a productive endeavour are IMO much smaller than they once were. If the overwhelming odds are your kid is going to be sucked into a skinner box for the duration of their screen time it seems prudent to put limits on that which might limit the damage being done.
Of course none of this is a substitute for knowing your kid as an individual and tailoring conditions to what's best for them, versus any kind of blanket rule stuff.
My 5 year old niece learned to read playing video games on those touch screens everyone hates. She’s doing exactly the same kind of role play most young kids do with dolls or action figures, but learning the interface and getting text to speech and speech to text is dramatically more educational than playing with dolls.
My nephew was the same way, it’s not better or worse than how we grew up just different. What people forget is escapism is normal behavior. Games, TV, Radio, Music, even Books have all been blamed for the younger generation not being productive except fun is also useful. Watching hours of TV doesn’t seem like a great use of time, but the 3,001th hour leaning a musical instrument, woodworking, or whatever has serious diminishing returns. Kids don’t actually benefit that much from doubling down on what adults think is important, just look at all those Asian countries that don’t turn hours of cram school into massive economic advantages.
My nephew was the same way, it’s not better or worse than how we grew up just different. What people forget is escapism is normal behavior. Games, TV, Radio, Music, even Books have all been blamed for the younger generation not being productive except fun is also useful. Watching hours of TV doesn’t seem like a great use of time, but the 3,001th hour leaning a musical instrument, woodworking, or whatever has serious diminishing returns. Kids don’t actually benefit that much from doubling down on what adults think is important, just look at all those Asian countries that don’t turn hours of cram school into massive economic advantages.
Who gives a crap about marketable skills? My 5 year old understands what derivatives are because he scrolls through math content on YouTube. There’s a lot to learn out there and more accessible than ever. Obviously the parent has to be involved as they do with everything. The screen is not a babysitter.
I would bet your 5 year old is pretty rare among the masses. lol
Yes, but I'm saying that it's parents job to make sure the "screen time" is healthy just like it's the parents job to make sure the mealtime is healthy. There are these debates about "how much screen time is OK for kids" but nobody ever talks about "how many ounces of food is OK for a kid?" because there's a big difference between an ounce of broccoli and an ounce of doughnuts.
I'm with you on that!
[deleted]
Strictly limiting screen time fuels addiction. I'm utterly convinced about this and speak from experience. They can't learn to properly manage the ups and downs that way, all that remains are the ups, making it the best thing ever. That's why they are rabid about this.
It's also not something only I think, but I don't have a good resource at hand. Questions like this are always disputed anyway. When books came out they complained about the youth wasting their time reading books! (so much to the "reading a book is so much better" comment above.)
Half an hour is also completely unreasonable for playing most games. It rules out playing the good games, leading them to play the pay2win gambling bullshit. If the kids are very small, ignore what I write, but if they aren't think twice about this.
It's also not something only I think, but I don't have a good resource at hand. Questions like this are always disputed anyway. When books came out they complained about the youth wasting their time reading books! (so much to the "reading a book is so much better" comment above.)
Half an hour is also completely unreasonable for playing most games. It rules out playing the good games, leading them to play the pay2win gambling bullshit. If the kids are very small, ignore what I write, but if they aren't think twice about this.
Exactly. It is the same mechanism by which trying to stop smoking by reducing the number of cigarretes usually don't work. The "every other hour cigarrete" becomes almost an orgasmic experience.
Would you please contextualize your experience? What specific claims are you making and for what age groups?
There is really not much more. It's simply the observation that strict time limits lead to the time always being used, and augmented the value of the limited resource - video gaming here. The cigarette analogy in the other reply is great. I saw that with children age 10 to 15, for what it's worth.
You see that observation echoed in the context of alternative strategies, as described on https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-teens-video-game-rules-limi... for ADHD (whether that exists does not matter here, in any case the strategies listed there are not limited to it) for example. I read better sources, but I don't find them now, probably just some random articles with some experts attacking a majority position (that screen time limits are good) that I thought convincing, like they pop up sometimes.
You see that observation echoed in the context of alternative strategies, as described on https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-teens-video-game-rules-limi... for ADHD (whether that exists does not matter here, in any case the strategies listed there are not limited to it) for example. I read better sources, but I don't find them now, probably just some random articles with some experts attacking a majority position (that screen time limits are good) that I thought convincing, like they pop up sometimes.
To clarify the above post: with books, novels were probably meant specifically. Books that only served entertainment purposes.
There's screens and screens, they can't be really lumped them into a single content.
I place TV at the absolute worst of the spectrum, so I don't have one. In addition to the tendentially trashy content, it is also typically used as babysitter, which contributes to the factor.
But there are also lots of interesting stuff to do with a screen; most importantly, they can be done together.
I place TV at the absolute worst of the spectrum, so I don't have one. In addition to the tendentially trashy content, it is also typically used as babysitter, which contributes to the factor.
But there are also lots of interesting stuff to do with a screen; most importantly, they can be done together.
>There's screens and screens, they can't be really lumped them into a single content.
Same can be said about TV programs.
I watch Bluey (and only Bluey) with my one year-old daughter, and have genuinely learned wholesome, positive parenting techniques from watching this family of cartoon dogs interact.
That's not to say that there isn't a whole lot of garbage, but, like all media, TV programs follow Sturgeon's Law too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
Same can be said about TV programs.
I watch Bluey (and only Bluey) with my one year-old daughter, and have genuinely learned wholesome, positive parenting techniques from watching this family of cartoon dogs interact.
That's not to say that there isn't a whole lot of garbage, but, like all media, TV programs follow Sturgeon's Law too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
We restrict both time and what they have access to, and the kids don't generally crave screen time (they're in elementary school).
Aside from watching movies every once in a blue moon, they only have access to specific games (all of which fall in the educational category), so no endless content feeds and no micro-transaction BS.
At one point, they got into one game enough that they'd demand daily screen time, but then the novelty wore off and they stopped asking.
Most days, they just spend their play time doing other things and screen time doesn't even come up.
Aside from watching movies every once in a blue moon, they only have access to specific games (all of which fall in the educational category), so no endless content feeds and no micro-transaction BS.
At one point, they got into one game enough that they'd demand daily screen time, but then the novelty wore off and they stopped asking.
Most days, they just spend their play time doing other things and screen time doesn't even come up.
I have mixed feelings about it all. I respected my friends growing up who couldn't play video games at will as I did, yet I also felt they were missing out. I know many adults who don't game, and often if they aren't out with friends they get bored really quickly. Since it is hard to get out with friends regularly as an adult (esp. as a working parent), it feels like many of them are just bored all the time. I wonder if they had more familiarity with the wide variety of games, they'd have found some that suit their tastes and competence and have something stimulating to do beyond doom scrolling social media. It is quite possible to game, read, have friends, and maintain a great balance between those activities and other forms of life. It is easy to displace those with social media and vice versa. All in all, I'll probably teach my kids to game even if they don't express a natural interest in it, because I ultimately believe it is a better hobby for most people than the lower hanging fruit like social media.
My kids are just 6 and 3, but they don't do screen time at all. Compared to my friends that have tried limiting screen time, none seems a lot easier. They just don't miss or crave it.
[deleted]
Soon video game maybe be restrictive like sex to avoid the citizen went out of control.
It doesn't matter in the slightest whether video games are good for you or bad for you, it's simply none of the state's business..
If one were to have an addiction, I'd pick video game addiction for them - the side effects are not like drugs, and it's possible to recover from it without major side effects, and in addition you can get a penchant for solving problems and learning quickly if you break out of the addiction cycle.
I agree that playing a game might not improve a class of skills in general like coordination or problem solving, but I don’t think it requires much study to determine improvement of skills directly used.
For example, to improve your reading skills you need to practice reading. If a game is providing reading material and motivation to read, it will improve reading skills.
Games can also drive motivation in other areas. In the early 90’s when I started computer gaming, you actually needed to know how to use a computer and understand them to some extent. Half the time I spent gaming was spent figuring out how to get the computer to do what I wanted which lead to a life long interest in technology. Sadly, like the parent poster mentioned, that is probably no longer a thing.
For example, to improve your reading skills you need to practice reading. If a game is providing reading material and motivation to read, it will improve reading skills.
Games can also drive motivation in other areas. In the early 90’s when I started computer gaming, you actually needed to know how to use a computer and understand them to some extent. Half the time I spent gaming was spent figuring out how to get the computer to do what I wanted which lead to a life long interest in technology. Sadly, like the parent poster mentioned, that is probably no longer a thing.
> Half the time I spent gaming was spent figuring out how to get the computer to do what I wanted which lead to a life long interest in technology.
I remember the old days of "extended memory" which meant you needed slightly different configuration files for each game. That meant if you wanted to play a bunch of games, it made sense to learn how to write a bat script to config according to what you wanted to play.
You also had a terminal which gave a "computery" vibe, like you were doing something serious, because why else would the interface be so austere? Command lines are like magic incantations, and some people are just drawn to learning how they work.
Nowadays that entry route is gone, there's not much peeking below the OS desktop anymore on something like a phone or tablet. On desktop it seems like Steam just abstracts away everything else that you'd care about, though I'm not a heavy gamer anymore.
I remember the old days of "extended memory" which meant you needed slightly different configuration files for each game. That meant if you wanted to play a bunch of games, it made sense to learn how to write a bat script to config according to what you wanted to play.
You also had a terminal which gave a "computery" vibe, like you were doing something serious, because why else would the interface be so austere? Command lines are like magic incantations, and some people are just drawn to learning how they work.
Nowadays that entry route is gone, there's not much peeking below the OS desktop anymore on something like a phone or tablet. On desktop it seems like Steam just abstracts away everything else that you'd care about, though I'm not a heavy gamer anymore.
My first computer was a 486 33mhz w/ about 250MB HD . I could only keep a couple games installed at a time, meaning i was always installing and uninstalling. Then I had to play with the autoexec.bat and cmd.com files . Then I broke it. Then i had to fix it cause my mom was still making payments on the computer (like it was a refrigerator with a 10yr lifespan) ... This is how I got into computing. Come to think if of it I owe her some "interest" on how much she invested in my career. :)
+1 for breaking autoexec.bat (on a 386). And getting yelled at by my dad, who needed it for work.
Thankfully, this led to a great decision when he upgraded -- his old machine became mine. If I broke it, well, that was my problem, and I should learn how to fix it. Cue ~10 year old me learning about the Windows / DOS boot process.
In summary, we should encourage kids to play games, but make them harder to install and more prone to break your operating system, because it makes kids smarter.
Thankfully, this led to a great decision when he upgraded -- his old machine became mine. If I broke it, well, that was my problem, and I should learn how to fix it. Cue ~10 year old me learning about the Windows / DOS boot process.
In summary, we should encourage kids to play games, but make them harder to install and more prone to break your operating system, because it makes kids smarter.
That's an interesting idea. If I have kids maybe I should tell them "you can play any game you can run on Linux. Here's an Ubuntu CD, helpdesk is at google.com. If you get really stuck tell me what you've tried so far and I'll give you some suggestions on what to ask Google. Oh, by the way, if you'd like to write your own games, I'll be happy to help you."
I would encourage you to also spend time teaching and mentoring them even if they havent tried. Kids thrive on this kind of attention, and feelings of support.
By the time you have kids that are old enough to play games, if you do, then you’ll probably know that this is an impossible conversation. The process will instead be to create a mystique out of your own habits, which the child will find intriguing.
For the last 15 years or so I have insisted most people I mentor, even young teens, build a new primary computer from parts and build Gentoo on it including the kernel.
When it boots successfully and can connect to the internet we then move on to helping them do any daily task they once did on Windows or MacOS, including gaming, art, schoolwork, etc on the new system.
Most choose another distro eventually once they know how to patch any software when needed, but some stick around and go on to develop operating systems themselves.
Many are doing very well in the industry today.
When it boots successfully and can connect to the internet we then move on to helping them do any daily task they once did on Windows or MacOS, including gaming, art, schoolwork, etc on the new system.
Most choose another distro eventually once they know how to patch any software when needed, but some stick around and go on to develop operating systems themselves.
Many are doing very well in the industry today.
That was me. I was given a Linux laptop, shown how to connect to the Internet (from a terminal), and basically told "good luck". 15 years later, I am happily working on embedded Linux systems.
I had printouts of autoexec.bat and config.sys for this exact reason.
I have definitely lamented how easy it is for my kids' generation to play games, compared to the memory optimization techniques I had to employ to even get them running ;)
> Ooh, if I LH the mouse driver and allocate a little more EMS it should work, but don't forget to load DOS=high,umb!
> Ooh, if I LH the mouse driver and allocate a little more EMS it should work, but don't forget to load DOS=high,umb!
On the other hand NES etc was way simpler to get going on than eg. todays mobile games or a Playstation.
1/6 of my friends (we all own 286, 386 and play computer games) got into programming and became a software engineer. The policy is against online games. I am actually looking to setup a computer without internet for my 8 year old. I want him to learn about computers, but internet is definitely not something I want him to explore now.
Hah! You've just described my childhood, hacking autoexec.bat and config.sys to get games to work. Each game needed a different hack. Had no idea what I was doing back then, it was more a case of discovering the correct incantation until stuff worked without the graphics juddering too badly.
There is also the value of the skills being learned. Learning about extended memory may have been of value to some people in the day, but it had negligible value a decade later. It may have launched a few careers, but it did not have lasting value. Learning how to create batch files had more value since those skills were transferable to similar domains (e.g. Unix administration and software development).
That being said, people rarely discuss technical skills as a benefit of gaming. Things like resource management are more often brought up. Maybe there's some benefit to games in that respect, but I suspect most people learn about resource management within the context of games and very little of that is transferable to the real world.
This isn't to say I'm opposed to using games for education. I have certainly taught concepts in mathematics using Minecraft. Yet it does take a higher level of awareness of what you are trying to learn (or teach) than going through the mechanics of playing.
That being said, people rarely discuss technical skills as a benefit of gaming. Things like resource management are more often brought up. Maybe there's some benefit to games in that respect, but I suspect most people learn about resource management within the context of games and very little of that is transferable to the real world.
This isn't to say I'm opposed to using games for education. I have certainly taught concepts in mathematics using Minecraft. Yet it does take a higher level of awareness of what you are trying to learn (or teach) than going through the mechanics of playing.
I beg to differ about XMS. That particular technology may have only been relevant for a decade, but the idea of using a harder-to-access storage to supplement cheap-but-limited storage is everywhere. L1 and L2 cache, data warehouses, cloud storage, and so on. I value learning about that abstraction early on. I’d agree it’s not singularly career changing, but I don’t think knowing any one technology in the software industry is.
XMS wasnt a supplement, and its behaviour wasnt analogous to a cache. It was a 32 bit wrapper that would allow 16 or 32 bit* dos applications to access all "extra" memory that 32 bit systems usually got installed. The access was commonly provided via emulating the EMS mechanism - a 64k or 128k block to be paged within the fist 2^19 bytes, or by providing a 32 bit address for a usable block.
*32 bit and protected mode (ring3) support was provided usually via DPMI, an interrupt service managed by a TSR (daemon), or VCPI, a more complex privileged system. Some DOS extenders could also provide this functionality for their own binaries, notably the very popular DOS4GW.EXE, the Watcom dos extender. Yes, the name of the file reflects the physical address limit of i386 systems, 4GB. (note that when working with linear addressing, the max addressable range is quite superior due to the paging mechanism).
*32 bit and protected mode (ring3) support was provided usually via DPMI, an interrupt service managed by a TSR (daemon), or VCPI, a more complex privileged system. Some DOS extenders could also provide this functionality for their own binaries, notably the very popular DOS4GW.EXE, the Watcom dos extender. Yes, the name of the file reflects the physical address limit of i386 systems, 4GB. (note that when working with linear addressing, the max addressable range is quite superior due to the paging mechanism).
Understanding low level architecture of that time (and early memory management) and first steps of the boot process is definitely something that has been useful to me since then. DOS batch files scripting no so much...
I do truly hope that this is a case where multiple starting points ultimately end going to the same place, largely. There are multiple entry points and what was a good entry point when we were young is not the best way anymore.
For one thing, now there are fairly easily reprogrammable boards that can do things like power motors for which you need to learn real programming just to start, even if you're using an example.
I am worried that a level of comfort with computers that we may have due to being there during the evolution will be gone, I certainly learned to type over 120 words per minute by playing a MUD, far more important than my actual honest-to-god typing class. I think-type, which is a result of endless text conversations and emails.
Are those fundamentally important skills? Why? At some level if they are skills which are needed there will be a reason to learn them.
For one thing, now there are fairly easily reprogrammable boards that can do things like power motors for which you need to learn real programming just to start, even if you're using an example.
I am worried that a level of comfort with computers that we may have due to being there during the evolution will be gone, I certainly learned to type over 120 words per minute by playing a MUD, far more important than my actual honest-to-god typing class. I think-type, which is a result of endless text conversations and emails.
Are those fundamentally important skills? Why? At some level if they are skills which are needed there will be a reason to learn them.
Just offer linux, and let them figure it out!
My childhood story too. We ended pretty knowledgable, effective and borderline dangerous when the watered down systems arrived later.
I'd put in the same category the edition of saved games to change your amount of money to FFFFFF or the epic shenanigans required to setup a LAN party.
I'd put in the same category the edition of saved games to change your amount of money to FFFFFF or the epic shenanigans required to setup a LAN party.
For some games sure, but those games now make up a subset.
Look at the 'casual' games which are optimized via AI to hold attention and trigger repeat use. It may not be much of a stretch to consider these drugs for the human visual/rewards system rather than videogames. And these attention-grabbing tools are only getting better as we collect more data and develop better algos.
Look at the 'casual' games which are optimized via AI to hold attention and trigger repeat use. It may not be much of a stretch to consider these drugs for the human visual/rewards system rather than videogames. And these attention-grabbing tools are only getting better as we collect more data and develop better algos.
Lot of things improve reading skills, like reading novels.
Arguably, writing video games and novels would seem to be more useful way to improve skills. That's how I got started in programming at all.
However, video games just doesn't seem life changing at all compared to all the things you could do.
Arguably, writing video games and novels would seem to be more useful way to improve skills. That's how I got started in programming at all.
However, video games just doesn't seem life changing at all compared to all the things you could do.
If your goal is to learn a skill, there are better ways to go about it than gaming. The problem in learning that gaming helps with isn’t learning efficacy —- it is motivation.
As a child, I simply wasn’t interested in novels and enjoying playing games would be a prerequisite to having the motivation to write one.
As a child, I simply wasn’t interested in novels and enjoying playing games would be a prerequisite to having the motivation to write one.
english english english english english
A lot of people learned english via games
A lot of people learned english via games
Depends on the person. I learned quite a few good habits from video games, particularly how to become more focused, driven, and patient. After getting fairly serious with a competitive game in my mid thirties, I found it translated rather unexpectedly to other pursuits. I am unsure if I would have found these parts of myself otherwise; I certainly hadn't before, and I had no shortage of variety in my hobbies or rigor in my career(s) prior.
[deleted]
I agree. Games feel like chose-your-own-adventure books, which were novelties and not nearly as engaging as a well-written book to read and visualize and anticipate.
A great way to help a child read throughout their life is to read to them every day, enjoy stories together and apart, and not to push too hard in any direction (they may enjoy different things, no problem). Asking open-ended questions helps, too, with time to consider and respond.
A great way to help a child read throughout their life is to read to them every day, enjoy stories together and apart, and not to push too hard in any direction (they may enjoy different things, no problem). Asking open-ended questions helps, too, with time to consider and respond.
When playing various games you have to manage a budget, reason about logistics, get an intuition for basic physics, understand numbers and basic math formulas etc. There are so many skills you learn there that are seen as very important. How can passively reading a story book even compare to actively being forced to practice and learn these things?
I learnt English thru video games. I would not be here without them. But arguable, modern games with lootboxes and metrics are way worse than 90s offline games.
> I learnt English thru video games
To be honest I don't find this argument particularly convincing.
To be honest I don't find this argument particularly convincing.
Exactly. I want to let my kid experience something similar. So I gave him (6 years old) my desktop pc. He is now playing around with windows settings. Of course looking for games on Steam. But he at least doesnt touch his Nintendo switch anymore.
Video games gave me the motivation to learn English, about machining, CAD, PCB design, economics and programming. Anyone who is against leisure is falling into the existential trap of capitalism. What is the meaning of doing productive work inside a video game? Since productive work is now leisure you actually run into the existential problem all the time. The video game runs into deflation all the time. People are highly productive, reducing the need of other players to be productive.
In fact, the very thing we beg for is an increase in the money supply. We are hoping for inflation. Meanwhile in the real world everyone is scared of that inflation thing. My latest project is literally pumping NPC vendors with basic resources to create money out of thin air to generate inflation. The paradox of creating money is that it makes people work and end up doing more "productive" work.
In fact, the very thing we beg for is an increase in the money supply. We are hoping for inflation. Meanwhile in the real world everyone is scared of that inflation thing. My latest project is literally pumping NPC vendors with basic resources to create money out of thin air to generate inflation. The paradox of creating money is that it makes people work and end up doing more "productive" work.
[deleted]
> If a game is providing reading material and motivation to read, it will improve reading skills.
Eh. No, that's not quite how that works. If you look at north american elementary school level reading, you may notice that books are often categorized by levels. Some of this has to do with complexity of sentence construction, some has to do with vocabulary, and some has to do with subject matter. The gist of the educational philosophy around reading is that one doesn't get better at reading by plowing through reading material at high volumes, but instead one needs to gradually level up by going through materials of appropriate complexity. One specific problem that teachers look for - especially in kids that advance quickly - is "skimming without understanding", for example (i.e. reading words/sentences phonetically, but without understanding their meaning/context).
Game text is usually not structured with any didactic value in mind (other than maybe appropriate usage of furigana in Japanese in consideration of target audiences). A lot of game categories don't even require any reading beyond recognizing words (which is somewhere between kinder and 1st grade level reading skill)
Also, even in games where text actually matters, you're typically spending a large amount of time doing other things (killing monster or whatever). In addition, the notion of games-as-reading-material ignores a fairly common phenomenon: a lot of people simply spam `A` to skip over dialogues - and even get stuck on one-off gimmicks that rely on reading the text carefully for instructions or clues.
To be clear though, practicing pre-acquired reading skills can help in the sense that repetition legitimizes, but IMHO that's a bit different than improving beyond a current level, and not necessarily all that different from what you get from reading cereal box/shampoo labels or reading comic books.
Eh. No, that's not quite how that works. If you look at north american elementary school level reading, you may notice that books are often categorized by levels. Some of this has to do with complexity of sentence construction, some has to do with vocabulary, and some has to do with subject matter. The gist of the educational philosophy around reading is that one doesn't get better at reading by plowing through reading material at high volumes, but instead one needs to gradually level up by going through materials of appropriate complexity. One specific problem that teachers look for - especially in kids that advance quickly - is "skimming without understanding", for example (i.e. reading words/sentences phonetically, but without understanding their meaning/context).
Game text is usually not structured with any didactic value in mind (other than maybe appropriate usage of furigana in Japanese in consideration of target audiences). A lot of game categories don't even require any reading beyond recognizing words (which is somewhere between kinder and 1st grade level reading skill)
Also, even in games where text actually matters, you're typically spending a large amount of time doing other things (killing monster or whatever). In addition, the notion of games-as-reading-material ignores a fairly common phenomenon: a lot of people simply spam `A` to skip over dialogues - and even get stuck on one-off gimmicks that rely on reading the text carefully for instructions or clues.
To be clear though, practicing pre-acquired reading skills can help in the sense that repetition legitimizes, but IMHO that's a bit different than improving beyond a current level, and not necessarily all that different from what you get from reading cereal box/shampoo labels or reading comic books.
So what I think is a really strong counterpoint to your argument is the simple fact that watching movies in a language is generally considered a great way to learn said language. That's passive learning in a similar manner to what you would get out of reading in a video game.
It fails to train you in actually synthesizing speech though. So you need a structured approach as well, similar to what you describe, to fill out the many other facets of learning.
But it's still insanely valuable to do so.
reading things likely makes you better at reading things
It fails to train you in actually synthesizing speech though. So you need a structured approach as well, similar to what you describe, to fill out the many other facets of learning.
But it's still insanely valuable to do so.
reading things likely makes you better at reading things
Well, I think doing things way above your level "works" sometimes in the sense that there's a subset of things that a learner happens to be most receptive to at any given time, and immersing yourself at the deep end is a bit like brute forcing through the entire subject matter until something happens to stick. But this is inefficient and not guaranteed to yield any results at all.
I have some insight into language learning myself, having had both positive and non-positive experiences. On the one hand, yes, games and movies did help me pick up english vocabulary, but this is because I also studied english from an early age in school, the fact that English borrows vocabulary heavily from romance languages (with which I am fluent), and perhaps most importantly, the fact that I've immersed myself in it quite deeply during my teens, often preferring to read and write in english. Ironically, though, learning through entertainment media left me with some curiously weird learning gaps. For example, I only learned in my 30s that "down" (as in Final Fantasy's "Phoenix down") refers to a type of plumage and not some weird in-universe usage of up/down/left/right.
Now contrast this experience with this: As a kid, I also learned Japanese (though not to the same extent as english, let alone the extent required to master it coming from a romance language). At one point, my dad brought over some Japanese RPG games from a business trip to Japan, and while I did have basic schooling on hiragana/katakana, the teen-level kanji from the games was way over my head at the time, and I ended up learning virtually no Japanese from those games (I had to quite literally sit down to actively study kanjis to make any sense of what the game text said). I also consumed quite a bit of anime and not a whole lot stuck with me either, due to a lack of what I can "active practice" (i.e. my exposure to the language was mostly on a as-needed consumption basis, with little to no active effort to write or speak).
In short, I do think games can help nail down stuff you've learned elsewhere, but upleveling language skills from games alone is very difficult.
I have some insight into language learning myself, having had both positive and non-positive experiences. On the one hand, yes, games and movies did help me pick up english vocabulary, but this is because I also studied english from an early age in school, the fact that English borrows vocabulary heavily from romance languages (with which I am fluent), and perhaps most importantly, the fact that I've immersed myself in it quite deeply during my teens, often preferring to read and write in english. Ironically, though, learning through entertainment media left me with some curiously weird learning gaps. For example, I only learned in my 30s that "down" (as in Final Fantasy's "Phoenix down") refers to a type of plumage and not some weird in-universe usage of up/down/left/right.
Now contrast this experience with this: As a kid, I also learned Japanese (though not to the same extent as english, let alone the extent required to master it coming from a romance language). At one point, my dad brought over some Japanese RPG games from a business trip to Japan, and while I did have basic schooling on hiragana/katakana, the teen-level kanji from the games was way over my head at the time, and I ended up learning virtually no Japanese from those games (I had to quite literally sit down to actively study kanjis to make any sense of what the game text said). I also consumed quite a bit of anime and not a whole lot stuck with me either, due to a lack of what I can "active practice" (i.e. my exposure to the language was mostly on a as-needed consumption basis, with little to no active effort to write or speak).
In short, I do think games can help nail down stuff you've learned elsewhere, but upleveling language skills from games alone is very difficult.
> For example, I only learned in my 30s that "down" (as in Final Fantasy's "Phoenix down") refers to a type of plumage
For what it's worth, that's not at all what I'd consider a weird gap. As an educated 40-year-old native English speaker, I think it's possible I've gone my entire life without speaking aloud the word "down" in the sense of plumage. I'd only expect a non-native speaker to know it if they spent some time focusing on animal terminology.
For what it's worth, that's not at all what I'd consider a weird gap. As an educated 40-year-old native English speaker, I think it's possible I've gone my entire life without speaking aloud the word "down" in the sense of plumage. I'd only expect a non-native speaker to know it if they spent some time focusing on animal terminology.
> I'd only expect a non-native speaker to know it if they spent some time focusing on animal terminology.
Id imagine pillows and bedding are where most people use this word.
Id imagine pillows and bedding are where most people use this word.
Yeah, after writing that comment I thought about it a bit more and realized that I have used the word "down" in the context of pillows before. But that may have been one or two conversations in my life.
> Game text is usually not structured with any didactic value in mind (other than maybe appropriate usage of furigana in Japanese in consideration of target audiences). A lot of game categories don't even require any reading beyond recognizing words (which is somewhere between kinder and 1st grade level reading skill)
> Also, even in games where text actually matters, you're typically spending a large amount of time doing other things (killing monster or whatever). In addition, the notion of games-as-reading-material ignores a fairly common phenomenon: a lot of people simply spam `A` to skip over dialogues - and even get stuck on one-off gimmicks that rely on reading the text carefully for instructions or clues.
This is a consequence of modern gaming trends and by no means an issue with video games themselves.
There are a lot of game categories that provide or even require extensive reading. We don't have to accept _all_ games a beneficial; it's not like we use magazines and tabloids to teach reading comprehension either.
There are games where killing monsters isn't the primary goal, or even if it is a significant aspect of game play can be averted by finding alternative solutions, usually through the in-game lore.
Deus Ex was a great example where several bosses could be entirely side stepped by reading emails throughout the game (though to be fair, only a few of them actually required _reading_ the email as opposed to simply discovering it). Arcanum is another that if you pieced together enough of the backstory and paid attention to the dialog you could talk the final boss down. There are even more out there, as you mention, that offer hints to puzzles and gimmicks, some of which even present it as a riddle ensuring you read and understand the text rather than just found it.
Sure, a lot of people will skip these things and save-scum or post on message boards to get the answer, but that's not much different than CliffNotes everyone used.
If you want to use video games in school do the same thing we do for books: Select the games the offer quality reading and evaluate based on comprehension rather than completion. You can even require students submit save files to verify they took the reading path.
> Also, even in games where text actually matters, you're typically spending a large amount of time doing other things (killing monster or whatever). In addition, the notion of games-as-reading-material ignores a fairly common phenomenon: a lot of people simply spam `A` to skip over dialogues - and even get stuck on one-off gimmicks that rely on reading the text carefully for instructions or clues.
This is a consequence of modern gaming trends and by no means an issue with video games themselves.
There are a lot of game categories that provide or even require extensive reading. We don't have to accept _all_ games a beneficial; it's not like we use magazines and tabloids to teach reading comprehension either.
There are games where killing monsters isn't the primary goal, or even if it is a significant aspect of game play can be averted by finding alternative solutions, usually through the in-game lore.
Deus Ex was a great example where several bosses could be entirely side stepped by reading emails throughout the game (though to be fair, only a few of them actually required _reading_ the email as opposed to simply discovering it). Arcanum is another that if you pieced together enough of the backstory and paid attention to the dialog you could talk the final boss down. There are even more out there, as you mention, that offer hints to puzzles and gimmicks, some of which even present it as a riddle ensuring you read and understand the text rather than just found it.
Sure, a lot of people will skip these things and save-scum or post on message boards to get the answer, but that's not much different than CliffNotes everyone used.
If you want to use video games in school do the same thing we do for books: Select the games the offer quality reading and evaluate based on comprehension rather than completion. You can even require students submit save files to verify they took the reading path.
There's no need for mental gymnastics, it's a lot easier to simply argue that educational games are educational. But this doesn't contradict what I said: that most games are not structured in terms of didactic value.
I do, however, want to specifically call out the learning value of an R-rated game: if you are learning to read from it, that says absolutely nothing about age-appropriate didactic value of the game. At that level, the game ought to be making you solve quadratic equations or something along those lines for us to even begin entertaining the idea that they may provide any actual didactic value.
I do, however, want to specifically call out the learning value of an R-rated game: if you are learning to read from it, that says absolutely nothing about age-appropriate didactic value of the game. At that level, the game ought to be making you solve quadratic equations or something along those lines for us to even begin entertaining the idea that they may provide any actual didactic value.
Grammar/spelling/usage is almost all about memorizing and copying others, so engaging in tasks that use those skills will definitely get you further faster than a step-by-step progression. I was reading and writing at a level far beyond my peers in elementary school, not because I was smarter, but because I actively read books for fun.
In developing countries games in 90s were a big avenue for kids to learn English. Mostly we had pirated games (a game costed 50-100 PLN, people earned 400-500 PLN a month, nobody used original software) without translations and with ripped cutscenes. So you had VERY big motivation to learn English to understand what is even going on.
I remember playing Betrayal At Krondor and Albion - story-heavy RPGs - understanding maybe 10% of words in any particular dialog or description :)
Additionally games train trial-and-error approach to technology which is why I think almost every software developer older than 30 that I know started as a gamer.
Nowadays it's a different world and I'm not sure games have such effects anymore, because it's much less demanding entertainment. They work out of the box, are translated into your language, affordable so no need to mess with virtual drives, keygens or copying cracks over game files.
I remember playing Betrayal At Krondor and Albion - story-heavy RPGs - understanding maybe 10% of words in any particular dialog or description :)
Additionally games train trial-and-error approach to technology which is why I think almost every software developer older than 30 that I know started as a gamer.
Nowadays it's a different world and I'm not sure games have such effects anymore, because it's much less demanding entertainment. They work out of the box, are translated into your language, affordable so no need to mess with virtual drives, keygens or copying cracks over game files.
I would agree with "the problem solving skills" section of your argument. But not the reading one. Getting good at reading is almost purely exercise. You do it more, you get better/faster at it, which has gains that show up in all kinds of fields be it tech, medicine, whatever.
Old school games had basically an entire novel embedded inside of them worth of text. 10 year old me wanting to read all of Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger got an easy novels worth of reading in. Getting 10 years old to WANT to read is HARD. Anything that encourages that is good.
Modern games dont have that text, and even when they do they have voice acting to get around it. Games like Chrono Trigger and old school Final Fantasy are rare and dont get made as much anymore unfortunately. Its all gambling boxes.
Old school games had basically an entire novel embedded inside of them worth of text. 10 year old me wanting to read all of Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger got an easy novels worth of reading in. Getting 10 years old to WANT to read is HARD. Anything that encourages that is good.
Modern games dont have that text, and even when they do they have voice acting to get around it. Games like Chrono Trigger and old school Final Fantasy are rare and dont get made as much anymore unfortunately. Its all gambling boxes.
> Modern games dont have that text, and even when they do they have voice acting to get around it. Games like Chrono Trigger and old school Final Fantasy are rare and dont get made as much anymore unfortunately. Its all gambling boxes.
What sort of games have you been playing?
Modern games come in every possible variety, and as soon as you look outside the likes of Fortnite you're swamped in story-heavy games, if that is what you want. The Atelier games, for example. Certainly those have voice acting, but not everywhere—and if that's a problem, pick the Japanese VAs.
What sort of games have you been playing?
Modern games come in every possible variety, and as soon as you look outside the likes of Fortnite you're swamped in story-heavy games, if that is what you want. The Atelier games, for example. Certainly those have voice acting, but not everywhere—and if that's a problem, pick the Japanese VAs.
I like text-heavy games and agree with the GP that they are not nearly as common as they used to be. Voice acting is almost universal and most games require subtitles to be enabled to have much of any reading.
Sure, are some games like Disco Elysium, Pathfinder Kingmaker or other D&D-style games, which are big walls of text with minimal voice over, but let's be honest, those games are targeting middle-aged people, not 10 year olds.
The games kids are playing today involve very little reading.
Sure, are some games like Disco Elysium, Pathfinder Kingmaker or other D&D-style games, which are big walls of text with minimal voice over, but let's be honest, those games are targeting middle-aged people, not 10 year olds.
The games kids are playing today involve very little reading.
If I go on itch.io right now and pick something at random, the likelihood of it being both made by a teenager and involving written storytelling is quite high. Likewise a huge hit of the last decade was Undertale and it had the kind of success where I recall seeing kids draw the characters in chalk on the sidewalk. The evidence indicates that writing never went away, it's just not upheld by large productions(and even then, Nintendo regularly eschews voice acting).
To me, there's nothing sacred about text, it's just a medium.
To me, there's nothing sacred about text, it's just a medium.
Obligatory Disco Elysium mention, but it still proves your point, because it is considered so unusual by today's standards.
Though Disco Elysium is now almost-totally voice acted as well.
For what it's worth, I ended up reading and skipping the dialog more often than not. There's just so much text that having to wait for the narration felt interminable. It's great voice acting, though.
> a glass of wine with every meal
There's an apt outcome of the analogy too. It's likely the grapejuice is better for you before fermenting it, oh and the grapes themselves are better for you than removing all the fiber and the physical bulk that can help satiety.
I feel the same way about games. They may have positive effects over a null control (like sitting and staring at the paint on the wall), but reading a physical book is probably better for reading skills than an RPG.
There's an apt outcome of the analogy too. It's likely the grapejuice is better for you before fermenting it, oh and the grapes themselves are better for you than removing all the fiber and the physical bulk that can help satiety.
I feel the same way about games. They may have positive effects over a null control (like sitting and staring at the paint on the wall), but reading a physical book is probably better for reading skills than an RPG.
This assumes the participant is equally motivated and emotionally positive about both paths, and has similar flow state through both paths.
Flow state increases retention and positive benefit, and flow state is often a function of motivation (fun), and more importantly, level of challenge. The benefit games have over nearly every other medium of experiencing a concept, is that the level of challenge is highly personalized.
If you spend a lot of time in one area of an RPG trying to comprehend the plot and thus solve the puzzle, it's still fun because you are moving around and performing more interactions and gathering small bits of context. Compare that to if you are stuck trying to comprehend one page of a difficult book as a 7-year-old.
Playing games allows our brains to catch up to complex concepts through (simulated) movement much the same way as going on walks allows us to process a difficult problem or complex system that is on our mind.
Flow state increases retention and positive benefit, and flow state is often a function of motivation (fun), and more importantly, level of challenge. The benefit games have over nearly every other medium of experiencing a concept, is that the level of challenge is highly personalized.
If you spend a lot of time in one area of an RPG trying to comprehend the plot and thus solve the puzzle, it's still fun because you are moving around and performing more interactions and gathering small bits of context. Compare that to if you are stuck trying to comprehend one page of a difficult book as a 7-year-old.
Playing games allows our brains to catch up to complex concepts through (simulated) movement much the same way as going on walks allows us to process a difficult problem or complex system that is on our mind.
> This assumes the participant is equally motivated and emotionally positive about both paths, and has similar flow state through both paths.
Also worth adding to this thread that motivation is a feedback loop mechanism. If you're super stimulated by these slot machine like games, you're not going to find the long rewards of completing a book a week/month a very "motivating" option. So it's also worth looking at the motivational damage these things do to a person and how it's eliminating the motivational possibility of doing something of higher value. Cue the "dopamine detox" part of the internet.
> is that the level of challenge is highly personalized.
I agree and this is a good observation, which maybe can be had IRL, but i agree that it can be easier implemented and more granular in the digital realm.
Also worth adding to this thread that motivation is a feedback loop mechanism. If you're super stimulated by these slot machine like games, you're not going to find the long rewards of completing a book a week/month a very "motivating" option. So it's also worth looking at the motivational damage these things do to a person and how it's eliminating the motivational possibility of doing something of higher value. Cue the "dopamine detox" part of the internet.
> is that the level of challenge is highly personalized.
I agree and this is a good observation, which maybe can be had IRL, but i agree that it can be easier implemented and more granular in the digital realm.
It's only quite recently that we can get fresh grapes off season, that's why people used to drink wine with food - it stays consumable for much longer thanks to the alcohol it contains.
> a glass of wine with every meal: it's worth looking into but at the same time it's the sort of thing that obviously doesn't scale linearly with the amount/intensity of consumption.
Fun fact, there has been recent research to show that the "glass of wine during a meal is healthy" is entirely a myth; _no amount_ of alcohol is beneficial to overall health [0].
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803651/
Fun fact, there has been recent research to show that the "glass of wine during a meal is healthy" is entirely a myth; _no amount_ of alcohol is beneficial to overall health [0].
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803651/
(forgive me since I did not read your reference) but I recall there were some studies showing that the "health benefits" touted by the "glass of wine a day" studies were strongly correlated with:
- being middle to upper class (can afford a glass of wine daily)
- having good self control (drinking one glass of wine a day instead of many)
which are both good health outcomes
- being middle to upper class (can afford a glass of wine daily)
- having good self control (drinking one glass of wine a day instead of many)
which are both good health outcomes
Even controlling for those factors, there is no health benefit to alcohol, ie a middle to upper class person with self control does not fare better drinking alcohol versus not drinking alcohol.
>_no amount_ of alcohol is beneficial to overall health [0].
I don't buy it. At worst, the negative health effects of alcohol are on an exponential J curve. Negative health outcomes like the risk of cancer is very small up until a rather high amount of consumption (4 drinks per day?) and only then outweighs the cardiovascular benefits.
Regardless, like meat consumption, I have no desire to give up drinking in moderation. I think that with this, like with everything, one has to weigh their enjoyment vs the potential for harm.
I don't buy it. At worst, the negative health effects of alcohol are on an exponential J curve. Negative health outcomes like the risk of cancer is very small up until a rather high amount of consumption (4 drinks per day?) and only then outweighs the cardiovascular benefits.
Regardless, like meat consumption, I have no desire to give up drinking in moderation. I think that with this, like with everything, one has to weigh their enjoyment vs the potential for harm.
You may not buy it but that's what the data shows. Now, you buying it versus you wanting to not believe it is another story. I too drink in moderation but that doesn't mean I'll act like it doesn't have negative consequences, however slight they may be. The study is not prescriptive, it's not saying people should give up alcohol, it's merely descriptive, in that it's telling the reader what's happening as a result of any level of consumption.
Frankly, nutrition science seems like a bunk field. Common advice is overthrown every few years and you can find a study that backs up any viewpoint you want. "you buying it versus you wanting to not believe it" is a weird statement to make in the context of such a sketchy science.
personal anecdote: I've played hundreds of hours of driving games, my girlfriend has never touched a controller. When we got our Tesla, the backup camera view was perfectly intuitive to me and I was immediately comfortable driving the car backwards using just the display, but she was not. As we go into the future of computer driven everything, people comfortable with controlling things via computer interface will have a significant advantage over people who've only used analog control.
I still refer to the nav screen in the car as a minimap. Using it feels completely native.
Unlike some games however I can't drive using only the minimap...
Unlike some games however I can't drive using only the minimap...
> ... it's the sort of thing that obviously doesn't scale linearly with the amount/intensity of consumption.
Is there anything that actually scales linearly? I thought the law of diminishing rewards applied to pretty much anything you do.
Is there anything that actually scales linearly? I thought the law of diminishing rewards applied to pretty much anything you do.
I'd argue that benefits from games - at least from games in the 90s - scale in a weird but, to a degree, superlinear way. That is, if you do it only a little, you may as well not do it at all.
Come to think of it, quite a lot of things in life scale like this. Software development being among the well-known ones for this audience - e.g. if you'd be given only a 30 minute window for writing code during a day (or even a couple such windows spread out), you'd likely not even open the editor, as there's no point in even engaging with the task in such short window.
I'd go as far as saying that, in order to realize the most non-enjoyment value of a game, you not only need long enough sessions to fully engage with a game - you need long enough sessions to get bored with the game. But, that may be impossible with modern gambling-for-chindren-but-legal style of games.
You can imagine this as an "S-curve" model of value, where with games, the point most people consider "too much" for a kid is barely on the ramp-up part of the curve.
Come to think of it, quite a lot of things in life scale like this. Software development being among the well-known ones for this audience - e.g. if you'd be given only a 30 minute window for writing code during a day (or even a couple such windows spread out), you'd likely not even open the editor, as there's no point in even engaging with the task in such short window.
I'd go as far as saying that, in order to realize the most non-enjoyment value of a game, you not only need long enough sessions to fully engage with a game - you need long enough sessions to get bored with the game. But, that may be impossible with modern gambling-for-chindren-but-legal style of games.
You can imagine this as an "S-curve" model of value, where with games, the point most people consider "too much" for a kid is barely on the ramp-up part of the curve.
This seems very plausible. I suspect one of the most consistent benefits of games is that it trains the mind to pay attention to one thing for a long time. The longer those sessions, the more effective it probably is.
Sure, nobody is worried that if you eat healthy food every day or sleep 8 hours every night, it may eventually turn into life-impairing addiction.
> I thought the law of diminishing rewards applied to pretty much anything you do.
IMO, the interesting part of many things in life comes after a significant time/difficulty spike. Think of music, art, programming, athletic performance, etc.
IMO, the interesting part of many things in life comes after a significant time/difficulty spike. Think of music, art, programming, athletic performance, etc.
I don't think anyone in this thread has discussed one of the other important aspects of gaming: the social aspect.
Especially in an era of "quarantine at home" - online gaming can be a very social activity and a way to make/grow friendships and play with others.
(Obviously I think getting outdoors and being active instead of staring at a screen all day is probably even better, but that is one benefit of games over just "grinding")
Especially in an era of "quarantine at home" - online gaming can be a very social activity and a way to make/grow friendships and play with others.
(Obviously I think getting outdoors and being active instead of staring at a screen all day is probably even better, but that is one benefit of games over just "grinding")
Might be relevant to point out here that China has largely avoided adopting the remote work culture as most people were back in office in summer last year.
>I've read about studies that say that musical training (which is often believed to translate to improvements in other cognitive aspects of life) doesn't actually correlate to said improvements, and I suspect that the same might be true for games (e.g. solving game puzzles doesn't necessarily mean you get better at school math or whatever)
Lots of unchecked assumptions. I'm only taking issue with the music assumption. Do you have a counter to the studies you have read?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180326140244.h...
Lots of unchecked assumptions. I'm only taking issue with the music assumption. Do you have a counter to the studies you have read?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180326140244.h...
I do know of many studies that suggest the existence of a correlation between music education and academic achievement, but the gist of the argument against those studies is that they aren't well designed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X1...
I think regulation on past time activities isn't the appropriate approach. It's a slippery slope, are they soon going to regulate the amount of time someone can watch television, or the number of times one may go to a movie theater?
Knowing china's history, it doesn't seem too far fetched and sounds like we're slowly evolving into an episode of black mirror.
Knowing china's history, it doesn't seem too far fetched and sounds like we're slowly evolving into an episode of black mirror.
Ditto. Games certainly helped develop my problem-solving skills, but I reckon I'd have gotten 90% of the benefit in 10% of the time, and the remaining 35 hours a week would have been better spent elsewhere.
> ... correlation between games and violence (i.e. the consensus is that no such causation relationship exists).
I feel that the connection between violence and violence in games is far more subtle than a direct connection.
Video games are not real life but the thoughts and feelings we have when we play games are real. When we experience anger, sadness or joy in a game, all of these emotions are real for us.
When we have experiences pathways are laid down in the brain through the process of myelination and these pathways get reinforced over time by having the same experiences.
When we hit, shoot or kill something in a video game and get feedback, sound, visual or music, our brain starts to become conditioned to those experiences.
Our brains are plastic and flexible in that they can learn that hitting, shooting and killing, being violent can feel "good". It is possible that this can happen even being completely unaware of it happening.
If you make games, and there is violence in your game, I would seriously take a moment and consider. Is this violence in the game really necessary? There are many other options for different types of gameplay.
I feel that the connection between violence and violence in games is far more subtle than a direct connection.
Video games are not real life but the thoughts and feelings we have when we play games are real. When we experience anger, sadness or joy in a game, all of these emotions are real for us.
When we have experiences pathways are laid down in the brain through the process of myelination and these pathways get reinforced over time by having the same experiences.
When we hit, shoot or kill something in a video game and get feedback, sound, visual or music, our brain starts to become conditioned to those experiences.
Our brains are plastic and flexible in that they can learn that hitting, shooting and killing, being violent can feel "good". It is possible that this can happen even being completely unaware of it happening.
If you make games, and there is violence in your game, I would seriously take a moment and consider. Is this violence in the game really necessary? There are many other options for different types of gameplay.
How about that old timeless classic pricipal of "my time is my time and not my government's" . We're not talking about parents limiting VG time, this is a government controlling the most minute details of everyone's social life.
Board games are far better brain exercise. You’re forced to compete with other people and the games usually enforce time limits. Or if they don’t, your opponent will force an end if you want to win.
Is this speculative or do you have anything to back this up?
Empirical evidence? If you’re going to play games for some supposed benefit, games where you are forced to compete or have brutal requirements are going to force you to think more.
I’m not talking Catan or Ticket to Ride. I’m talking medium to heavy euros or war games.
I’m not talking Catan or Ticket to Ride. I’m talking medium to heavy euros or war games.
This subthread was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28356453.
> solving game puzzles doesn't necessarily mean you get better at school math
That's not how improving through games works at all.
The things you understand through games are much more general than the surface of the gameplay. Total War (or Starcraft) won't teach you anything about commanding armies. But if you're observant enough it will teach you a difference between level-1 versus level-2 strategies. It will definitely teach you about the impact of timing on execution. It will show you complexity, risk, loss aversion, and how battles are usually won or lost before the first shot is fired. All these are useful things to experience so that you are better equipped to deal with them in real life.
What's even more important, the games will show you how YOU relate to these intangible concepts. How loss averse are you? Do you naturally tend to maximize win or minimize loss? How easy it is for you to abandon a pre-established plan? These and more are insights into your own nature that are not easy to get.
Finally, the multiplayer games will show you the human nature. You'll understand, for example, that different people play for different reasons, and just this understanding alone was worth all hundreds of hours I put into M:TG. I guess that most of the multiplayer insights are also available through participation (and/or managing) a regular sports team but I would have never been able to join as many of those as I had gaming teams.
TLDR: Games guide the player to instinctive understanding of categorical truths that underpin the simulations, and that is only possible through countless repetitions of similar scenarios* in different contexts. This is the true value of gaming.
[*] I'm not talking about grinding here[**], but playing same or similar games many times.
[**] although grinding can teach one about how seemingly small process improvements somethimes add up to a qualitative break ... and sometimes not. Figure out the best way to do a cow level run to learn more!
That's not how improving through games works at all.
The things you understand through games are much more general than the surface of the gameplay. Total War (or Starcraft) won't teach you anything about commanding armies. But if you're observant enough it will teach you a difference between level-1 versus level-2 strategies. It will definitely teach you about the impact of timing on execution. It will show you complexity, risk, loss aversion, and how battles are usually won or lost before the first shot is fired. All these are useful things to experience so that you are better equipped to deal with them in real life.
What's even more important, the games will show you how YOU relate to these intangible concepts. How loss averse are you? Do you naturally tend to maximize win or minimize loss? How easy it is for you to abandon a pre-established plan? These and more are insights into your own nature that are not easy to get.
Finally, the multiplayer games will show you the human nature. You'll understand, for example, that different people play for different reasons, and just this understanding alone was worth all hundreds of hours I put into M:TG. I guess that most of the multiplayer insights are also available through participation (and/or managing) a regular sports team but I would have never been able to join as many of those as I had gaming teams.
TLDR: Games guide the player to instinctive understanding of categorical truths that underpin the simulations, and that is only possible through countless repetitions of similar scenarios* in different contexts. This is the true value of gaming.
[*] I'm not talking about grinding here[**], but playing same or similar games many times.
[**] although grinding can teach one about how seemingly small process improvements somethimes add up to a qualitative break ... and sometimes not. Figure out the best way to do a cow level run to learn more!
> This line of reasoning is also supported by research on
> correlation between games and violence (i.e. the consensus
> is that no such causation relationship exists).
On the face of it, this can't be true in all cases. Even Radio can be used to incite violence. A much less imersive medium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
"Rwandan radio station which broadcast from July 8, 1993 to July 31, 1994. It played a significant role in inciting the Rwandan genocide that took place from April to July 1994, a and has been described by some scholars of having been a de facto arm of the Hutu government."
Games influence culture. The modern permissiveness to "punch a Nazi" has been very well conditioned and permitted. Often in games. "Nazi" can be easily redefined to include modern political opponents, at anytime in the future.
> correlation between games and violence (i.e. the consensus
> is that no such causation relationship exists).
On the face of it, this can't be true in all cases. Even Radio can be used to incite violence. A much less imersive medium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
"Rwandan radio station which broadcast from July 8, 1993 to July 31, 1994. It played a significant role in inciting the Rwandan genocide that took place from April to July 1994, a and has been described by some scholars of having been a de facto arm of the Hutu government."
Games influence culture. The modern permissiveness to "punch a Nazi" has been very well conditioned and permitted. Often in games. "Nazi" can be easily redefined to include modern political opponents, at anytime in the future.
That seems like a false equivalency, clearly your radio telling you to kill your neighbors is a much stronger incitement than a game where you run around shooting at imaginary people.
>"research on correlation between games and violence (i.e. the consensus is that no such causation relationship exists)."
If there were no correlation, then is the perception of in-game abuse such as sexual (and other) violence, or milder sexism and "bro" culture exaggerated (including misogynism)? Is the view that there need to be more inclusivity (of many sorts) in games then unsupported?
I see people wanting it both ways (from both political spectrums).
It either affects us, so we need to be conscientious about what we put in there.
Or it doesn't affect us and it does not matter what we do in-game (violence, sexism, etc.)
If there were no correlation, then is the perception of in-game abuse such as sexual (and other) violence, or milder sexism and "bro" culture exaggerated (including misogynism)? Is the view that there need to be more inclusivity (of many sorts) in games then unsupported?
I see people wanting it both ways (from both political spectrums).
It either affects us, so we need to be conscientious about what we put in there.
Or it doesn't affect us and it does not matter what we do in-game (violence, sexism, etc.)
Original notice from the government: https://web.archive.org/web/20210830120201/http://www.nppa.g...
Google translation of the first entry:
> Strictly limit the time for providing online game services to minors. Since the implementation of this notice, all online game companies can only provide minors with one-hour online game services from 20 to 21:00 on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays. At other times, it is not allowed to provide online game services to minors in any form.
Google translation of the first entry:
> Strictly limit the time for providing online game services to minors. Since the implementation of this notice, all online game companies can only provide minors with one-hour online game services from 20 to 21:00 on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays. At other times, it is not allowed to provide online game services to minors in any form.
So it's not just 3 hours per week, it's three specific hours a week, but also only for online games services. It's interesting that the law covers the service, not the client.
Now, I wonder what qualifies as an online game service. If I play correspondence chess over email, would the email host be running an online game service? If someone modifies the Battle of Wesnoth network code to run over IRC messages, would the IRC host be running an online game service? (What about decentralized network game protocols?)
Lots of legal grey areas to explore, like with Phil Zimmerman putting the PGP code in bookform. I'm sure you could find a way to game online without relying on an online game service.
Now, I wonder what qualifies as an online game service. If I play correspondence chess over email, would the email host be running an online game service? If someone modifies the Battle of Wesnoth network code to run over IRC messages, would the IRC host be running an online game service? (What about decentralized network game protocols?)
Lots of legal grey areas to explore, like with Phil Zimmerman putting the PGP code in bookform. I'm sure you could find a way to game online without relying on an online game service.
This is a such a classic HN comment:
1. Law does x 2. HN commenter: what about x+y? what about x-1?
The answer to your decentralized chess is that no one would care if it broke the rules or not unless millions of people were hopelessly addicted to it and it warranted a second look.
Your average Zoomer is not interested in decentralized chess or any other gaming service that requires only an intermittent internet connection. I can see local network mobile MOBAs becoming a thing but I'm sure workarounds like that would be eventually squashed as well.
1. Law does x 2. HN commenter: what about x+y? what about x-1?
The answer to your decentralized chess is that no one would care if it broke the rules or not unless millions of people were hopelessly addicted to it and it warranted a second look.
Your average Zoomer is not interested in decentralized chess or any other gaming service that requires only an intermittent internet connection. I can see local network mobile MOBAs becoming a thing but I'm sure workarounds like that would be eventually squashed as well.
> This is a such a classic HN comment:
Thanks!
> The answer to your decentralized chess is that no one would care if it broke the rules or not unless millions of people were hopelessly addicted to it and it warranted a second look.
Ok, so you'd have a online gaming vacuum for all <18 gamer kids of China. Don't you think someone would make a game or two run over IRC (or SMTP some other protocol) if it meant capturing that entire market? Then it would be millions; and then perhaps authorities would care, and then perhaps herpaps an IRC server could* be "an online gaming platform", which would be interesting and peculiar legally, is what I'm saying.
(What really distinguishes / categorizes something as a game network protocol as distinct from written human language, legally..?)
Thanks!
> The answer to your decentralized chess is that no one would care if it broke the rules or not unless millions of people were hopelessly addicted to it and it warranted a second look.
Ok, so you'd have a online gaming vacuum for all <18 gamer kids of China. Don't you think someone would make a game or two run over IRC (or SMTP some other protocol) if it meant capturing that entire market? Then it would be millions; and then perhaps authorities would care, and then perhaps herpaps an IRC server could* be "an online gaming platform", which would be interesting and peculiar legally, is what I'm saying.
(What really distinguishes / categorizes something as a game network protocol as distinct from written human language, legally..?)
I'm pretty sure if this policy got kids to play chess or Go over IRC, instead of games like League of Legends, the government would call it a big success and pat themselves on the back.
Yes the target should violations occur is game company. Not the parents, or youths.
The regulation, technically not a law, is meant for companies in the video game industry. If you went length to circumvent the online game definition, no one cares, but if a corporate does that, it would sure trigger investigation.
* Hell, you don't even need to circumvent the defintion if you can get around it technically.
* Hell, you don't even need to circumvent the defintion if you can get around it technically.
It seems that "online games" include all games can download from the Internet, whether they have a multiplayer component or not.
Steam China also includes an "anti-addiction" system, even though the vast majority of games on there are solo game.
https://m.jiemian.com/article/4445107_yidian.html
> If I play correspondence chess over email, would the email host be running an online game service? If someone modifies the Battle of Wesnoth network code to run over IRC messages, would the IRC host be running an online game service? (What about decentralized network game protocols?)
It's simple, Every MMORPG or online-game requires a license. The government can fine your company for violations. If you run games through email or IRC, pray your underground game network doesn't attract attentions.
btw there are tons of "grey" area online game services in China.
It's simple, Every MMORPG or online-game requires a license. The government can fine your company for violations. If you run games through email or IRC, pray your underground game network doesn't attract attentions.
btw there are tons of "grey" area online game services in China.
I believe this all comes down to enforcement, which is grey in the first place. It also matters if the game got (maliciously) reported to enforcement agents.
It's impossible to regulate clients - there are too many of them, and they're under direct physical control of minors who are opposed to the regs.
In this as in many things, big central institutions are much easier for a state to work with.
In this as in many things, big central institutions are much easier for a state to work with.
Is the original article not a major journalistic misstep then? Nowhere does it clarify that this only applies to online gaming.
I found some government documents to support my view that all games available on the Internet are "online games" in the eyes of the Chinese government
http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2010-06/22/content_1633935.htm
translated form deepl: "The online game referred to in this method refers to the software program and information data composition, through the Internet, mobile communication networks and other information networks to provide game products and services.
Online game online operation refers to the business behavior of providing game products and services to the public through information networks using user systems or fee-based systems.
Online game virtual currency refers to the virtual exchange tool issued by online game operation unit and purchased directly or indirectly by online game users using legal tender in a certain proportion, existing outside the game program, stored in the server in the form of electromagnetic records and expressed in specific digital units."
http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2010-06/22/content_1633935.htm
translated form deepl: "The online game referred to in this method refers to the software program and information data composition, through the Internet, mobile communication networks and other information networks to provide game products and services.
Online game online operation refers to the business behavior of providing game products and services to the public through information networks using user systems or fee-based systems.
Online game virtual currency refers to the virtual exchange tool issued by online game operation unit and purchased directly or indirectly by online game users using legal tender in a certain proportion, existing outside the game program, stored in the server in the form of electromagnetic records and expressed in specific digital units."
Well no, that doesn't follow such an interpretation.
You only provide a single player offline game once. And you don't provide any service over information networks outside of the download and updates.
You only provide a single player offline game once. And you don't provide any service over information networks outside of the download and updates.
Yes, it's a very major mistake.
I wonder if the journey article author didn’t think online game differs much with general games.
I wonder if this will encourage a renaissance in China of LAN play, more P2P protocols for online gaming, and informal game servers run by people you know (rather than the game publisher).
Sounds like it could be kinda fun (nostalgia for me)
Sounds like it could be kinda fun (nostalgia for me)
Yes, I believe playing games with people in the same physical space is fundamentally different than sitting in a room by yourself playing with people online. I look back fondly upon the times in my childhood where we rigged up LAN parties, played console games on a couch or sitting on the carpet, or Pokemon on our Gameboys together roaming around the outdoors.
I don't look back very fondly upon the days when I grinded playing online PC games in a room alone, even though I had a headset and a chat box - that feels more like wasted time.
It's purely personal of course, and I know people who feel differently, but if gaming takes a step back toward anchoring itself in the physical realm, I'm all for it. The arcade heydays of the 80s sound awesome.
I don't look back very fondly upon the days when I grinded playing online PC games in a room alone, even though I had a headset and a chat box - that feels more like wasted time.
It's purely personal of course, and I know people who feel differently, but if gaming takes a step back toward anchoring itself in the physical realm, I'm all for it. The arcade heydays of the 80s sound awesome.
This will not work well for people with multiple kids.
Also, imagine influx of games for services to handle.
Also, imagine influx of games for services to handle.
> This will not work well for people with multiple kids.
Ah, fortunately they planned for that way ahead of time.
Ah, fortunately they planned for that way ahead of time.
Damn
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 exposure to games should be restricted. But here's the thing: We on the west do exactly the same thing for things like cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. The motivations behind all those restrictions are even similar (largely related to children's health/well-being).
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.
Since you mentioned the great firewall, I think it's interesting to bring up some perspective 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). I've even heard someone once say that "American egos wouldn't be able handle Chinese opinion if the firewall was lifted, because it's a voice 1.4b people strong - intellectuals, trolls and everything in between - who disapprove of American ideologies".
To be clear: I'm not attempting to inflame, I'm merely bringing up what I heard from their side, for your edification. My advice is to be careful of using loaded terminology such as "authoritarian"; you don't own objective truth, and humility might go a long way in dispelling animosity from both sides.
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.
Since you mentioned the great firewall, I think it's interesting to bring up some perspective 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). I've even heard someone once say that "American egos wouldn't be able handle Chinese opinion if the firewall was lifted, because it's a voice 1.4b people strong - intellectuals, trolls and everything in between - who disapprove of American ideologies".
To be clear: I'm not attempting to inflame, I'm merely bringing up what I heard from their side, for your edification. My advice is to be careful of using loaded terminology such as "authoritarian"; you don't own objective truth, and humility might go a long way in dispelling animosity from both sides.
> 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_...), 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?
Our restrictions came about through a democratic process (example: 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?
> Our restrictions came about through a democratic process
A democratic process where most of the people affected weren't allowed to vote.
A democratic process where most of the people affected weren't allowed to vote.
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?
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.
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.
Lobbying is a beautiful mechanism of democracy. Anyone can register to be a lobbyist. Any organization's members can pool money together to form an association which represents its interests to legislators. I worked as a Congressional staffer on Capitol Hill and saw firsthand how it works. We met with lobbyists on both sides of every niche issue you could possibly imagine.
There's no perversion of government caused by lobbyists. On net balance lobbyists are beneficial - and sometimes they're all that stops a 20-something Legislative Aide from drafting a terrible piece of legislation which the Member only faintly understands.
There's no perversion of government caused by lobbyists. On net balance lobbyists are beneficial - and sometimes they're all that stops a 20-something Legislative Aide from drafting a terrible piece of legislation which the Member only faintly understands.
> Lobbying is a beautiful mechanism of democracy.
I don't think so. Poor people have no lobby. Families have no lobby.
I don't think so. Poor people have no lobby. Families have no lobby.
Regardless of how you feel about lobbyists, this is just untrue. The CBPP and WCLP are a couple examples of lobbyists for the poor.
But they won't have as much money as rich organisations and not as much influence.
I would certainly think so. But it turns out to be surprisingly hard to quantify.
(I'll just talk about lobbying, not political donations, which is a related but separate issue.)
The organizations with the most lobbying spending are the US Chamber of Commerce (politically right, but not necessarily representing the very wealthy) followed by the Open Society Policy Center (politically left, but not necessarily representing the poor).
Most lobbying comes from industries of some sort (e.g. realtors, hospitals, farmers, coal, manufacturing, unions, education, etc). The legislation these groups favor will often disproportionately benefit the rich, but they tend to benefit rich and poor alike within that industry. For example, the farming industry may favor subsidies that benefit both poor and rich farmers.
As an example of industry working against the wealthy, the life insurance industry is the main group lobbying in favor of estate taxes (a tax which only affects the wealthy).
I'm not aware of any lobby groups that are specifically for the interests of the wealthy. However, politically right groups largely fill this role (the distinction being that right-wing fiscal policies are broader than just cutting taxes for the rich).
(I'll just talk about lobbying, not political donations, which is a related but separate issue.)
The organizations with the most lobbying spending are the US Chamber of Commerce (politically right, but not necessarily representing the very wealthy) followed by the Open Society Policy Center (politically left, but not necessarily representing the poor).
Most lobbying comes from industries of some sort (e.g. realtors, hospitals, farmers, coal, manufacturing, unions, education, etc). The legislation these groups favor will often disproportionately benefit the rich, but they tend to benefit rich and poor alike within that industry. For example, the farming industry may favor subsidies that benefit both poor and rich farmers.
As an example of industry working against the wealthy, the life insurance industry is the main group lobbying in favor of estate taxes (a tax which only affects the wealthy).
I'm not aware of any lobby groups that are specifically for the interests of the wealthy. However, politically right groups largely fill this role (the distinction being that right-wing fiscal policies are broader than just cutting taxes for the rich).
What is the money for?
Lots of things. To name a few - printing literature, building a website, salary for a coordinator to schedule the hundreds of meetings that will come up, and salary for a communications expert who can strategically articulate your position to legislators and their aides.
I know all of that sounds distasteful to some people, but the alternative is not the utopia they imagine - it's Chinese authoritarianism.
I know all of that sounds distasteful to some people, but the alternative is not the utopia they imagine - it's Chinese authoritarianism.
[deleted]
Without commenting on the specific issue at hand, if playing "a part in legislation" is a literal criterion for democracy, I think the direct democracy in a place like California (or Switzerland, and possibly 1-2 other places) which allow for public votes on essentially everything including constitutional amendments place a decent number of US voters ahead of most OECD counterparts.
Anecdotally, I think there are far more significant issues with US democracy than lobbying given that legislators still largely seem to do what they campaign on, lobbying-influenced or otherwise, and voters elect them in almost universally accepted elections. If the disconnect were between the expectations of voters (from campaigns, etc.) and actual legislation, I would be more inclined to place further blame on lobbying, but I'm not sure that's the case. I wouldn't say lobbying isn't a problem, obviously.
Anecdotally, I think there are far more significant issues with US democracy than lobbying given that legislators still largely seem to do what they campaign on, lobbying-influenced or otherwise, and voters elect them in almost universally accepted elections. If the disconnect were between the expectations of voters (from campaigns, etc.) and actual legislation, I would be more inclined to place further blame on lobbying, but I'm not sure that's the case. I wouldn't say lobbying isn't a problem, obviously.
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.
I think he's pointing out in this specific case, a democratic process of elected representatives is not better than that of appointed officials since it's still a group of people making decision for another totally unrelated group of people, teenagers, who didn't get to vote for those making the decisions/votes.
I'm not sure what you mean about relevance, but I'll attempt to answer.
This thread is debating whether we should be appalled at China for this law, or whether it's morally similar to some of our own laws (like banning drinking and gambling for minors). Bogwog suggested the difference is we banned minors from drinking democratically, while China's "supreme leader decided he knows what's best". The parent to Bogwog's comment suggested they're similar and we're holding China to a higher standard (possibly due to our biases).
As you say, in both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. That seems like a similarity between here and China. If children could vote here, that would strengthen Bogwog's argument.
(If it makes a difference, I'm against governments restricting minors from playing video games more than 3 hours per week. But I also don't think democracy is what would make it okay.)
A lot else could be said about this. Just to list a few possible objections to the democracy argument:
- It's kind of easy to just throw the word "democracy" around without actually establishing why the law is just and good and moral. For example, if a democratic country decided to ban Muslims, would people think it was moral and justified?
- Maybe the commenter feels democracy justifies it because the people (indirectly) chose the law. But in this case, the majority (people over 21) are placing restrictions on a minority (people under 21). That's a possible failure of democracy: a majority can abuse a minority, even if the minority is overwhelmingly against the proposed law.
- On top of that, most of the people being restricted (people under 18 or 21 depending on which law and which state we're discussing) weren't allowed to vote at all. They can't choose representatives in Congress.
- The comment overstates the difference between the US and China and makes it sound like this law is solely the whim of a dictator. While the US is certainly much more democratic than China, the US isn't completely democratic, and China isn't completely undemocratic. China has elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China). Video game addiction is a popular concern in China. South Korea democratically passed a similar (though less severe) law restricting video games for minors. This is a position of the communist party, with a lot of public support, not just a personal whim of Xi Jinping. (People exaggerate how much China is ruled solely by Xi Jinping instead of the party as a whole. Xi is powerful, but he can be replaced by the party and he's only been leader since 2012, and no person governs alone.) Meanwhile, there are many reasons why US politics don't always perfectly reflect the will of the people.
This thread is debating whether we should be appalled at China for this law, or whether it's morally similar to some of our own laws (like banning drinking and gambling for minors). Bogwog suggested the difference is we banned minors from drinking democratically, while China's "supreme leader decided he knows what's best". The parent to Bogwog's comment suggested they're similar and we're holding China to a higher standard (possibly due to our biases).
As you say, in both cases children under 18 aren't allowed to vote. That seems like a similarity between here and China. If children could vote here, that would strengthen Bogwog's argument.
(If it makes a difference, I'm against governments restricting minors from playing video games more than 3 hours per week. But I also don't think democracy is what would make it okay.)
A lot else could be said about this. Just to list a few possible objections to the democracy argument:
- It's kind of easy to just throw the word "democracy" around without actually establishing why the law is just and good and moral. For example, if a democratic country decided to ban Muslims, would people think it was moral and justified?
- Maybe the commenter feels democracy justifies it because the people (indirectly) chose the law. But in this case, the majority (people over 21) are placing restrictions on a minority (people under 21). That's a possible failure of democracy: a majority can abuse a minority, even if the minority is overwhelmingly against the proposed law.
- On top of that, most of the people being restricted (people under 18 or 21 depending on which law and which state we're discussing) weren't allowed to vote at all. They can't choose representatives in Congress.
- The comment overstates the difference between the US and China and makes it sound like this law is solely the whim of a dictator. While the US is certainly much more democratic than China, the US isn't completely democratic, and China isn't completely undemocratic. China has elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China). Video game addiction is a popular concern in China. South Korea democratically passed a similar (though less severe) law restricting video games for minors. This is a position of the communist party, with a lot of public support, not just a personal whim of Xi Jinping. (People exaggerate how much China is ruled solely by Xi Jinping instead of the party as a whole. Xi is powerful, but he can be replaced by the party and he's only been leader since 2012, and no person governs alone.) Meanwhile, there are many reasons why US politics don't always perfectly reflect the will of the people.
> If children could vote here, that would strengthen Bogwog's argument.
Just to add another layer to this, the somewhat cynical take is that - at least in the US - the system is actually a republican democracy, meaning that even people over 18 don't typically have a direct voice in the matter. At best people can do things like write to their representative or organize protests, but most people don't bother, and even if they did, representatives may not listen (either because your elected representative belongs to the opposite party as yours, or because they are detached from reality or they don't consider your concern a priority or they are being swayed by lobbyists etc)
Just to add another layer to this, the somewhat cynical take is that - at least in the US - the system is actually a republican democracy, meaning that even people over 18 don't typically have a direct voice in the matter. At best people can do things like write to their representative or organize protests, but most people don't bother, and even if they did, representatives may not listen (either because your elected representative belongs to the opposite party as yours, or because they are detached from reality or they don't consider your concern a priority or they are being swayed by lobbyists etc)
Does that mean it's impossible, according to your definitions, for the U.S. Congress to pass any bill that is in any way authoritarian? Or, indeed, is it possible for the U.S. government to do anything authoritative, since it is ostensibly democratic?
No, but let's not pretend like they are the same degree of authoritarian.
Okay, if the mechanism by which the government ostensibly makes a policy isn't the thing that makes the policy authoritarian or not ("democracy" versus "single-party" or "communist"), and the content of the policy itself isn't the thing that makes the policy authoritarian or not (restricting minors' alcohol usage versus restricting minors' video game usage), then what is it that makes the policy authoritarian or not?
> then what is it that makes the policy authoritarian or not?
Typically when a person says, 'that policy is authoritarian', they are making the claim that ~'that policy can only practical be made and enforced in an authoritarian political system, where political power is withheld from the masses'.
So in this case the implied claim is that the only reason the CCP can get away with limiting video game hours for those under 18 to 3 hours a week is because of their system of government is authoritarian, where the masses do not have practical say in the policy.
This also implies the commentor does not think the masses in China would choose this policy for themselves.
edit: remove accidental double negative
Typically when a person says, 'that policy is authoritarian', they are making the claim that ~'that policy can only practical be made and enforced in an authoritarian political system, where political power is withheld from the masses'.
So in this case the implied claim is that the only reason the CCP can get away with limiting video game hours for those under 18 to 3 hours a week is because of their system of government is authoritarian, where the masses do not have practical say in the policy.
This also implies the commentor does not think the masses in China would choose this policy for themselves.
edit: remove accidental double negative
That’s a reasonable explanation, of course, but it contradicts the two points in this thread that caused me to ask those questions:
1. It was claimed that the the China policy is authoritarian, but the U.S. policy is not authoritarian, because the latter is a democratic government.
2. It was claimed that any reported approval of the Chinese government by the Chinese population is irrelevant, either because the report is fake or because the people are manipulated or “brainwashed.”
1. It was claimed that the the China policy is authoritarian, but the U.S. policy is not authoritarian, because the latter is a democratic government.
2. It was claimed that any reported approval of the Chinese government by the Chinese population is irrelevant, either because the report is fake or because the people are manipulated or “brainwashed.”
> That’s a reasonable explanation, of course, but it contradicts the two points in this thread that caused me to ask those questions:
> 1. It was claimed that the the China policy is authoritarian, but the U.S. policy is not authoritarian, because the latter is a democratic government.
I think my above point offered a method to resolve this miscommunication by giving a more complete description of what is often meant by 'that policy is authoritarian'.
> 2. It was claimed that any reported approval of the Chinese government by the Chinese population is irrelevant, either because the report is fake or because the people are manipulated or “brainwashed.”
I think there is a similar miscommunication here that can be resolved, but I am not interested in delving into more topics currently.
> 1. It was claimed that the the China policy is authoritarian, but the U.S. policy is not authoritarian, because the latter is a democratic government.
I think my above point offered a method to resolve this miscommunication by giving a more complete description of what is often meant by 'that policy is authoritarian'.
> 2. It was claimed that any reported approval of the Chinese government by the Chinese population is irrelevant, either because the report is fake or because the people are manipulated or “brainwashed.”
I think there is a similar miscommunication here that can be resolved, but I am not interested in delving into more topics currently.
Authoritarianism and Democracy are two orthogonal things. Authoritarianism describes the degree to which the state regulates the affairs of its subjects. Democracy is a process by which decisions are made.
You can be in a authoritarian democracy, say Iran which is a theocratic republic which obtained that status through a legit revolution, overthrowing what used to be a dictatorial, but fairly liberal society under the Shah.
You can be in a authoritarian democracy, say Iran which is a theocratic republic which obtained that status through a legit revolution, overthrowing what used to be a dictatorial, but fairly liberal society under the Shah.
mrobot(3)
d0mine(1)
I don't want to start a us-vs-commies flame war but I'm finding it ironic that not a week ago someone was trying to tell me that american democracy is more of a plutocracy...
Something that people don't seem to realize about China is that CCP values are supported by a majority of Chinese people.
> What other word would you use to describe the Chinese government?
I strongly suggest getting out of your comfort zone and go talk to some mainland Chinese people (preferably not the living-in-america ones). You'll find that they describe it with words like "unified" (which, for record, I also consider a loaded term).
Something that people don't seem to realize about China is that CCP values are supported by a majority of Chinese people.
> What other word would you use to describe the Chinese government?
I strongly suggest getting out of your comfort zone and go talk to some mainland Chinese people (preferably not the living-in-america ones). You'll find that they describe it with words like "unified" (which, for record, I also consider a loaded term).
...is it possible for it to not be unified? I.e. are opposition groups free to run for office and oppose the CCP in china? If not wouldn't describing it as unified be a bit ironic at best, and disingenuous (but still ironic, for a different reason) at worse? Is it possible to get honest opinions online of the CCP? I.e. if someone thinks Xi is the worst leader to ever hold office in China, would they be free to say so publicly and on the (online) record?
You're arguing from the ideology that arbitrary freedom is good, whereas China operates under a "do what's good for you" sort of ideology.
If we think about those two ideologies, one could flip your "is it possible for it to not be unified" to "is it possible for it to not have freedom" to illustrate the inherent ideological bias in the question. It may seem like an attempt at being inflammatory, but consider that for vaccines, for example, many people actually believe that we shouldn't get to decide against medical recommendation.
I posit that neither ideology is necessarily superior, given that empirically we know of both good and bad outcomes for both sides (e.g. your argument about their lack of freedom of speech vs theirs about our botched covid handling due to "freedom" SJWs)
And to reiterate: I do think "unified" is a loaded term: it implies everyone should be on board with whatever the CCP decides, because it's for the "common good", when in reality that's not a belief held equally by everyone. (Incidentally, it also implies that the US is functionally stuck on inaction due political bickering, a position that I find somewhat accurate, especially on matters of public welfare, e.g. healthcare reform)
Personally, I think always coloring things with one ideology doesn't work because each topic is different, hence my suggestion to seek different opinions outside of our own echo chambers.
If we think about those two ideologies, one could flip your "is it possible for it to not be unified" to "is it possible for it to not have freedom" to illustrate the inherent ideological bias in the question. It may seem like an attempt at being inflammatory, but consider that for vaccines, for example, many people actually believe that we shouldn't get to decide against medical recommendation.
I posit that neither ideology is necessarily superior, given that empirically we know of both good and bad outcomes for both sides (e.g. your argument about their lack of freedom of speech vs theirs about our botched covid handling due to "freedom" SJWs)
And to reiterate: I do think "unified" is a loaded term: it implies everyone should be on board with whatever the CCP decides, because it's for the "common good", when in reality that's not a belief held equally by everyone. (Incidentally, it also implies that the US is functionally stuck on inaction due political bickering, a position that I find somewhat accurate, especially on matters of public welfare, e.g. healthcare reform)
Personally, I think always coloring things with one ideology doesn't work because each topic is different, hence my suggestion to seek different opinions outside of our own echo chambers.
Half-truth here. Younger people, recently more influenced by Xi Jinping's heavier hand in dispersing Marxist indoctrination, are indeed very supportive of the CCP ("generation N"). Other demographics, specially in southern China, aren't, but they can't speak up or they'll get prosecuted with "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".
I mean, I'm not trying to insinuate that every Chinese always agrees with the government, that's just silly.
Even in the US, a good chunk of the population always disagrees with whatever is the political topic du jour...
All I'm saying is that a bunch stuff happening in China does have a sizable amount of public approval, even if news articles make it sound like no one could possibly want it.
Even in the US, a good chunk of the population always disagrees with whatever is the political topic du jour...
All I'm saying is that a bunch stuff happening in China does have a sizable amount of public approval, even if news articles make it sound like no one could possibly want it.
Honest question - how do you accurately gauge public approval in a country like China?
> Marxist indoctrination
As opposed to good old fashion American indoctrination.
As opposed to good old fashion American indoctrination.
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.
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.
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.
I'm really shocked by the somewhat puritanical take on video games at hacker news of all places.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
> 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!).
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!).
Because one is forcing people to do something while the other is letting people choose for themselves.
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.
Is there research suggesting that the physical and psychological problems caused by cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling are significantly reduced at age 18 or 21?
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.
> 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.
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.
> I think you said is not the whole story
Right, that's why I said "Many chinese".
What I'm reacting to is the general tone that the CCP just forces draconian measures down everyone's throats as if no one could possibly ever agree, but also not dare speak up. What I mean is that the characterization that the whole populace just puts up with crap is a bit inaccurate because there are in fact supporters, just like there are both supporters and detractors to controversial government decisions on this side of the pond.
As someone else pointed out, these initiatives get passed precisely because there's enough support for it at some relevant branch of government, rather than being some sort of dictatorial whim of the party leader. And this process doesn't strike me as being super different from the way our democratically elected representatives bring up new bills.
Right, that's why I said "Many chinese".
What I'm reacting to is the general tone that the CCP just forces draconian measures down everyone's throats as if no one could possibly ever agree, but also not dare speak up. What I mean is that the characterization that the whole populace just puts up with crap is a bit inaccurate because there are in fact supporters, just like there are both supporters and detractors to controversial government decisions on this side of the pond.
As someone else pointed out, these initiatives get passed precisely because there's enough support for it at some relevant branch of government, rather than being some sort of dictatorial whim of the party leader. And this process doesn't strike me as being super different from the way our democratically elected representatives bring up new bills.
> Right, that's why I said "Many Chinese".
No offense but I used to do this and I now think of it as a means of lying to myself that I have covered myself from the "edge cases" that don't support my obviously non-neutral arguments.
> And this process doesn't strike me as being super different from the way our democratically elected representatives bring up new bills.
This is the reason that I disagree with the rest of what you said.
There are no democratic elections in China, and the people who often end up making decisions for everyone else are selected and groomed to do that *according to the party's values* early on in life. What that means is that you won't be making any decisions in the first place if they feel that your values and motives do not, or have a chance that they will not, align with the part's interest.
So who gets in? It's people who are truly patriotic (and probably getting exploited for that), people with the relevant lineage, or mostly people who are just in it for career progression, power and money because the states control so much that you just simply can't advance without being part of the party.
In non-authoritarian countries you often have some means of recourse, including putting pressure on the government with media, if the government screws up. You can't even disagree with the CCP to begin with because the means of communication for most people are censored by the government. There are literally laws that the government can punish you with even if you just remotely disagree with the government.
Most people just want to live a normal life and value their assets and family above all. The country is generally growing well economically, so there are no real reasons for them to risk what they have in exchange for some intangible idealistic things that they have never experienced. This is literally the citizens self-policing themselves because control is deliberately built into every layer.
It is super different.
People literally do not dare to speak up, it's not anti-CCP people making up antagonistic stories.
> because there are in fact supporters, just like there are both supporters and detractors to controversial government decisions on this side of the pond.
I'm sure there are in fact supporters for pervasive control and surveillance in the name of protecting children and society. However, at least on "this side of the pond" we can oppose it without fearing any repercussions from the government. I can trash the policy all I like on any social media platform I want, I can write opinion pieces and submit to newspapers, I can organize groups to oppose the policy — all without fearing repercussions from the government. Can you do any of that under the CCP?
Get a piece of paper, divide it into acceptable and unacceptable, write down the things that fall into each category that align with your core values, then come back to read your arguments.
If you don't think there are any contradictions, great. If there are, perhaps there is nothing wrong with "the general tone" that you find problems with.
No offense but I used to do this and I now think of it as a means of lying to myself that I have covered myself from the "edge cases" that don't support my obviously non-neutral arguments.
> And this process doesn't strike me as being super different from the way our democratically elected representatives bring up new bills.
This is the reason that I disagree with the rest of what you said.
There are no democratic elections in China, and the people who often end up making decisions for everyone else are selected and groomed to do that *according to the party's values* early on in life. What that means is that you won't be making any decisions in the first place if they feel that your values and motives do not, or have a chance that they will not, align with the part's interest.
So who gets in? It's people who are truly patriotic (and probably getting exploited for that), people with the relevant lineage, or mostly people who are just in it for career progression, power and money because the states control so much that you just simply can't advance without being part of the party.
In non-authoritarian countries you often have some means of recourse, including putting pressure on the government with media, if the government screws up. You can't even disagree with the CCP to begin with because the means of communication for most people are censored by the government. There are literally laws that the government can punish you with even if you just remotely disagree with the government.
Most people just want to live a normal life and value their assets and family above all. The country is generally growing well economically, so there are no real reasons for them to risk what they have in exchange for some intangible idealistic things that they have never experienced. This is literally the citizens self-policing themselves because control is deliberately built into every layer.
It is super different.
People literally do not dare to speak up, it's not anti-CCP people making up antagonistic stories.
> because there are in fact supporters, just like there are both supporters and detractors to controversial government decisions on this side of the pond.
I'm sure there are in fact supporters for pervasive control and surveillance in the name of protecting children and society. However, at least on "this side of the pond" we can oppose it without fearing any repercussions from the government. I can trash the policy all I like on any social media platform I want, I can write opinion pieces and submit to newspapers, I can organize groups to oppose the policy — all without fearing repercussions from the government. Can you do any of that under the CCP?
Get a piece of paper, divide it into acceptable and unacceptable, write down the things that fall into each category that align with your core values, then come back to read your arguments.
If you don't think there are any contradictions, great. If there are, perhaps there is nothing wrong with "the general tone" that you find problems with.
Your description sounds pretty on point with what I've observed as well, and I want to clarify that I'm not defending China nor trying to belittle the very real differences between China and US ideology.
To try to address the root of your objection: the main difference IMHO is the idea of disagreeing/activism being based on notions of arbitrary freedom vs the one-way-or-highway approach being based on a notion that there is such a thing as "what's good for you". I think there are good and bad examples of both approaches/outcomes, both in this thread and various recent news topics (e.g. your point about how freedom of speech is a good thing(tm) vs the whole "mah freedom" thing backfiring royally as far as Covid goes)
If we look from this angle, neither ideology really "wins unequivocally", so I don't think I should get to call which framework is ethically acceptable or unacceptable. Instead, I'm trying to call out biases - particularly westerner-leaning ones given that this is a westerner forum talking about an article from a westerner source that quotes western-sympathetic ideas while conveniently not extending the favor to the other side. If you scroll around, you may notice that there are several comments effectively crying "dictatorship", and many failing to grasp the nuance about how this specific policy affects companies more so than children per se, mirroring an overarching anti-China narrative that I've been seeing a lot of lately. If I felt that the reporting was truly unbiased and accurate and that people were interpreting it with unbiased lenses, I wouldn't be taking the position I am here (I am, in fact, largely playing devils' advocate, as my own personal opinions fall more in line with westerner sensibilities)
To try to address the root of your objection: the main difference IMHO is the idea of disagreeing/activism being based on notions of arbitrary freedom vs the one-way-or-highway approach being based on a notion that there is such a thing as "what's good for you". I think there are good and bad examples of both approaches/outcomes, both in this thread and various recent news topics (e.g. your point about how freedom of speech is a good thing(tm) vs the whole "mah freedom" thing backfiring royally as far as Covid goes)
If we look from this angle, neither ideology really "wins unequivocally", so I don't think I should get to call which framework is ethically acceptable or unacceptable. Instead, I'm trying to call out biases - particularly westerner-leaning ones given that this is a westerner forum talking about an article from a westerner source that quotes western-sympathetic ideas while conveniently not extending the favor to the other side. If you scroll around, you may notice that there are several comments effectively crying "dictatorship", and many failing to grasp the nuance about how this specific policy affects companies more so than children per se, mirroring an overarching anti-China narrative that I've been seeing a lot of lately. If I felt that the reporting was truly unbiased and accurate and that people were interpreting it with unbiased lenses, I wouldn't be taking the position I am here (I am, in fact, largely playing devils' advocate, as my own personal opinions fall more in line with westerner sensibilities)
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.
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.
> 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.
That's what I thought before I went there but it turned out to not be the case. What I am about to say is anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt.
I actually worked in Beijing. The work I did involved both tech companies and students, and I took the time outside of work to mingle with the locals at restaurants and shops. The amount of people who don't agree with the government was generally "surprisingly" high across all groups.
I should also point out that I never took the initiative to talk about politics, so in all cases it was either people being curious about the culture outside of China or, presumably, I was an outlet for them because I was clearly not affiliated with the government in any way.
I'm just going to leave it at that because anything I say past this point are even more subjective opinions.
That's what I thought before I went there but it turned out to not be the case. What I am about to say is anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt.
I actually worked in Beijing. The work I did involved both tech companies and students, and I took the time outside of work to mingle with the locals at restaurants and shops. The amount of people who don't agree with the government was generally "surprisingly" high across all groups.
I should also point out that I never took the initiative to talk about politics, so in all cases it was either people being curious about the culture outside of China or, presumably, I was an outlet for them because I was clearly not affiliated with the government in any way.
I'm just going to leave it at that because anything I say past this point are even more subjective opinions.
I was at Microsoft China from 2007 to 2016 in Zhongguancun, so I probably had similar experiences to you (we had lots of interns as well from local and nation-wide universities).
Politics eventually comes into play, but it was more likely we would talk about the Great Firewall, or some kid getting arrested by the party police during a rave, things like that. Politics came into play when there was some heated event, like the South China Sea dispute, that someone (usually more nationalistic) was really passionate about in the moment.
Politics eventually comes into play, but it was more likely we would talk about the Great Firewall, or some kid getting arrested by the party police during a rave, things like that. Politics came into play when there was some heated event, like the South China Sea dispute, that someone (usually more nationalistic) was really passionate about in the moment.
>the right direction under Hu, if only because Hu was a weak leader
Seems you imply that the right direction for China is having weak leader, which historically it was disaster. That aside, lots of the ugly things on China you heard like airpocalypse, corruption, inequality and weak governance expanded steply under Hu, so there's that.
Seems you imply that the right direction for China is having weak leader, which historically it was disaster. That aside, lots of the ugly things on China you heard like airpocalypse, corruption, inequality and weak governance expanded steply under Hu, so there's that.
> 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.
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.
Putting aside the horrible ethics of controlling society like this, it sounds like a really bad policy by China that would likely backfire.
1) Mandating that kids all game at the same time will have bad problems for some web services. Some games geared towards younger people might be close to a ghost town 95% of the time, and then surge radically in traffic during allowed gaming hours. This is asking for technical problems dealing with radically different usage patterns.
2) The limits are unreasonably small for a hobby. If they had said something like 16 hours a week any time you want as long as your homework was done, most Chinese gamers would have begrudgingly accepted it as part and parcel of living in a CCP Wonderland. But 3 hours is too small and is asking for kids to try and hack and find workarounds to the tiny limits. I'm sure that 14 year old me would have made a game out of trying to find workarounds around this rule regardless of the consequences.
1) Mandating that kids all game at the same time will have bad problems for some web services. Some games geared towards younger people might be close to a ghost town 95% of the time, and then surge radically in traffic during allowed gaming hours. This is asking for technical problems dealing with radically different usage patterns.
2) The limits are unreasonably small for a hobby. If they had said something like 16 hours a week any time you want as long as your homework was done, most Chinese gamers would have begrudgingly accepted it as part and parcel of living in a CCP Wonderland. But 3 hours is too small and is asking for kids to try and hack and find workarounds to the tiny limits. I'm sure that 14 year old me would have made a game out of trying to find workarounds around this rule regardless of the consequences.
I agree this is fucked up for a lot of reasons, but I'd take point 1 as a positive for the service teams. This gives them a way to perfectly predict the load on their servers in advance.
Not really, there will still be a lot of variance day to day, week to week etc in on how many people log on and play.
I think it's unlikely that every kid will be using 100% of their playtime every weekend, and thus giving a perfectly reliable usage pattern.
I think it's unlikely that every kid will be using 100% of their playtime every weekend, and thus giving a perfectly reliable usage pattern.
Like many other commentors here, I grew up playing primarily skill-based video games, like Legend of Zelda, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Counter-Strike, StarCraft. It was wanting to make these games that led me to become a software developer. But games were different. Even a game like Pokemon, which has a few loot-box mechanics, was only mildly addicting. The first game I remember being extremely addicting was World of Warcraft. It became a habit to simply click the icon as soon as the desktop loaded, and although I do have many good memories, I also know friends that played 8 hours a day for years whose lives look worse off to me. Through loot-boxes, social scores, and now mobile, addiction has been perfected.
And yet, we are not robots. We make our own choices. Parents set limits and create alternatives, and schools and community groups do too. Games also simply get old after a while. Anyone who really wants to stop a gaming addiction can stop it - it is only a question of will. So I find what the CCP is doing abhorrently wrong because their actions create the very dependence on government, and the removal of will at any other level, that perpetuates themselves as a solution. The Western way is messier for sure, but if we want freedom, we have to be OK with mistakes.
And yet, we are not robots. We make our own choices. Parents set limits and create alternatives, and schools and community groups do too. Games also simply get old after a while. Anyone who really wants to stop a gaming addiction can stop it - it is only a question of will. So I find what the CCP is doing abhorrently wrong because their actions create the very dependence on government, and the removal of will at any other level, that perpetuates themselves as a solution. The Western way is messier for sure, but if we want freedom, we have to be OK with mistakes.
> But games were different.
They were, and I wonder why. If you run some open source 16-bit gaming console emulator, you also know that there won't be in-game purchases, because it just wasn't a possibility. Perhaps it was a technological sweet spot that limited capitalist exploitation within video games?
The games still had ethical issues then, like, it's actually difficult to find non-violent games. Even Zelda is addictive in its immersiveness and the game mechanics rely a lot on assaulting baddies.
> The first game I remember being extremely addicting was World of Warcraft. It became a habit to simply click the icon as soon as the desktop loaded,
This is interesting to read, that you as a ex-gameaholic disagree with this law. I wonder whether it could really be the forces that are moving game development (as in money, as in capitalism) that are the real problem because they profit from creating addiction, rather than computer games as such. One can only wonder what computer games would look like in a world not dominated by neoliberalism, and whether a healthier game development model is possible?
I am reminded of this longer comment that was removed from the Godot source code recently:
> A capitalist oligarchy runs the world and forces us to consume in order to keep the gears of this rotten society on track. As such, the biggest market for video game consumption today is the mobile one. It is a market of poor souls forced to compulsively consume digital content in order to forget the misery of their everyday life, commute, or just any other brief free moment they have that they are not using to produce goods or services for the ruling class.
From https://github.com/godotengine/godot-docs/commit/b872229427d...
They were, and I wonder why. If you run some open source 16-bit gaming console emulator, you also know that there won't be in-game purchases, because it just wasn't a possibility. Perhaps it was a technological sweet spot that limited capitalist exploitation within video games?
The games still had ethical issues then, like, it's actually difficult to find non-violent games. Even Zelda is addictive in its immersiveness and the game mechanics rely a lot on assaulting baddies.
> The first game I remember being extremely addicting was World of Warcraft. It became a habit to simply click the icon as soon as the desktop loaded,
This is interesting to read, that you as a ex-gameaholic disagree with this law. I wonder whether it could really be the forces that are moving game development (as in money, as in capitalism) that are the real problem because they profit from creating addiction, rather than computer games as such. One can only wonder what computer games would look like in a world not dominated by neoliberalism, and whether a healthier game development model is possible?
I am reminded of this longer comment that was removed from the Godot source code recently:
> A capitalist oligarchy runs the world and forces us to consume in order to keep the gears of this rotten society on track. As such, the biggest market for video game consumption today is the mobile one. It is a market of poor souls forced to compulsively consume digital content in order to forget the misery of their everyday life, commute, or just any other brief free moment they have that they are not using to produce goods or services for the ruling class.
From https://github.com/godotengine/godot-docs/commit/b872229427d...
A few possible causes:
- Game prices have not kept up with inflation.
- Games are more expensive than ever before.
- More games now have online multiplayer, requiring constant funding.
- Game prices have not kept up with inflation.
- Games are more expensive than ever before.
- More games now have online multiplayer, requiring constant funding.
I have family and friends who work in the game industry, and I can tell you it is none of the above.
Here is the answer: Crappy gatcha games and skinner boxes branded with a popular IP marketed towards kids are:
1. Much easier to make
2. Makes A TON MORE MONEY.
A gatcha game is basically a slot machine, which is basically a website with a fancy front-end. This means you can shovel out these games with low-skill labor, make your money, and then re-skin the same website with another property.
A lot of the gaming companies that used to be owned by a visionary leader are now owned by VC firms that don't give a shit about games, they give a shit about the money machine.
So they produce the same crap over and over again, employing behavioral psychologists to develop the most addicting loop possible.
Here is the answer: Crappy gatcha games and skinner boxes branded with a popular IP marketed towards kids are:
1. Much easier to make
2. Makes A TON MORE MONEY.
A gatcha game is basically a slot machine, which is basically a website with a fancy front-end. This means you can shovel out these games with low-skill labor, make your money, and then re-skin the same website with another property.
A lot of the gaming companies that used to be owned by a visionary leader are now owned by VC firms that don't give a shit about games, they give a shit about the money machine.
So they produce the same crap over and over again, employing behavioral psychologists to develop the most addicting loop possible.
Should we ban this?
I don't think it is realistic to ban, honestly.
I think there is probably some precedent from gambling laws we could apply to protect minors from predatory behaviour.
I think there is probably some precedent from gambling laws we could apply to protect minors from predatory behaviour.
Games are more expensive to make and prices have not kept up with inflation, but units sold are at least two orders of magnitude than they were twenty years ago, and individual free-to-play titles have playercounts that dwarf the total userbase of all games at the turn of the millennium.
Multiplayer does not require constant funding, unless you want to lock the game down so you can sell microtransactions. I can fire up the original Quake or UT99, pick a server, and play online; it doesn't cost id a cent. On the other hand, I recently tried playing Splinter Cell: Blacklist again, a game released in 2013, and their centralized online services don't work.
Developers have made an effort to keep players from hosting their own servers, which has introducing many new problems. For example, the lack of community moderation / 'toxicity', homogenization of gameplay options within a title to support a matchmaking pool, and stagnation due to lack of new maps, modes, and mods that used to be created by the community.
Multiplayer does not require constant funding, unless you want to lock the game down so you can sell microtransactions. I can fire up the original Quake or UT99, pick a server, and play online; it doesn't cost id a cent. On the other hand, I recently tried playing Splinter Cell: Blacklist again, a game released in 2013, and their centralized online services don't work.
Developers have made an effort to keep players from hosting their own servers, which has introducing many new problems. For example, the lack of community moderation / 'toxicity', homogenization of gameplay options within a title to support a matchmaking pool, and stagnation due to lack of new maps, modes, and mods that used to be created by the community.
> Anyone who really wants to stop a gaming addiction can stop it - it is only a question of will.
| sed "s/gaming/drug/"
> The Western way is messier for sure, but if we want freedom, we have to be OK with mistakes.
Syncs with the outcome of prohibition.
Free will is a pretty religious and naive concept, IMO. A way to phrase what you're saying is that a laissez-faire society gives everyone more net utility than the up-front utility gains of banning all sources of harm. Then it's up to everyone's imagination to see how/personal relationship to harmful things/moral arrogance to say yea or nay.
| sed "s/gaming/drug/"
> The Western way is messier for sure, but if we want freedom, we have to be OK with mistakes.
Syncs with the outcome of prohibition.
Free will is a pretty religious and naive concept, IMO. A way to phrase what you're saying is that a laissez-faire society gives everyone more net utility than the up-front utility gains of banning all sources of harm. Then it's up to everyone's imagination to see how/personal relationship to harmful things/moral arrogance to say yea or nay.
My understanding is that South Korea already does this to some extent with users having to be over 18 or having a Pro Gaming license to play after some hour.
The result has not been that the vast majority of SK gamers promptly log off at said hour. The result has been the majority of them connect to non SK servers immediately at said hour or use a friends account.
The result has not been that the vast majority of SK gamers promptly log off at said hour. The result has been the majority of them connect to non SK servers immediately at said hour or use a friends account.
That law was abolished a few days ago https://www.engadget.com/south-korea-gaming-shutdown-law-end...
Thanks. Amazing timing!
China was already restricting minors to 8 hours a week.
Are you saying China can't enforce this?
the difference is that China is able to actually apply the law, with it's fire wall and unprecedently separated tech infrastrure. It may also threaten the companies to straight up boot them from China if they don't comply.
the difference is that China is able to actually apply the law, with it's fire wall and unprecedently separated tech infrastrure. It may also threaten the companies to straight up boot them from China if they don't comply.
The restriction is specifically "online games". Not offline games. Which is interesting because it implies that offline games are somehow less addictive - but in my experience, offline games can be very engaging, too. But perhaps it's in a more wholesome, problem-solving way?
It's kinda impressive that the CCP can make decisions that affect 1B+ humans like this, overnight. I hope it's the right thing to do, for the kids' sake.
It's kinda impressive that the CCP can make decisions that affect 1B+ humans like this, overnight. I hope it's the right thing to do, for the kids' sake.
There is a different incentive. For an offline single player or LAN game, you want to make the game interesting to play enough that the player will buy the game.
For an online game or a microtx based semi single player game, you want the player not to play, but to pay, over and over. That means that engineering addiction that leads to nothing but payment and compulsion is very profitable.
Offline games can definitely be very addicting and engaging. But ime those that are are because you're trying very hard to do something difficult, or because you're exploring, or because you're creating, all of which are ways in which video games can plausibly be helpful. And you will eventually get bored or move on to another game, which will give you time and pause to reconsider what you're doing.
Meanwhile you could be grinding an online video game doing menial tasks and buying microtransactions without ever having an end goal in mind and without being creative, for over a decade, every day.
So I think they're very different.
For an online game or a microtx based semi single player game, you want the player not to play, but to pay, over and over. That means that engineering addiction that leads to nothing but payment and compulsion is very profitable.
Offline games can definitely be very addicting and engaging. But ime those that are are because you're trying very hard to do something difficult, or because you're exploring, or because you're creating, all of which are ways in which video games can plausibly be helpful. And you will eventually get bored or move on to another game, which will give you time and pause to reconsider what you're doing.
Meanwhile you could be grinding an online video game doing menial tasks and buying microtransactions without ever having an end goal in mind and without being creative, for over a decade, every day.
So I think they're very different.
i find it amazing how much tolerance is expressed when authoritarian rule is passed "for the kids sake".
I feel reminded of the current apple issue.
Are people really that ready to accept dictate over their and their kids behaviour in the name of moral and health? Isn't "time spent online" miles away from what the government should be allowed to regulate in your life?
I feel reminded of the current apple issue.
Are people really that ready to accept dictate over their and their kids behaviour in the name of moral and health? Isn't "time spent online" miles away from what the government should be allowed to regulate in your life?
> i find it amazing how much tolerance is expressed when authoritarian rule is passed "for the kids sake".
> Are people really that ready to accept dictate over their and their kids behaviour in the name of moral and health?
To be clear, most commentators here are probably from outside China. There isn't anything anyone commentating here can do about this. So all we can really commentate is on the outcomes and what it might mean.
> Are people really that ready to accept dictate over their and their kids behaviour in the name of moral and health?
To be clear, most commentators here are probably from outside China. There isn't anything anyone commentating here can do about this. So all we can really commentate is on the outcomes and what it might mean.
>> Isn't "time spent online" miles away from what the government should be allowed to regulate in your life?
For anyone who can think for themselves it is, but the CCP has crippled its population's ability to think independently with their constant, forced propaganda. This brainwashing is a form of violence against its people and I hope they rise up someday, but I don't know how that could happen.
For anyone who can think for themselves it is, but the CCP has crippled its population's ability to think independently with their constant, forced propaganda. This brainwashing is a form of violence against its people and I hope they rise up someday, but I don't know how that could happen.
Your comment reminds me of a joke.
---
A high level official from China's propaganda department visits the CNN, and asks to learn the state of the art in propaganda.
Bemused, CNN receptionist replies: we are living in a free country, there are no propaganda here.
CCP official: That's exactly what I'm trying to learn!
---
A high level official from China's propaganda department visits the CNN, and asks to learn the state of the art in propaganda.
Bemused, CNN receptionist replies: we are living in a free country, there are no propaganda here.
CCP official: That's exactly what I'm trying to learn!
Tight.
It's a great narrative, but then how do you explain all the 'think of the children' laws passed in other countries including the US?
If you know anything about the Opium problem in China during the Qing Dynasty, China doesn't take to kindly to that kind of stuff. This time they're not executing people in the streets though.
Videogames are extraordinarily addictive. They should absolutely be limited for kids.
Videogames are extraordinarily addictive. They should absolutely be limited for kids.
Impressive doesn't mean good. I don't have any control over what the CCP does, which is why I hope the action they've taken will not hurt people.
If the CCP decided to ban smoking, it would be a violation of people's rights. But it would also be a net benefit to almost everyone, and to society (health care costs would go down). That kind of authoritarianism is a LOT easier to stomach than, say, putting the Uygars into concentration camps. At least to me. (Singapore is an example of what I would call a mostly-benevolent authoritarian regime, for example.)
If the CCP decided to ban smoking, it would be a violation of people's rights. But it would also be a net benefit to almost everyone, and to society (health care costs would go down). That kind of authoritarianism is a LOT easier to stomach than, say, putting the Uygars into concentration camps. At least to me. (Singapore is an example of what I would call a mostly-benevolent authoritarian regime, for example.)
> If the CCP decided to ban smoking, it would be a violation of people's rights. But it would also be a net benefit to almost everyone, and to society
I think you are conflating “banning” with “convincing people to stop”; these are not the same. The PRC has banned lots of things without actually stopping them, and lots of countries have banned lots of addictive drugs without stopping their use, and with a whole lot of social harms resulting from the attempts to enforce the bans.
> health care costs would go down
Health care outcomes would no doubt improve if smoking was reduced by a ban, but healthcare costs would probably go up. IIRC, most studies have shown that reducing smoking increases lifetime healthcare costs (because, simplifying, people spend more time dealing with treatable problems instead of dead from incurable lung cancer.)
I think you are conflating “banning” with “convincing people to stop”; these are not the same. The PRC has banned lots of things without actually stopping them, and lots of countries have banned lots of addictive drugs without stopping their use, and with a whole lot of social harms resulting from the attempts to enforce the bans.
> health care costs would go down
Health care outcomes would no doubt improve if smoking was reduced by a ban, but healthcare costs would probably go up. IIRC, most studies have shown that reducing smoking increases lifetime healthcare costs (because, simplifying, people spend more time dealing with treatable problems instead of dead from incurable lung cancer.)
"Online games" only for two reasons:
1. Online games are easier to restrict. Centralized servers, corporations with addresses and bank accounts, &c
2. Online games are a political threat. The Chinese government worries not just about "political" organizing, but about any movement or activity that gets people in the habit of collective action and mass communication.
1. Online games are easier to restrict. Centralized servers, corporations with addresses and bank accounts, &c
2. Online games are a political threat. The Chinese government worries not just about "political" organizing, but about any movement or activity that gets people in the habit of collective action and mass communication.
both online/offline games can skew your internal reward/reinforcement system, but online games have a kind of social pressure that I just don't see with offline.
Social circles are established around online gaming; my teenager feels like he's letting his friends down if he doesn't spend enough time with 'The Clan'. His 'membership' with the group is at risk if he doesn't contribute his time.
It's made life somewhat difficult as a parent, to say the least.
Social circles are established around online gaming; my teenager feels like he's letting his friends down if he doesn't spend enough time with 'The Clan'. His 'membership' with the group is at risk if he doesn't contribute his time.
It's made life somewhat difficult as a parent, to say the least.
>>Social circles are established around online gaming; my teenager feels like he's letting his friends down if he doesn't spend enough time with 'The Clan'. His 'membership' with the group is at risk if he doesn't contribute his time.
Social circles are established around a common interest. Most people have to have some shared interest in order to be friends. I don't know how your son would socialize if he didn't have something in common with his social milieu. If your son was born at an earlier time, he would have to contend with the demonization of skateboarding, calling your friends over the landline, D&D, rock& roll, dance halls, chess, cafes, channel surfing, and any other thing "geeks", "hooligans", "layabouts", and other so-called non-conformists enjoyed when these hobbies were deemed the social malaise of their day. I can't speak for your circumstances in particular, but this argument of the "wrong" social circles enjoying the "wrong" hobbies strikes me as the kind of pearl-clutching I thought would have died with those farcical accusations of Harry Potter promoting witchcraft and covens back in the early 2000s.
Social circles are established around a common interest. Most people have to have some shared interest in order to be friends. I don't know how your son would socialize if he didn't have something in common with his social milieu. If your son was born at an earlier time, he would have to contend with the demonization of skateboarding, calling your friends over the landline, D&D, rock& roll, dance halls, chess, cafes, channel surfing, and any other thing "geeks", "hooligans", "layabouts", and other so-called non-conformists enjoyed when these hobbies were deemed the social malaise of their day. I can't speak for your circumstances in particular, but this argument of the "wrong" social circles enjoying the "wrong" hobbies strikes me as the kind of pearl-clutching I thought would have died with those farcical accusations of Harry Potter promoting witchcraft and covens back in the early 2000s.
There's an obvious pattern where every generation has had their activities scrutinized (and often feared) by the parent generation, and the scrutiny/fear is usually not justifiable.
That said, a pattern is a pattern until it isn't, and I think it's fair to ask what criteria you'd use to evaluate the cost/benefit of some activity on a cohort of individuals that lack a fully developed frontal lobe.
Some questions going through my mind as I've witnessed my children during quarantine:
1. Does the activity negatively impact the individuals ability to satisfy other obligations (academic, fiscal, personal-care, etc)?
2. Does the activity require only a shared interest, or is active participation required? if the latter, what's the time demand of the participation?
3. If the individual ceases the activity, will they maintain relationships with the individuals they participated with?
4. Can proficiency in the activity translate to other endeavors?
5. does the idea of taking a break from the activity cause anxiety or stress?
I let my kids play the games because I want them to have some autonomy, but online games in particular result in greater negative answers for these questions than other activities (including offline games).
Curious about your observations... do you find there's no difference between online vs. offline?
That said, a pattern is a pattern until it isn't, and I think it's fair to ask what criteria you'd use to evaluate the cost/benefit of some activity on a cohort of individuals that lack a fully developed frontal lobe.
Some questions going through my mind as I've witnessed my children during quarantine:
1. Does the activity negatively impact the individuals ability to satisfy other obligations (academic, fiscal, personal-care, etc)?
2. Does the activity require only a shared interest, or is active participation required? if the latter, what's the time demand of the participation?
3. If the individual ceases the activity, will they maintain relationships with the individuals they participated with?
4. Can proficiency in the activity translate to other endeavors?
5. does the idea of taking a break from the activity cause anxiety or stress?
I let my kids play the games because I want them to have some autonomy, but online games in particular result in greater negative answers for these questions than other activities (including offline games).
Curious about your observations... do you find there's no difference between online vs. offline?
It's easy to make decisions for that many people when you're an oppressive dictatorship that just murders dissidents.
Yet you might be surprised to know that, in China, all those "offline games" are categorized as online games because they all can be distributed online, when it comes to import reviews. No game is safe from this, really.
No, that's incorrect. The service of hosting a game for people to download is an online games service. The game itself if it has no access to any network is not.
In this restriction, online games are broadly defined to include offline-games-downloaded-from-Internet.
When I was a kid, I learned a tremendous amount from playing complex games like SimCity, Civilization, and Ultima. I feel like they opened my horizons to feel empowered to do interesting and meaningful things in the world, and they basically substituted for time I would've spent with GI Joe.
Now, as an adult, when I do game, it substitutes for time I would've spent exercising, working on coding/ML side projects, or hanging out with the family. Hence, I'd like to flip this policy - please cap me at 3 hours a week but allow my kids to play!
Now, as an adult, when I do game, it substitutes for time I would've spent exercising, working on coding/ML side projects, or hanging out with the family. Hence, I'd like to flip this policy - please cap me at 3 hours a week but allow my kids to play!
I couldn't agree more. In high school and grade school, nothing mattered really, so games were just fun. However, I noticed there came a time recently when myself and all my friends had to choose between video games and failing college (or not going to college). Almost everyone I knew well enough to keep tabs on post high school chose video games. A total of 9 people and only 2 (myself included) were able to get gaming under control enough to make it. The others had their ambition sucked away by video games, and are starting to seriously regret their lives now.
So while I think their approach is far too extreme, I can understand why they would be very concerned about video games.
So while I think their approach is far too extreme, I can understand why they would be very concerned about video games.
This policy is for online games. All of the games you listed would not be subject to it.
Everyone's experience is different. My conclusion has been that I didn't learn anything from gaming as a child. I wish my parents had done a better job (they did try) steering me from gaming into pursuits I belive (emphasis on I) promote greater intellectual, emotional and social development than gaming.
This is because not all videogames are equal and, of course, not all people are equal.
Even among online games, there's a huge variety of experiences available.
I'm not against regulation, just not overbroad.
Even among online games, there's a huge variety of experiences available.
I'm not against regulation, just not overbroad.
It's interesting how they are only restricting online games.
Games where young frustrated [0] [1] Chinese teenagers could talk relatively freely with others from different regions of China. Or god forbid, learn English and have contacts with westerners. Better to keep them grinding on shaving a few tenth of a second on basic algebra problems for the Gaokao. That will better prepare them for the factories.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/too-many-...
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/2015/06/05/gender-imbalance-china-o...
Games where young frustrated [0] [1] Chinese teenagers could talk relatively freely with others from different regions of China. Or god forbid, learn English and have contacts with westerners. Better to keep them grinding on shaving a few tenth of a second on basic algebra problems for the Gaokao. That will better prepare them for the factories.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/too-many-...
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/2015/06/05/gender-imbalance-china-o...
What do you think about the government banning alcohol?
If you and I sat next to each other. You with an online game in front of you and me with a few handles of vodka and we both started playing and drinking without stopping I would likely be dead before you reached Chinas mandated time limit. I thought it was obvious that the risks between these two things are very different.
You could use the same analogy for gambling, but I wouldn’t conclude the risk profile for gambling is safe.
It’s why it’s banned in most countries for people under the age of 18
It’s why it’s banned in most countries for people under the age of 18
Talk about a capacity planning pain for the game companies.
Your entire <18 player-base coming online at the exact same time for only 1 hour.
Of course there are solutions like scheduled auto-scaling but still, I guarantee that's going to cause some outages at least in the beginning.
Your entire <18 player-base coming online at the exact same time for only 1 hour.
Of course there are solutions like scheduled auto-scaling but still, I guarantee that's going to cause some outages at least in the beginning.
Imagine waiting a week for your weekly allocated one hour of gaming, only to have the servers crash for the whole time under the load.
Tfw.
Tfw.
Actually it sounds great - imagine the savings!
I learned English playing Starcraft Shareware with a bunch of Canadians. I learned about money, economics, marketing, psychology and social skills via Runescape. I used games as an escape from my hell on earth childhood. And yet, I see this and think... maybe they're onto something. Today's games are engineered to rake in and manufacture addicts. People who don't know what dark design patterns are. Forgive my French here, but fuck the "Freedom" bullshit, this is about the one and only thing it's always been about, $$$. I say good for them.
Yes, there is just a massive wave of scam artists and other bad actors that cry freedom to keep their exploitative practices from being criminalized or regulated. We all see it in certain online games, certain social media practices, some NFTs/crypto ICOs, current wave of SPAC/meme stocks, and it goes on. A large portion of them are robbing less sophisticated people. It's a major question of how much protection from their own bad decisions people get (and how equitable that protection is between the rich and the poor).
I also think games and gaming communities have gotten much worse in 25 years. I wouldn't want a child I knew to get involved in most gaming communities at all, now.
I also think games and gaming communities have gotten much worse in 25 years. I wouldn't want a child I knew to get involved in most gaming communities at all, now.
And yet, this fights the symptom, not the cause. Regulation should target companies that manufacture said addictive products, not dictate how citizens should behave under the guise of protection
I just don't buy the premise. Got it China bad. We're not acting better at home here in the US of A. You may disagree, but at the end of the day, you're walking with the same style of state surveillance in your pocket as any other. We cannot both be the cause of the problem and the solution. "not dictate how citizens should behave under the guise of protection". Do we live on the same planet???!
I think the author was suggesting that firms such as Electronic Arts and Activision be regulated in how they produce addictive patterns in titles like FIFA and Overwatch.
This will destroy the Chinese games industry and this may have broader implications than just stocks in free fall.
Video game programming is very cutting edge technology (eg. 3D graphics, animation, wayfinding, and more). China throwing this industry away will mean there are no home grown video game programmers which will have implications on their entire software engineering capability.
This gives the rest of the world a big edge technology wise.
Video game programming is very cutting edge technology (eg. 3D graphics, animation, wayfinding, and more). China throwing this industry away will mean there are no home grown video game programmers which will have implications on their entire software engineering capability.
This gives the rest of the world a big edge technology wise.
Tencent et al already get a single digit percentage of their revenue from minor users on online games. It will not kill them.
There is also a massively underdeveloped market for single player Chinese games that is only recently starting that will benefit massively from this decision.
There is also a massively underdeveloped market for single player Chinese games that is only recently starting that will benefit massively from this decision.
true, but how likely is it that those will get the ax too?
Judging from past top down decisions like this, it seems more likely that companies or parents will over implement this and extend it to appease the higher ups. (Until they correct and clarify their initial statement... rinse and repeat)
From the wording of the notice, it seems that the government is aware that it's literally impossible to regulate offline games. People will just pirate them.
but there won't be any minor users graduating to of age users.
I'm making an educated guess here, but i'm betting you won't see a real surge in single player games.
I'm making an educated guess here, but i'm betting you won't see a real surge in single player games.
I would bet money there is going to be a huge surge in single player games. Kids will play video games and companies want to make money.
Single player doesn't prevent them from being tied to an online service. Even in America, lots of modern "single player" games don't run without a connection to the internet.
These services could easily institute the same limitations on their SP games; forcing them to do online checks on certain events. They could even be sneaky about it by punishing you if you try to evade the checks somehow by deleting your save game, making the game more difficult, or employing other techniques used to dissuade pirates.
They can also do forced updates on software to fix any exploits, run background services that force kill executables, and a bunch of other stuff. Mobile devices are especially well locked down. It just depends on how badly the company wants to keep kids from playing the games. They just need to make it too big of a pain to worry about for 99.99% of gamers, then report the other 0.01% of troublemakers to the authorities.
These services could easily institute the same limitations on their SP games; forcing them to do online checks on certain events. They could even be sneaky about it by punishing you if you try to evade the checks somehow by deleting your save game, making the game more difficult, or employing other techniques used to dissuade pirates.
They can also do forced updates on software to fix any exploits, run background services that force kill executables, and a bunch of other stuff. Mobile devices are especially well locked down. It just depends on how badly the company wants to keep kids from playing the games. They just need to make it too big of a pain to worry about for 99.99% of gamers, then report the other 0.01% of troublemakers to the authorities.
Single player games that are always online are subject to the restrictions.
People will just pirate other games. Even on mobile. Every Android device will happily run pirated APKs.
People will just pirate other games. Even on mobile. Every Android device will happily run pirated APKs.
Honestly, it'll just destroy the shitty gambling microtransaction games.
Most studios will focus on offline games again, back to old-school games.
Honestly, I'm a fan of this. No harm done to anything worth saving.
Most studios will focus on offline games again, back to old-school games.
Honestly, I'm a fan of this. No harm done to anything worth saving.
There are LOTS of online games that are not "shitty gambling microtransaction" games.
Even in the west where traditional, non-microtransaction games are very common, having an offline, single player, non-cooperative game is increasingly rare.
Even in the west where traditional, non-microtransaction games are very common, having an offline, single player, non-cooperative game is increasingly rare.
Then just regulate the microtransactions instead of doing this.
perfect example of a keyhole solution. Also perfect opportunity to link to my favourite propaganda site [0]
[0] https://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/
[0] https://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/
The policy is targeting ONLINE games. Companies like Tencent will simply double down shipping those shitty games with loot boxes and microtransactions oversea to your kids. Meanwhile in China offline singleplayer games may see a boom.
I think they can make an effective offline grind that credits you when you log in and still comply with the law.
There's no way of authenticating actions that way. Everyone will just cheat and break the game.
Looking back at all the hours that I spent in Q1/Q2/Q3/BF2/BF3/BF4/CS/CSS/CSGO.
Yeah, maybe I could've used that time better - But none of my friends did anything reasonable with that time and I don't think I am any more special than them.
Still do the occasional session, still love the FPS!
I find the reckless timewasting on social media, reddit, much more harmful in comparison.
Yeah, maybe I could've used that time better - But none of my friends did anything reasonable with that time and I don't think I am any more special than them.
Still do the occasional session, still love the FPS!
I find the reckless timewasting on social media, reddit, much more harmful in comparison.
Yeah, like what else should I have been doing with my free time in middle & high school? Smoking pot and sneaking out at night?
This is actually worse, underaged minors are only allowed to play from 2000-2100 in Fri, Sat, and Sun(and holidays). Down from cumulative 1.5 hours(3 hour in holidays) per day in 0600-2200. There's no clear effective date for this mandate. But many of the game I see have those policy in place already.
The restriction applies to "online games", but keep in mind in China GaaS games(read: gacha games) are the norm, they are always online to fight piracy. So basically, this applies all the games that actually matters in China.
This will likely to push the China game industry to a new round of battle royal to fight for those little time they have from players, I feel bad for small shops, after 10 years of bloodbath China games had their monetization pattern in place(gacha/monthly passes/daily missions). Now they have to restart over and try again.
eSport scene? yeah, gone, but honestly this is probably good in the long run.
China shops has been winning this era of gaming and crubstomping JP/KR gamedevs with superior gacha models, server stability, update quality/quantity. This mandate will likely to halt their dominance and gave JP/KR a breather.
and I guess Bytedance's game divisions is a goner now...
The restriction applies to "online games", but keep in mind in China GaaS games(read: gacha games) are the norm, they are always online to fight piracy. So basically, this applies all the games that actually matters in China.
This will likely to push the China game industry to a new round of battle royal to fight for those little time they have from players, I feel bad for small shops, after 10 years of bloodbath China games had their monetization pattern in place(gacha/monthly passes/daily missions). Now they have to restart over and try again.
eSport scene? yeah, gone, but honestly this is probably good in the long run.
China shops has been winning this era of gaming and crubstomping JP/KR gamedevs with superior gacha models, server stability, update quality/quantity. This mandate will likely to halt their dominance and gave JP/KR a breather.
and I guess Bytedance's game divisions is a goner now...
i can't imagine tencent and the like are happy about this in the slightest
Tencent have been reducing their gaming revenue footprints down to single digit %. IMO giant behemoth for the like of BATTMD will manage since they have the money to spare. It will hurt. but in the long run it won't be a big deal.
With school out for summer, my preschooler is either playing a video game or watching youtube for hours on end. We try to force some time away from screens but it is a never ending struggle, as screen use is the immediate, default state to return to. I find most of the youtube content worse than the gaming, but neither are all that great.
Disclaimer: not a parent.
He's a preschooler, not a teenager or even a kid. Can't you just... not give him a phone/tablet except at specified reward times?
He's a preschooler, not a teenager or even a kid. Can't you just... not give him a phone/tablet except at specified reward times?
I am a parent. You absolutely can. The kid will make your life miserable about it for anywhere from 4 hours to 3 months depending on how stubborn they are.
We do it by paying attention to how the kid's doing with it, and going through a cycle. He'll periodically get sucked too far into the YouTube (or ...) swamp, and we'll notice that he's more difficult to deal with, less interested in other pursuits, and is moodier and just generally having a harder time.
We'll have a tough conversation where we lay out the situation, he'll melt down but will eventually accept that it's not working out, and we'll impose temporary restrictions until it feels like things are more under control. He'll quickly realize that going halfway is way too hard, and will regulate himself to a level much stricter than what we imposed.
Then there's a fairly long honeymoon period where he's getting some exposure but not too much. Eventually the beast slowly takes over again, and we repeat.
It's not fun, it's ugly to watch, it's hard to do, but it feels like it's working. As in, I truly believe he's learning better self regulation than I've ever had, and for better reasons.
I'm just thankful my wife is both aware enough and enough of a hardass to pull it off; on my own, I'd do things too late and too extreme, and we'd just be two monkeys reacting to each other.
We'll have a tough conversation where we lay out the situation, he'll melt down but will eventually accept that it's not working out, and we'll impose temporary restrictions until it feels like things are more under control. He'll quickly realize that going halfway is way too hard, and will regulate himself to a level much stricter than what we imposed.
Then there's a fairly long honeymoon period where he's getting some exposure but not too much. Eventually the beast slowly takes over again, and we repeat.
It's not fun, it's ugly to watch, it's hard to do, but it feels like it's working. As in, I truly believe he's learning better self regulation than I've ever had, and for better reasons.
I'm just thankful my wife is both aware enough and enough of a hardass to pull it off; on my own, I'd do things too late and too extreme, and we'd just be two monkeys reacting to each other.
dito, it's hard, but doable. We've gone cold turkey with the TV on our five year old and after a week or two he was much more tolerable and plays with legos for hours to keep himself occupied. He's still a 5-year old though, so removing TV alone won't help with that, you still got to parent / occupy him most of the time. It did however get easier to connect with him and reason about those decisions.
We still watch stuff together every now and then (or if we really need to be focused on smth), but he's in a much better mood throughout.
We still watch stuff together every now and then (or if we really need to be focused on smth), but he's in a much better mood throughout.
>He's still a 5-year old though, so removing TV alone won't help with that, you still got to parent / occupy him most of the time
Right. There's nothing quite as engaging as tv/gaming that he can just sit without guidance and safely do by himself for a few hours at a time while his parents are busy working. Probably comes down to lazy parenting.
Right. There's nothing quite as engaging as tv/gaming that he can just sit without guidance and safely do by himself for a few hours at a time while his parents are busy working. Probably comes down to lazy parenting.
All of my similarly aged parents- most of whom are huge gamers and nerds- have instituted some effective policies:
- Strictly limited screen time, replaced with time spent reading, playing with physical toys like LEGO and playing outside actively. Devices are physically removed from the kid's environment when screen time is over.
- Kids do not get full access to the entire content library. Approved videos and games only. Most have entirely removed the YouTube app from the kid devices in favor of Disney Plus and education-focused apps. Some have kids playing more retro games rather than current games.
The kids will complain and throw tantrums, but they're toddlers, they do that anyway. And eventually they come around. Especially if their friends (children and aunties/uncles) participate with them as well.
- Strictly limited screen time, replaced with time spent reading, playing with physical toys like LEGO and playing outside actively. Devices are physically removed from the kid's environment when screen time is over.
- Kids do not get full access to the entire content library. Approved videos and games only. Most have entirely removed the YouTube app from the kid devices in favor of Disney Plus and education-focused apps. Some have kids playing more retro games rather than current games.
The kids will complain and throw tantrums, but they're toddlers, they do that anyway. And eventually they come around. Especially if their friends (children and aunties/uncles) participate with them as well.
So control your child, or are you saying you want a central government to do that for you?
So secures western dominance in eSports competitions. Like everything in life computer games are diverse enough that they can be harmful/predatory to high/mid level programming. I struggle to keep my son from gaming all of his free time away, but he also has learned Lua and C# to a pretty large degree doing this stuff and I cant be too mad about that. This weekend we are going to put together his first gaming rig from parts he started researching. If he didnt care about gaming, he would not have any of that...
I fail to see removing one from eSport scene damages the productivity of a country, if not increase it.
eSports are pretty much a negative to the country as a whole. Gaming company use it as ad and sell the illusion to make big bucks. Yes, you could have the next Faker in your country. So what? for every international pro you create there's 100s more kids wasted their youth on a pipe dream where their time could be used to more productive matter. The damage could be justified IF you are the game dev/publisher so your country could benefit from all the royalties, but this is not the case for many of the countries(of course in China this is a mixed case where Tencent holds 100% of Riot).
This is actually a problem in Korea that they have many failed eSport candidate that have no proper skill to live in a very competitive job market. Although Parasite(2019) is a bit exaggerated but not getting in prestigious school/company(Samsung) will likely to put you in a very miserable economy situations.
eSports are pretty much a negative to the country as a whole. Gaming company use it as ad and sell the illusion to make big bucks. Yes, you could have the next Faker in your country. So what? for every international pro you create there's 100s more kids wasted their youth on a pipe dream where their time could be used to more productive matter. The damage could be justified IF you are the game dev/publisher so your country could benefit from all the royalties, but this is not the case for many of the countries(of course in China this is a mixed case where Tencent holds 100% of Riot).
This is actually a problem in Korea that they have many failed eSport candidate that have no proper skill to live in a very competitive job market. Although Parasite(2019) is a bit exaggerated but not getting in prestigious school/company(Samsung) will likely to put you in a very miserable economy situations.
This is a pretty good take, also what happens to the teens who don't make it to the competitions or twitch? I dont think the tax that eSport winners pay have any influence on a country's economy.
IMO there's no win in the eSport games unless you are the country developing it or host major platform for it(ex: Twitch), they hold too much power.
Competition by nature is a winner takes all game. Age is a strong factor it's event worse than programmer like us which caps around 35-40. For them, it's 25. that means one had to start playing at early teens. Unfortunately most kids are also bad at negotiating terms and compensation nor they hold the bargain chips before they made names, this makes them susceptible from exploitations from all the parties involved. If a player is successful, they make probably same wages as a few high tier engineers. If a player failed, then you have lots of unskilled man with bad health conditions because they spent 12+ hours sitting in fronts of a computer for 10 years. That's disasters waiting to happen.
If I am governor I'll simply make my country very hostile to eSports. If some kid managed to make it, good for the. For the rest of them if they can't even show perseverance than they are bound to fail anyway.
Competition by nature is a winner takes all game. Age is a strong factor it's event worse than programmer like us which caps around 35-40. For them, it's 25. that means one had to start playing at early teens. Unfortunately most kids are also bad at negotiating terms and compensation nor they hold the bargain chips before they made names, this makes them susceptible from exploitations from all the parties involved. If a player is successful, they make probably same wages as a few high tier engineers. If a player failed, then you have lots of unskilled man with bad health conditions because they spent 12+ hours sitting in fronts of a computer for 10 years. That's disasters waiting to happen.
If I am governor I'll simply make my country very hostile to eSports. If some kid managed to make it, good for the. For the rest of them if they can't even show perseverance than they are bound to fail anyway.
Just like sports, esports can support only so many coaches and managers. If not sufficiently manage career the players might even be successful but still end up on nothing after a few years of playing a popular game.
The official announcement is more useful.[1] Google Translate does a decent job on this.
Some of these restrictions have been in place for a few years. The number of allowed hours are being reduced, and the technical standards for enforcement are being strengthened. A key part of this is "real name verification". That's been around in theory for years, but was not that effective. A tougher standard was introduced in September 2020.[2] Tencent and NetEase, the big game companies in China, already have it working. Some of it uses the national identity card, and some of it uses face recognition. Identity cards are only issued at age 16, so verifying kids is hard. There's a slow but steady tightening up on ID in China that's been underway for decades.
There's been a purge of unapproved online games. The Apple app store cooperated last year and deleted about 500 games. Unauthorized game publishers are being shut down.
[1] http://www.news.cn/2021-08/30/c_1127809919.htm
[2] https://www.scmp.com/abacus/games/article/3095509/chinas-rea...
Some of these restrictions have been in place for a few years. The number of allowed hours are being reduced, and the technical standards for enforcement are being strengthened. A key part of this is "real name verification". That's been around in theory for years, but was not that effective. A tougher standard was introduced in September 2020.[2] Tencent and NetEase, the big game companies in China, already have it working. Some of it uses the national identity card, and some of it uses face recognition. Identity cards are only issued at age 16, so verifying kids is hard. There's a slow but steady tightening up on ID in China that's been underway for decades.
There's been a purge of unapproved online games. The Apple app store cooperated last year and deleted about 500 games. Unauthorized game publishers are being shut down.
[1] http://www.news.cn/2021-08/30/c_1127809919.htm
[2] https://www.scmp.com/abacus/games/article/3095509/chinas-rea...
I don't know much about youth culture in China, maybe all their teens are well behaved and obedient...
But my working experience is largely with "transition" students in America and can tell you that rules like this are like commanding the tide not to go out. At best you teach them that your rules are arbitrary and give them a framework for subverting them, they may just reject your authority outright and then you've got nothing...
But my working experience is largely with "transition" students in America and can tell you that rules like this are like commanding the tide not to go out. At best you teach them that your rules are arbitrary and give them a framework for subverting them, they may just reject your authority outright and then you've got nothing...
Exactly. The problem with all these highly publicized, flimsy regulations is that when you eventually fail to enforce them, the extent of your authority comes into question. Better to have few laws that are strictly enforced.
> Gaming companies will be barred from providing services to minors in any form outside the stipulated hours and must ensure they have put real-name verification systems in place, said the regulator, which oversees the country's video games market.
Those critical of the Chinese government should take a look in the mirror. Governments around the world, including those in the US, routinely impose restrictions on minors' ability to access online content. These laws are even structured in a similar way: hold the service providers accountable for monitoring use.
> "Teenagers are the future of our motherland," Xinhua quoted an unnamed NPPA spokesperson as saying. "Protecting the physical and mental health of minors is related to the people's vital interests, and relates to the cultivation of the younger generation in the era of national rejuvenation."
It's a favorite tactic of authoritarians everywhere: "Just think of the children!" First get a foothold by selling the thing as protecting children. In the US, we have two other options: terrorism and drugs. With the precedent set, expand the policy and watch opponents scramble to find a foothold.
Those critical of the Chinese government should take a look in the mirror. Governments around the world, including those in the US, routinely impose restrictions on minors' ability to access online content. These laws are even structured in a similar way: hold the service providers accountable for monitoring use.
> "Teenagers are the future of our motherland," Xinhua quoted an unnamed NPPA spokesperson as saying. "Protecting the physical and mental health of minors is related to the people's vital interests, and relates to the cultivation of the younger generation in the era of national rejuvenation."
It's a favorite tactic of authoritarians everywhere: "Just think of the children!" First get a foothold by selling the thing as protecting children. In the US, we have two other options: terrorism and drugs. With the precedent set, expand the policy and watch opponents scramble to find a foothold.
You're ignoring the huge cultural differences. Completely seriously, what do you think the endgame is for the Chinese government?
In the US there's always the suspicion of ulterior motives because that's how our government is structured. The Chinese gov't doesn't have to bother. They don't need a foothold, they can just do it.
In the US there's always the suspicion of ulterior motives because that's how our government is structured. The Chinese gov't doesn't have to bother. They don't need a foothold, they can just do it.
I believe we in the west fail in creating a healthy and friendly society.
I mean today I saw a TV commercial about a state funded lottery. In this commercial a well known rich person sits in his small boat. Then suddenly a big yacht appears with a not so rich looking guy on it. Smiling and overlooking the small boat. Obviously a person who won the lottery. The message: bigger and richer is better.
Promoting this kind of mentality is not good for a respectful society.
I am not a pro China person. Not at all. I am all for a free world in which people can take their own responsibility. But is that possible when the government is showing bad education? I don't think so.
Isn't this the "kids watch too much TV" of the Z generation? I mean, I know that gaming in large quantities to the exclusion of social interaction and education is harmful, but that's what was also said about TV and the growth of cable. So is this much ado about nothing?
China is where the USA was 20-30 years ago. Had video games been as advanced in the 90s as they are today, the USA would have instituted similar policies back then. There was a huge crusade against gaming in the 90s, particularly when it came to children playing videogames.
The USA benefits from having an older population who grew up playing videogames. Anyone under 40 probably played games at least a little bit growing up. And those under 30 almost certainly did, as games started becoming more broadly appealing in the PS2 era. So they view games in a much different way than their parents, who largely knew nothing about videogames did.
The USA benefits from having an older population who grew up playing videogames. Anyone under 40 probably played games at least a little bit growing up. And those under 30 almost certainly did, as games started becoming more broadly appealing in the PS2 era. So they view games in a much different way than their parents, who largely knew nothing about videogames did.
Some very famous prodigies made a 'game' out of their field. Terence Tao for example, said he used to make a game out of mathematical solutions. And that he knows more about math after graduate school than before or during.
My personal experience in this was with a imaginative text-based game called a MUD. There were times when I was spending 20-50+ hours a week role-playing and player-killing with a group of friends. I very nearly flunked out of a full-tuition scholarship my freshman year, and left anyway because it wasn't fulfilling to me - I wanted to be a sysadmin, not study liberal arts. In HS it was fun using a PoE adapter to POTS for Internet access.
The things I took away from excessive gaming were "saying the right words to convince other people I have their best interests at heart" (RP for player-run cabals) and "speed reading skimming" "fast-twitch typing" and "writing conversationally."
I probably could have saved myself a lot of trouble financially and academically and emotionally without these 'second lives' but I did see some positive outcomes. Real Life is usually a richer experience socially/experientially... except when it comes to playing make-believe... how much of the intersubjectivity superstructure (sociologically) isn't make-believe...? Perhaps, perhaps.
My personal experience in this was with a imaginative text-based game called a MUD. There were times when I was spending 20-50+ hours a week role-playing and player-killing with a group of friends. I very nearly flunked out of a full-tuition scholarship my freshman year, and left anyway because it wasn't fulfilling to me - I wanted to be a sysadmin, not study liberal arts. In HS it was fun using a PoE adapter to POTS for Internet access.
The things I took away from excessive gaming were "saying the right words to convince other people I have their best interests at heart" (RP for player-run cabals) and "speed reading skimming" "fast-twitch typing" and "writing conversationally."
I probably could have saved myself a lot of trouble financially and academically and emotionally without these 'second lives' but I did see some positive outcomes. Real Life is usually a richer experience socially/experientially... except when it comes to playing make-believe... how much of the intersubjectivity superstructure (sociologically) isn't make-believe...? Perhaps, perhaps.
> The things I took away from excessive gaming were "saying the right words to convince other people I have their best interests at heart" (RP for player-run cabals) and "speed reading skimming" "fast-twitch typing" and "writing conversationally."
This is extremely relatable. I grew up playing Runescape and I legitimately think it helped me develop better rhetorical skills than my peers and just better instincts in general when it comes to social and economical things.
Don't get me wrong though, those thousands of hours spent on video games were still not worth it. And I also don't think it's desirable to be too instinctive and "twitchy".
This is extremely relatable. I grew up playing Runescape and I legitimately think it helped me develop better rhetorical skills than my peers and just better instincts in general when it comes to social and economical things.
Don't get me wrong though, those thousands of hours spent on video games were still not worth it. And I also don't think it's desirable to be too instinctive and "twitchy".
Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom?
BTW, nothing in the article about limits on TikTok or YouTube or whathaveyougot. That's as much opium as gaming, IMO.
BTW, nothing in the article about limits on TikTok or YouTube or whathaveyougot. That's as much opium as gaming, IMO.
The time I spent in virtual worlds as a child remains one of the most cherished experiences of my life. They brought me happiness at times when nothing else did. They stoked my imagination and gave me a sense of wonder. They were one of the few avenues I had for connecting with my peers. It wasn't some waste of time that I regret when I look back as an adult.
I spent a lot of time hiding away in my room - up late on the internet, playing video games, reading books, listening to music - often the kind aimed at the alienated. I felt alone, like i didn't belong.
Some of it was my personality, some of it was how my parents raised me. Some was how that was juxtaposed against the culture/environment i was raised into.
My parents pushed a lot of sports and i grew out of it - favoring poetry ( that i didn't have thick enough skin to ever better myself at), dreaming of being a rock musician (see former), watching hours of scifi and fantasy.
And i dunno. Now I'm 40. And all my life i've almost prided myself on my introversion, my anti-social aspects, my quirky, sometimes cynical view of the world, my constantly ability to not want to be locked into the major binaries and choices society sets out for you.
And after coming down with severe anxiety.... something about it just flipped in me that made me realize how valuable human connection is.
how much family matters. How much connections with your community does. Not some online community of people who only get in contexts you can easily block or mute.
How much.. being outside in sunshine and nature and being active, matters.
I look at this boring cyberpunk world i was a part of, and there's nothing there but isolation and depression. There's nothing there but bad habits preventing you from being your best, healthiest, happiest, you.
And it's one of these things you don't realize....until something happens that forces you to need these things. Then you look back and be like.. would i ever be right where I'm at, right here, right now.. if i didn't do all this mentally unhealthy shit for 25+ years?
There's lots of reasons i wasn't positively engaged with my peers - there's blame to go around to me, my folks, and even externally to just the way society was and increasingly is, but I take responsibility for my portion and i say my reaciton to it all was wrong.
And don't want my kid getting lost in digital worlds (and jesus - it's so much scarier today that it was 20-25 years ago), hiding away, brooding to depressive and aggressive, mad-at-the-world music and basically being someone who's unreachable unless you're some underdog geek or "wrong crowd" peer.
Some of it was my personality, some of it was how my parents raised me. Some was how that was juxtaposed against the culture/environment i was raised into.
My parents pushed a lot of sports and i grew out of it - favoring poetry ( that i didn't have thick enough skin to ever better myself at), dreaming of being a rock musician (see former), watching hours of scifi and fantasy.
And i dunno. Now I'm 40. And all my life i've almost prided myself on my introversion, my anti-social aspects, my quirky, sometimes cynical view of the world, my constantly ability to not want to be locked into the major binaries and choices society sets out for you.
And after coming down with severe anxiety.... something about it just flipped in me that made me realize how valuable human connection is.
how much family matters. How much connections with your community does. Not some online community of people who only get in contexts you can easily block or mute.
How much.. being outside in sunshine and nature and being active, matters.
I look at this boring cyberpunk world i was a part of, and there's nothing there but isolation and depression. There's nothing there but bad habits preventing you from being your best, healthiest, happiest, you.
And it's one of these things you don't realize....until something happens that forces you to need these things. Then you look back and be like.. would i ever be right where I'm at, right here, right now.. if i didn't do all this mentally unhealthy shit for 25+ years?
There's lots of reasons i wasn't positively engaged with my peers - there's blame to go around to me, my folks, and even externally to just the way society was and increasingly is, but I take responsibility for my portion and i say my reaciton to it all was wrong.
And don't want my kid getting lost in digital worlds (and jesus - it's so much scarier today that it was 20-25 years ago), hiding away, brooding to depressive and aggressive, mad-at-the-world music and basically being someone who's unreachable unless you're some underdog geek or "wrong crowd" peer.
I've had the same realisation aged 25. Reality is underrated, assuming you live in a nice place. That sadly isn't the case for everyone.
Honestly, it sounds like your current attitude is as extreme as your former one.
I spent 25 years online. I'm now 40 with a family of my own.
I don't have the time in the day to find some happy center. I'm happy to cut out video games and wasting my time online except for the odd Hacker News break while I'm at work.
The pendulum might be swinging, but i have a lot less free time now than I used to and I chose to use it more precisely and with more conscious intent rather than just letting the hours waste away clicking around in a digital wonderland.
If i want to read - then i make time for that. I make time for alone time, exercise, being outdoors. I make family time. I do this around work, taking my kid to sports events, school drop offs and pickups.
I look back and see the 20k posts i made on Vbulletin forms and all the reddit accounts I had and all the hours logged on video games and it all just seems like a waste of life looking back..
When i think about the things that enriched me, these things did not.
I don't have the time in the day to find some happy center. I'm happy to cut out video games and wasting my time online except for the odd Hacker News break while I'm at work.
The pendulum might be swinging, but i have a lot less free time now than I used to and I chose to use it more precisely and with more conscious intent rather than just letting the hours waste away clicking around in a digital wonderland.
If i want to read - then i make time for that. I make time for alone time, exercise, being outdoors. I make family time. I do this around work, taking my kid to sports events, school drop offs and pickups.
I look back and see the 20k posts i made on Vbulletin forms and all the reddit accounts I had and all the hours logged on video games and it all just seems like a waste of life looking back..
When i think about the things that enriched me, these things did not.
If they didn't enrich you then they didn't enrich you, but don't overly project your own experience onto others. Many (not all) video games have been enriching and/or healing experiences for me personally.
Human beings are social creatures and it's a psychological need whether people recognize this or not - and this is still considering some of us are introverts and it takes more out of us to be social.
40-50+ years ago, all the way back to the dawn of man - so most of human history, this conversation would be completely irrelevant.
Technology changes us an individuals and as a society, it's broken our bonds, ruined out communities, destroyed our connections to each other, increased rabid individualism - not just in the political sense but in the sense of consumer identities and lifestyle brands and hyper-specific cultural balkanization and what do we have to show for it?
mass increases in anxiety and depression levels.
The average high school student today has the anxiety levels of a person being seen by professionals for the disorder in the 90s.
As a parent... you are going to project one way or another. I'll project the way that'll more than likely build a stronger, happier, more resilient child.
This love affair with the people who give you likes and retweets being the only ones who really get you, is poison. Relating to digital worlds more than the real one - sitting around for hours upon hours "consooooomnig" digital goods from your phone or laptop, is not life.
40-50+ years ago, all the way back to the dawn of man - so most of human history, this conversation would be completely irrelevant.
Technology changes us an individuals and as a society, it's broken our bonds, ruined out communities, destroyed our connections to each other, increased rabid individualism - not just in the political sense but in the sense of consumer identities and lifestyle brands and hyper-specific cultural balkanization and what do we have to show for it?
mass increases in anxiety and depression levels.
The average high school student today has the anxiety levels of a person being seen by professionals for the disorder in the 90s.
As a parent... you are going to project one way or another. I'll project the way that'll more than likely build a stronger, happier, more resilient child.
This love affair with the people who give you likes and retweets being the only ones who really get you, is poison. Relating to digital worlds more than the real one - sitting around for hours upon hours "consooooomnig" digital goods from your phone or laptop, is not life.
I'm just saying bud, you're voicing some really black-and-white views that paint in broad strokes and are pulling together some pretty disparate things under an oversimplified umbrella. Good as your intentions may be, extremes and dogmas rarely help anyone to be happier or more resilient, especially children.
I'd advise you to take a step back and unpack the baggage you clearly have around this stuff. Not just for your own sake.
I'd advise you to take a step back and unpack the baggage you clearly have around this stuff. Not just for your own sake.
I feel the opposite. I'm a very social and active person but recently I've realized I don't enjoy it. I have been wasting my life on stuff I don't care about. Now I just want to sit inside and dive deep into this "boring cyberpunk world". I wish I came to this realization sooner.
I don't think it's helpful to "take pride in" introversion any more than it is to demonize it. Human connection is important, and so are many solitary activities. They aren't mutually-exclusive. And each of them can take many different forms.
That is interesting. I have a family friend, 20-years old and in college, who has maybe 1 or 2 friends in real life. All others are online gaming friends that he's had for years. Never met them. Of course he's gaming all the time because of that social network.
I wish I knew the implications to such people when they are older. Is it a good influence? bad influence? doesn't matter? I don't know. Do you have any insights?
I wish I knew the implications to such people when they are older. Is it a good influence? bad influence? doesn't matter? I don't know. Do you have any insights?
Doesn’t matter. Probably positive if anything.
A lot of children don’t hermit up and play video games because it’s better than being with friends - it’s because they don’t have any friend options in real life.
Where I grew up, I was shunned, bullied, and neglected by pretty much everyone. It became apparent I was actually quite social, funny, and pleasant to be around when I was online. I made a lot of friends quickly when I was online playing games. But in real life I struggled because I wasn’t the right race, didn’t look the right way, wasn’t willing to throw out homophobic and racial slurs, and didn’t enjoy the same activities as everyone else.
I’m really surprised HN has such a myopic 80-year old take on video games. Must be because it’s early still…
A lot of children don’t hermit up and play video games because it’s better than being with friends - it’s because they don’t have any friend options in real life.
Where I grew up, I was shunned, bullied, and neglected by pretty much everyone. It became apparent I was actually quite social, funny, and pleasant to be around when I was online. I made a lot of friends quickly when I was online playing games. But in real life I struggled because I wasn’t the right race, didn’t look the right way, wasn’t willing to throw out homophobic and racial slurs, and didn’t enjoy the same activities as everyone else.
I’m really surprised HN has such a myopic 80-year old take on video games. Must be because it’s early still…
Well yes that's true. But at the same time a lot of your potential real life friends are also going to be playing video games instead of being sociable in real life.
I do empathize with you a lot having had a very similar experience in my youth. But ultimately finding people that were like me in real life was crucial.
I do empathize with you a lot having had a very similar experience in my youth. But ultimately finding people that were like me in real life was crucial.
> I do empathize with you a lot having had a very similar experience in my youth. But ultimately finding people that were like me in real life was crucial.
Sometimes it's better to accept that those people don't exist where you live. Where I grew up - they really didn't exist. I'm fortunate now to live in SV where my interests and what not align more - but in rural America... I do not exist. (People like me leave that place)
I went to small schools (<100 people per grade, sometimes less than 60). If you didn't make your friends in that group - SOL. There weren't other schools to make friends at, social activities for kids, etc. You were stuck with what you had at school and that's about it.
Sometimes it's better to accept that those people don't exist where you live. Where I grew up - they really didn't exist. I'm fortunate now to live in SV where my interests and what not align more - but in rural America... I do not exist. (People like me leave that place)
I went to small schools (<100 people per grade, sometimes less than 60). If you didn't make your friends in that group - SOL. There weren't other schools to make friends at, social activities for kids, etc. You were stuck with what you had at school and that's about it.
I was in a very similar position. I didn't grow up in SV either and I went to an elementary school with 400 students over 7 grades and a high school with 700 students over 5-9 grades).
It's probably because I'm younger than you but nowadays there are a lot more people like us thanks to the internet than there were before.
It's probably because I'm younger than you but nowadays there are a lot more people like us thanks to the internet than there were before.
While it's hard to make large generalizations, some people just don't make friends easily in real life and gaming/the internet give them a means to be themselves without having to worry about being awkward so taking that away is almost the same as telling them to not make any friends.
On the other hand, I've definitely seen an echo chamber effect where some people have negative growth socially due to the internet/gaming. E.G. The red pill or incel channels.
On the other hand, I've definitely seen an echo chamber effect where some people have negative growth socially due to the internet/gaming. E.G. The red pill or incel channels.
It wasn't even online for me as a child, it was just a common ground I had with others at school that served as an avenue for friendship (such avenues were uncommon for me)
But I also know people like you describe, and I think that's perfectly legitimate too.
But I also know people like you describe, and I think that's perfectly legitimate too.
I think online friendships can be just as meaningful and important as real-life friendships. I know they were / are for me.
The famous Rat Park [0] studies imply that addiction is caused by an unfulfilled life, not substances. Why ban video games or drugs when the thing that leads to addiction isn't being addressed? Treating a symptom won't solve anything.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
Not reliable research alas: https://www.gwern.net/Mouse-Utopia
I'm quite happy for my kids to spend hours playing online when they are playing together with friends. They start up discord audio rooms or whatever and play as a team.
Of course, playing with a ball in a field might be better, but, covid.
I don't allow them to play single-player games so much, unless it's something original, story or experience-based. Undertale, Braid, Journey, etc.
Certainly nothing 'infinite scrolling', with in-app purchase level-ups, etc, which are obviously just calculated to be addictive.
Of course, playing with a ball in a field might be better, but, covid.
I don't allow them to play single-player games so much, unless it's something original, story or experience-based. Undertale, Braid, Journey, etc.
Certainly nothing 'infinite scrolling', with in-app purchase level-ups, etc, which are obviously just calculated to be addictive.
I would probably ban my kids from playing anything with those gambling-style mechanics, yeah. I think it's a disgusting trend that's turning a wonderful medium into digital cigarettes. I might make an exception for something all their friends were playing together, but I wouldn't pay for any loot boxes.
But I would caution against being too picky about single-player experiences. The most meaningful games for me were not generally story-based, they were "play-based". Exploring mechanics, exploring a world, seeing what might be possible, what might lie out there to be found. Zelda, Pokémon, etc. A game doesn't have to be a work of literature to be meaningful and worthwhile; children in particular benefit from play. I would cite Minecraft as a good modern example of this ethos (which can of course be played either alone or with others, and is valuable in both modes).
But I would caution against being too picky about single-player experiences. The most meaningful games for me were not generally story-based, they were "play-based". Exploring mechanics, exploring a world, seeing what might be possible, what might lie out there to be found. Zelda, Pokémon, etc. A game doesn't have to be a work of literature to be meaningful and worthwhile; children in particular benefit from play. I would cite Minecraft as a good modern example of this ethos (which can of course be played either alone or with others, and is valuable in both modes).
I agree, I'm happy with Minecraft, though again they usually play cooperatively either to build things, or to fight/capture-the-flag in teams. Similarly with many Roblox games, but in that case they most enjoy making games themselves. And a lot of time on Scratch - I'm quite impressed with some of the games and interative 'skits' they make.
> playing with a ball in a field might be better
I categorize this as "maybe". If you're a physically fit child with good hand/eye coordination, playing ball is fun. If you're not, due to genetics, weight, or illness, it's closer to torment.
Also, playing ball is almost always going to be competitive - there are no bots and only rarely cooperative objectives involved.
I categorize this as "maybe". If you're a physically fit child with good hand/eye coordination, playing ball is fun. If you're not, due to genetics, weight, or illness, it's closer to torment.
Also, playing ball is almost always going to be competitive - there are no bots and only rarely cooperative objectives involved.
For me it was just always boring. I played pee-wee sports for a few years and I spent most of the practices and games staring up at the sky daydreaming. I couldn't relate to my peers over their interest in it (though I did relate to some of them over Pokémon when we had water breaks)
I'll agree with this. Being in left field was bo-ring. It was being up at bat, and knowing that I was going to rack up an "out" for our team, which was agonizing.
> Of course, playing with a ball in a field might be better, but, covid.
Depending on the kind of "ball", but your kid goes to school., no?
that's way more dangerous than playing outside in the sunshine. from a covid perspective.
Depending on the kind of "ball", but your kid goes to school., no?
that's way more dangerous than playing outside in the sunshine. from a covid perspective.
Schools currently closed where I am.
Reading did that for me.
> They were one of the few avenues I had for connecting with my peers
Three hours a week isn't much, but it doesn't have to be gaming to connect with people of your age, isn't it?
> It wasn't some waste of time that I regret when I look back as an adult.
I don't think it's what worries the Chinese government. Or me.
I'm quite sure that e.g. a 1 hr/day limit would be a good thing. You can say "parents", but at one point children stop listening. Then what do you do?
> They were one of the few avenues I had for connecting with my peers
Three hours a week isn't much, but it doesn't have to be gaming to connect with people of your age, isn't it?
> It wasn't some waste of time that I regret when I look back as an adult.
I don't think it's what worries the Chinese government. Or me.
I'm quite sure that e.g. a 1 hr/day limit would be a good thing. You can say "parents", but at one point children stop listening. Then what do you do?
> Reading did that for me.
Reading decidedly did not do that for me. I didn't have the attention span for/interest in most books.
> but it doesn't have to be gaming to connect with people of your age, isn't it?
Socializing was always difficult for me. Gaming was one of the few things I could mention and my peers would say "oh, me too!"
> I'm quite sure that e.g. a 1 hr/day limit would be a good thing
That would be more than twice the limit described
> You can say "parents", but at one point children stop listening. Then what do you do?
My parents actually did limit me to 30m/day on weekdays (they took the limits off on weekends). I don't know why you suggest that I could've simply ignored them (but somehow couldn't ignore a government mandate?).
When I would reach my limit for the day I'd generally do what homework I had (fair enough), and then... do nothing. Mindlessly watch TV out of total boredom. Looking back, I'm not sure why they thought that was better.
Anyway: the common theme for this and all other totalitarian ideas is that individuals are different people with different needs, and what's best for one isn't best for others.
Reading decidedly did not do that for me. I didn't have the attention span for/interest in most books.
> but it doesn't have to be gaming to connect with people of your age, isn't it?
Socializing was always difficult for me. Gaming was one of the few things I could mention and my peers would say "oh, me too!"
> I'm quite sure that e.g. a 1 hr/day limit would be a good thing
That would be more than twice the limit described
> You can say "parents", but at one point children stop listening. Then what do you do?
My parents actually did limit me to 30m/day on weekdays (they took the limits off on weekends). I don't know why you suggest that I could've simply ignored them (but somehow couldn't ignore a government mandate?).
When I would reach my limit for the day I'd generally do what homework I had (fair enough), and then... do nothing. Mindlessly watch TV out of total boredom. Looking back, I'm not sure why they thought that was better.
Anyway: the common theme for this and all other totalitarian ideas is that individuals are different people with different needs, and what's best for one isn't best for others.
I assume a government mandate would be controlled at the ISP level. Most parents aren't tech savy enough for that. As a child, I was easily able to hide playing games.
Reading books is not all that different from gaming from the point of view of value to a child's development. It's escapism, it's a much more solo activity than many online games today, and the primary skills it encourages - reading and imagination - is available in most games to one degree or another.
To put another way, they could limit reading to 3 hours a week for mostly the same reasons.
To put another way, they could limit reading to 3 hours a week for mostly the same reasons.
> apart from restricting freedom?
Do you need any more than that? From the western point of view this is the apex reason.
EDIT: To add - it is true in the west that minors don't enjoy all the same freedoms as adults. However for most things those decisions are made by the parents and not the state.
Do you need any more than that? From the western point of view this is the apex reason.
EDIT: To add - it is true in the west that minors don't enjoy all the same freedoms as adults. However for most things those decisions are made by the parents and not the state.
We restrict a lot of freedoms for the under-18 crowd though.
Purely in terms of freedom -- without arguing for any other pros and cons -- is this worse than mandatory school attendance, or not being able to vote, or take medical decisions for themselves, or whatever else kids cannot do these days.
Purely in terms of freedom -- without arguing for any other pros and cons -- is this worse than mandatory school attendance, or not being able to vote, or take medical decisions for themselves, or whatever else kids cannot do these days.
The big difference is that those decisions are pushed to the parents and not the state. Minors are not fully mentally equipped to make some of the decisions that adults have the right/ability to make.
Parents don't get to decide whether their kids get to vote (or whether they go to school, in most of the west, without having to at least fill out some complicated forms or having to go to court.)
There are economic reasons for this (most minors aren't mentally fully developed enough to make some life changing decisions such as in voting/medical decisions/etc.)
Do you have evidence that most adults are mentally developed enough for this?
Parents in many Western countries do not have the choice of what their child spends most of their day doing, as well as some medical procedures.
Here are a few things commonly limited to Western minors by the state or a reasonable proxy; alcohol, tobacco, movies, video games, being outside(curfew laws), pornography, music, fireworks, driving.
And much like with this new Chinese law, many minors violate all of those restrictions often with parental approval.
And much like with this new Chinese law, many minors violate all of those restrictions often with parental approval.
Just because you have one reason doesn't mean you shouldn't have others. There's nothing to discuss about whether it restricts freedom or not; not even the people who instituted the restriction would deny that it was a restriction.
Would you mind giving some examples of that? Sure I understand the classic "you can scream FIRE in a crowded theater" case, but what else are you thinking?
Not saying this is a good thing (in fact I think it's a silly rule), but: kids in the western world have their 'freedoms' restricted all of the time. There are plenty of things that kids can't participate in or see. Those are mandated by various levels of the state, for the safety/benefit of the child (ostensibly).
And parents are constantly adjusting the things their kids can or can't do, often requiring kids to ask permission to do most things. Its a way of protecting them from their immature decision making ability (with functional parents anyway).
So I think the aversion is more based on the surprise that it seems to go 'further' than we'd expect in the west, and politics/culture turns that into something to criticize the CPC (or whatever governing body responsible) for because COMMUNISTS!!!
And parents are constantly adjusting the things their kids can or can't do, often requiring kids to ask permission to do most things. Its a way of protecting them from their immature decision making ability (with functional parents anyway).
So I think the aversion is more based on the surprise that it seems to go 'further' than we'd expect in the west, and politics/culture turns that into something to criticize the CPC (or whatever governing body responsible) for because COMMUNISTS!!!
The main problem here is shoehorning of government between people's lives. Every parent has their own way of doing things. Some parents may allow kids to play longer, some may not but government should not be involved in this matter.
I don't think this is a case of "because..... communists". This move is rightly criticized in my opinion.
I don't think this is a case of "because..... communists". This move is rightly criticized in my opinion.
> government should not be involved in this matter.
But this is just a declaration, not an argument (there's nothing wrong with that.) Should parents be able to let their children smoke or do porn?
But this is just a declaration, not an argument (there's nothing wrong with that.) Should parents be able to let their children smoke or do porn?
I'm fairly sure that US parents do have the ability to give their children tobacco and porn. They just can't purchase it themselves
Depends on the state but at least in TX parents would be liable for a fine if caught giving their children tobacco (https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/tobacco/regulatory.php). Of course that's not enforceable but it is a limit the state is attempting to create. Wrt porn the parent comment was referring to "creating" porn, which is certainly illegal for a parent to facilitate in the entire US
[deleted]
Individual freedom might still be the most important organizing principle in the US, but in Western Europe?
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, there's something to this comment. Western Europe is where Judeo-Christian values married up with Greek and Roman societal models and produced (yes, there are obvious exceptions like religion) democracy, free speech, and capitalism. I also understand that this particular statement is a blanket statement open to nuance and is partially incorrect, but it's mostly correct. However in very recent times (hate speech mandates) this seems to be changing.
> Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom?
Children don't have freedoms, they have whatever their parents decide they can have. As a child in the US, your parents can legally assault you and can send you to what is effectively prison ('military schoool,' but same concept). You rarely hear any complaints about this being a crisis.
If parents in China want their kids playing more video games they can just create an account for them and it's business as usual. This is more of a signal from the top that excessive screen time for children isn't a thing that society approves of.
Children don't have freedoms, they have whatever their parents decide they can have. As a child in the US, your parents can legally assault you and can send you to what is effectively prison ('military schoool,' but same concept). You rarely hear any complaints about this being a crisis.
If parents in China want their kids playing more video games they can just create an account for them and it's business as usual. This is more of a signal from the top that excessive screen time for children isn't a thing that society approves of.
I have no opinion on whether playing games for 3 or 5 or 8 hours a week is good or bad for people under 18.
I do feel like a government (never mind central government) having the power to legislate at that level of micro-management is very bad. There would seem to be absolutely no limiting principle to what is appropriate or not appropriate to be legislated if you accept this level of government oversight as acceptable.
I do feel like a government (never mind central government) having the power to legislate at that level of micro-management is very bad. There would seem to be absolutely no limiting principle to what is appropriate or not appropriate to be legislated if you accept this level of government oversight as acceptable.
Because play is important for children, and video games provide play? There's a WIDE variety of what you can find in video games, not all of them are casino like skinner boxes, many of them can provide good and even educational entertainment.
I know for myself, the reason I work in tech is because of my love for video games as a kid got me into computers. Being a programmer is a huge blessing economically, and I never would have done it if I hadn't spent all that time lost in video games.
I know for myself, the reason I work in tech is because of my love for video games as a kid got me into computers. Being a programmer is a huge blessing economically, and I never would have done it if I hadn't spent all that time lost in video games.
Since this is aimed at online, it's probably aimed at casino style ones.
I think that's a fairly misinformed statement, there's a vast library of online multiplayer games that are not casino like in the least bit.
Yeah, like, Quake 3/Live, CS 1.6, MTA/SAMP…
Unfortunately even the current Counter-Strike incarnation has a fucking casino in it. Arguably more optional than in other games but still there.
Unfortunately even the current Counter-Strike incarnation has a fucking casino in it. Arguably more optional than in other games but still there.
> Anyone want to argue why this would be bad, apart from restricting freedom?
Why would it be good? I played a lot of computer games as a kid and loved it. Why should it be restricted to just 3 hours a week? So children can grow up to be really good cogs in the system, thinking what politicians want them to think, working a "proper" job, having exactly as much children as party wants them to have in that particular period, etc.?
Why would it be good? I played a lot of computer games as a kid and loved it. Why should it be restricted to just 3 hours a week? So children can grow up to be really good cogs in the system, thinking what politicians want them to think, working a "proper" job, having exactly as much children as party wants them to have in that particular period, etc.?
It should be up to the parents, not the government. And like you said, it's banning one form of entertainment that is no worse than the others.
> It should be up to the parents, not the government.
I mean, isn't this what Korean and Japan's policies effectively are as well? Doesn't seem to help much.
Children were not raised in isolation with two parents for most of history, an entire community was looking out for them as well that was incapable of being overwhelmed with that responsibility partially owing to higher child/birth mortality rates. But now we've put the onus of rearing functioning adults on precisely two people whose own personality and parenting traits are widely variable to begin with, if not influenced by the side effects of this two parent only viewpoint themselves.
I mean, isn't this what Korean and Japan's policies effectively are as well? Doesn't seem to help much.
Children were not raised in isolation with two parents for most of history, an entire community was looking out for them as well that was incapable of being overwhelmed with that responsibility partially owing to higher child/birth mortality rates. But now we've put the onus of rearing functioning adults on precisely two people whose own personality and parenting traits are widely variable to begin with, if not influenced by the side effects of this two parent only viewpoint themselves.
Unfortunately, especially in China, government is not the equivalent of tribal community.
Government is instead made up of a tiny number of politicians who are even more poorly equipped to make such personal decisions for millions of children.
Government is instead made up of a tiny number of politicians who are even more poorly equipped to make such personal decisions for millions of children.
I really hate when people compare normal environmental stimuli that come in through our senses to highly addictive drugs that directly modulate our brain's mechanisms of determining salience and want.
It's damaging to perpetuate this no matter how common of a new wives tale it is.
It's damaging to perpetuate this no matter how common of a new wives tale it is.
> It's damaging to perpetuate this no matter how common of a new wives tale it is.
Probably not
Probably not
Freedom is extremly important. The point here is not that Video game is good or bad or how many hours of it is OKay. The point is this is something that must be enforced at family level, or at most at school level. Government forcing this for more than a billion people is just wrong and most likely hurt them in the long run. For example, Who said those days are okay, maybe someone has to work on Weekend. Maybe some kid function better if she plays an hour of game at lunch time. Everyone is different. China has done similar things few decades ago in other industries (e.g., enforcing farming policies). The result was millions of people starve to death.
Probably for the exact reason you note.
The idea here is they should be doing something better with their time right?
But as you note no limits on other time eating activities with their own negative effects.
I think it would be better to use a carrot here and hopefully encourage / try to encourage better choices... or even if they want to target games just outlaw the specifics of the problem, loot boxes, and so on.
The idea here is they should be doing something better with their time right?
But as you note no limits on other time eating activities with their own negative effects.
I think it would be better to use a carrot here and hopefully encourage / try to encourage better choices... or even if they want to target games just outlaw the specifics of the problem, loot boxes, and so on.
And offline games. I was perfectly addicted with 0 internet, thank you very much. Although I do understand that the world wasn't ever-connected back then.
An obvious difference between many modern games and video platforms are the micro-transactions, which I think do clearly put them in a different category.
I would be shocked if that wasn't in the works, fwiw (YouTube obvious is banned, but whatever the native equivalent is).
Lots of reasons this might be a shortsighted, footgun decision. Kids might use drinking or other more actually-damaging vices as substitute goods. Has the potential to generate mass resentment and foment agitation for political freedom. Et cetera.
Other than restricting freedom? I do not see a downside. In fact- it makes me nervous. That's a lot more time to be productive compared to their western counterparts.
And I think gaming in moderation is very positive.
And I think gaming in moderation is very positive.
Deathknell for esports.
Maybe the opposite. China isn't banning kids from watching people play video games. Substitute drug.
apart from freedom...just a little human right. no biggie.
[deleted]
Are dictatorships going to prove to be more resilient than democracy in the age of endless noise? The west needs to realise that everything we have is at risk if we don’t get our act together. We need to forget arguing amongst ourselves and look at a billion people who are going to rule in a very different way from our pseudo-liberal societies. They will be a lot less considerate of us that we have been of them while we transferred jobs and money into their society.
I was just thinking about if I should limit game time for my kids or not.
My thoughts were that there are too many kind of video games to club them all as "games are bad". And probably I'll focus on limiting the kind of games or specific games themselves.
Some games are just elaborate casino games in nicer clothes. I really don't see benefits to that. But some offline games offer interesting stories and challenges that need brain/dexterity to solve. I feel those are probably just as good as books or movies/tv.
For online competitive games, that's a harder one. Games like Fortnite, COD, online sports games, and all that. Some people say it lets kids play together with friends, but I find nowadays it can also just expose yourself to kind of bad social interactions.
Coop online games and such, where the friend group is closed, like you play within your friends, no other strangers involved I feel is probably fine.
Having said all that, I feel that we're missing some actual evidence here to say if games are good or bad. Is there actually some data on it? Any correlation with kids who spent a lot of time playing video games and how they turned out later in life? I personally did grow up playing games, and I turned out fine, so sometimes I wonder if it's more of a false scare than anything.
My thoughts were that there are too many kind of video games to club them all as "games are bad". And probably I'll focus on limiting the kind of games or specific games themselves.
Some games are just elaborate casino games in nicer clothes. I really don't see benefits to that. But some offline games offer interesting stories and challenges that need brain/dexterity to solve. I feel those are probably just as good as books or movies/tv.
For online competitive games, that's a harder one. Games like Fortnite, COD, online sports games, and all that. Some people say it lets kids play together with friends, but I find nowadays it can also just expose yourself to kind of bad social interactions.
Coop online games and such, where the friend group is closed, like you play within your friends, no other strangers involved I feel is probably fine.
Having said all that, I feel that we're missing some actual evidence here to say if games are good or bad. Is there actually some data on it? Any correlation with kids who spent a lot of time playing video games and how they turned out later in life? I personally did grow up playing games, and I turned out fine, so sometimes I wonder if it's more of a false scare than anything.
If you look at what China has done with online companies like Alibaba, Didi, Tencent, etc., there seems to be a method to their madness. Essentially, China doesn't see the value in having the largest online marketplace, or the largest ride-sharing platform, or the best e-sports team.
If you look at their 5 year plan release this year, there's a huge focus on research on next generation technologies. This is a write-up about it: https://merics.org/en/short-analysis/chinas-14th-five-year-p...
Right now, games like Apex Legends, League of Legends, etc. suck up a lot of time and I think China doesn't want its youth to do that. It would rather them focus on how they can contribute as they grow older.
China has always had a heavy hand in social engineering and this is just another example. Whether it's good or not, is left to be seen.
If China finishes building their city in space and lands on Mars, while the rest of the world are watching e-sports, don't be surprised.
If you look at their 5 year plan release this year, there's a huge focus on research on next generation technologies. This is a write-up about it: https://merics.org/en/short-analysis/chinas-14th-five-year-p...
Right now, games like Apex Legends, League of Legends, etc. suck up a lot of time and I think China doesn't want its youth to do that. It would rather them focus on how they can contribute as they grow older.
China has always had a heavy hand in social engineering and this is just another example. Whether it's good or not, is left to be seen.
If China finishes building their city in space and lands on Mars, while the rest of the world are watching e-sports, don't be surprised.
This is really difficult for me to have an unbiased opinion on, but I think this is an OK decision (3 hours seems a bit too little >.>). I've pumped WAY too many hours into online games. I played fighting games, dota, starcraft, you name it, I played it and I played it before I was 18. I really think that it stunted my social growth (though not too much) because I got really hooked on the competitive aspect of those games. Those games still get their hooks in my once in a while (splitgate I'm looking at you). However, another reason I played so many games is because I lived in the middle of nowhere in florida and didn't have a car. There wasn't much I could do other than go to school, exercise, and play games. Everything was 30+ miles away by car. I think if China is going to do this, they have to provide other outlets for people to interact with each other. Games are a way of doing that for many because there simply isn't another option for them when they are young and don't have a car and don't live in a major city like new york or SF.
Title should read: China has forbidden under-18s from playing VIDEO games for more than three hours/week
Title should read: China has forbidden under-18s from playing ONLINE VIDEO games for more than three hours/week.
(And even ONLINE may not be quite precise enough.)
(And even ONLINE may not be quite precise enough.)
I’d read many kids will just use the ID of an older sibling or parent to get around the limitation.
Good. I ruined my damned brain playing stupid first person shooters for disgusting amounts of hours from like age 12-22. Aside from the social life i lost out on, I really think my brain is permanently deprived of chemicals.
To note, this only applies to online games. The restrictions are supposed to be server side only.
Tencent is implementing facial recognition on phones to enforce this. I don't believe we can realistically claim it's server-side only.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/video-game-facia...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/video-game-facia...
The facial recognition is in order to make sure the user of the game corresponds to the ID they logged in with. It still only applies to online videogames.
Mobile games, actually. No specific word of whether they have to be online games (whose definition is pretty vague these days - singleplayer games like Diablo III require a login and internet connection to play singleplayer).
> The new functions will initially be used on around 60 mobile games, including the massively popular "Honor of Kings" multiplayer battle game, which boasts over 100 million daily users.
> The new functions will initially be used on around 60 mobile games, including the massively popular "Honor of Kings" multiplayer battle game, which boasts over 100 million daily users.
If you read the article, you will see that the ID is specifically to link users to the already existing player ID verification system. That system applies only to online games. Purely single player games are exempted from the ID system, so the facial recognition system is not useful.
Diablo III is a bad example in that it's actually an online multiplayer game now. It didn't use to be, but I think it was planned all along.
Beyond that if it means kids won't play online-only single player games with all of the economic impacts that has on these games I think that's a very different thing. But that's not actually the case rn.
Diablo III is a bad example in that it's actually an online multiplayer game now. It didn't use to be, but I think it was planned all along.
Beyond that if it means kids won't play online-only single player games with all of the economic impacts that has on these games I think that's a very different thing. But that's not actually the case rn.
> Diablo III is a bad example in that it's actually an online multiplayer game now. It didn't use to be, but I think it was planned all along.
Multiplayer has always been included with D3. And singleplayer mode still exists. But, let me add a different examples.
Doom Eternal's campaign can be played offline, but only after you've signed into your account.
Genshin Impact is online only, even though you can play it alone.
AFK Arena, a mobile singleplayer-only game, requires you to be online.
Crash Bandicoot 4, a singleplayer-only game, requires you to be online.
> That system applies only to online games.
I don't know a lot about the system, so you are likely right. But I have to ask, is there anything that restricts it to multiplayer online games only - aside from the current policy?
Multiplayer has always been included with D3. And singleplayer mode still exists. But, let me add a different examples.
Doom Eternal's campaign can be played offline, but only after you've signed into your account.
Genshin Impact is online only, even though you can play it alone.
AFK Arena, a mobile singleplayer-only game, requires you to be online.
Crash Bandicoot 4, a singleplayer-only game, requires you to be online.
> That system applies only to online games.
I don't know a lot about the system, so you are likely right. But I have to ask, is there anything that restricts it to multiplayer online games only - aside from the current policy?
Doom Eternal would be excluded, unless you're connected all the time.
Point taken for all of the others. The law will force them to provide a true single player mode, which is good.
As far as single player games, it's technically infeasible. People will just pirate games and nothing can be done about that.
Point taken for all of the others. The law will force them to provide a true single player mode, which is good.
As far as single player games, it's technically infeasible. People will just pirate games and nothing can be done about that.
China is on a massive cultural crackdown right now. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/30/china/china-entertainment-cra...
Speaking from my own childhood, I'd be curios if kids in China are going to try to circumvent this ban or if it is even possible to do so. (Similar to how homepages ask for your birthday... no one is going to check up on it).
While this ban seems very specific (only online, certain hours of the week) I wonder if the companies might try to overachieve and extend it to offline games or social media platforms as well. Guess it depends on how the parents/ companies interpret that law (is it a law?). Watching the recent VIPKid / online teaching fallout, they just banned online classes very short notice for the remaining summer holidays. According to some VIPKid teachers however they're not getting new classes booked for september or the existing ones are getting cancelled.
While this ban seems very specific (only online, certain hours of the week) I wonder if the companies might try to overachieve and extend it to offline games or social media platforms as well. Guess it depends on how the parents/ companies interpret that law (is it a law?). Watching the recent VIPKid / online teaching fallout, they just banned online classes very short notice for the remaining summer holidays. According to some VIPKid teachers however they're not getting new classes booked for september or the existing ones are getting cancelled.
Yeah, this is just for the CCP to feel good about themselves and send a message. They have no way of enforcing that. Kids would just use their parent's phone. Or go to a WangBa that doesn't give a flying f*ck about the regulation.
Wrong title.
Online games are forbidden, not all games.
You can download and play many steam games.
Edit: or pirated games.
Edit: or pirated games.
I love how a very small group of the elite may rule on how millions of parents do their parenting on such small matters. The less parents need to think, the more time they have! /s
China hasn't forbidden them plaing games. China has forbidden them from playing online games for more than 3 hours a week. You can play GTA 5, the last of us, the witcher 3 just fine. No one will care if you play Inside for 8 hours a day either. What the government and Chinese parents do care, is not let children play too much those games designed to cause addition, and constant in-game purchasing .
Like with Bitcoin regulation, good luck to the governments with enforcement.
Correct me if I'm wrong but unlike bitcoin many of these games are played online in a centralized way, so China could even forward these regulations to these online services so they could enforce them themselves (if they want to continue being legally available).
All game companies operating in China, software and hardware, have to go through the CCP. They could definitely force companies to add software timers that automatically shut games down when a time limit is reached.
Sure but this is like DRM. You just create an arms war.
Underage users would find ways to appear to be 18 or older. Or use multiple accounts to continue playing. This is already common in many grind games. You have support accounts that feed the main account items.
Or just straight up hacking the timer system. Or playing games published outside if China.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Underage users would find ways to appear to be 18 or older. Or use multiple accounts to continue playing. This is already common in many grind games. You have support accounts that feed the main account items.
Or just straight up hacking the timer system. Or playing games published outside if China.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Remember we're talking about a totalitarian regime, where using real IDs for digital accounts is already a thing. Where importing unapproved foreign media is (presumably) banned. Where you can't so much as get a VPN without permission.
I'm sure some people will find ways around it, but I don't think that will be the norm.
I'm sure some people will find ways around it, but I don't think that will be the norm.
I dont see it working any differently than piracy. If people can hack the bytecode to appear as though the game has received a valid key, I dont see why they cannot do the same for these restrictions.
And the code or techniques for doing so will get scrubbed from the internet. Individuals may independently figure it out, but they'll be a drop in the bucket.
That's not how online games work. Core functions of the game are executed remotely. You need to convince the server, not your local machine.
Requiring state id to access any game is fairly easy to implement in a country like China. If you don’t provide one that’s over 18, you’re by default forced into restrictions.
It’s actually quite easy. Roast game companies to integrate the national-wide timekeeping service into their games. AFAIK, this is what Korea had been doing, but the policy recently got called off.
Didn't China successfully shut down a bunch of miners recently?
The key to making games productive is NOT to buy them for your children :). Or at least make it a rare event.
When I was a kid, my parents refused to buy me a machine good enough to play the games I wanted. As a result, I got scrappy and found a way to piece together a computer that was decent enough to play at least "something". The main game I was interested in was the infamous "Star Control II". I was able to social engineer my mother to nag my father into bringing home a dusty 386 that was in his office so he could "work from home". It was weak sauce but back then you had stacks of manuals to read, and I spent endless hours "tweaking" and learning everything to get things to run. Scrapping ancient free hardware from my “rich” friends. Little did I know I was learning valuable skills.
Before long I was building computers for the whole neighborhood, went on to be a CS major and now do large scale software.
Make the kid earn the fun.
When I was a kid, my parents refused to buy me a machine good enough to play the games I wanted. As a result, I got scrappy and found a way to piece together a computer that was decent enough to play at least "something". The main game I was interested in was the infamous "Star Control II". I was able to social engineer my mother to nag my father into bringing home a dusty 386 that was in his office so he could "work from home". It was weak sauce but back then you had stacks of manuals to read, and I spent endless hours "tweaking" and learning everything to get things to run. Scrapping ancient free hardware from my “rich” friends. Little did I know I was learning valuable skills.
Before long I was building computers for the whole neighborhood, went on to be a CS major and now do large scale software.
Make the kid earn the fun.
I play online LoL at top 5% level on a 2011 laptop with integrated graphics though, free to download. Not sure that approach really works anymore.
hmm maybe it has to be a linux based system or something these days. Also, don't kids always want to play the latest ?
And just like that, China's competitive Dota scene will disappear.
I wonder how this will effect the Perfect World/Valve partnership.
I wonder how this will effect the Perfect World/Valve partnership.
It will take a hit but certainly won't disappear. Success in Dota 2 nowadays is not based in having fast reaction times and dexterity but in strategic planning and team cohesion. If top teams have a young player, it is usually in position 1 or 2, and many older players are also currently succeeding at those roles.
Besides, this regulation does not appear ban things such as a Dota club at school (online play would be forbidden, but local lobbies would not).
Besides, this regulation does not appear ban things such as a Dota club at school (online play would be forbidden, but local lobbies would not).
This is the one I'm really curious about. With many esports the competition has been West vs China. Esports are on the rise as well, and now China has crippled their presence in the scene. It'd be akin to restricting athletes to training for only 3 hours before their 18 for the olympics. China's representation in the competitive scene, especially among the new generation, is heavily damaged with this.
After reading and thinking more about this, I’ll add that in many ways I’m still an impressionable child who struggles with setting healthy limits (less so now three years into parenthood in my 40s), and regulations like these seem both draconian and helpful. Thankfully my parents said firmly “no” to me buying a videogame console while I was living at home. They’d seen how easily sucked-in I could be when we had an Atari, C64, 386, and while visiting friends with Nintendo. Better I spend my escape-time reading, and better still that they find a way to help me recognize and process my emotions, but none of us quite knew how at the time. I don’t blame them, mind; that’s a heavy burden to carry around. I’ll do better for my child.
While I am responsible for my actions, I am still learning and growing, and it is helpful to have government looking out for our collective health.
While I am responsible for my actions, I am still learning and growing, and it is helpful to have government looking out for our collective health.
[deleted]
Bad law, this basically kills the online gaming hobby for people under 18. I think there is a lot of value in online multiplayer games, personally. People aren't robots, they need a way to relax, and I find it an amazing way to have a bit of competition in my life when I struggle to fit in anything else.
I watched an interview with David Harbor and he made a really amazing point. ( David is an avid poker player ): D&D is a lot like poker, in that it doesn't get REALLY good until you've been doing it so long that you get the feeling you should REALLY be doing something else.
I feel the same way about gaming. I play a lot less anymore, and that is because the way to play a game is to dive in and really immerse yourself in it for a few hours straight.
Hell, you can't even get warmed UP in an online FPS game in under an hour.
I watched an interview with David Harbor and he made a really amazing point. ( David is an avid poker player ): D&D is a lot like poker, in that it doesn't get REALLY good until you've been doing it so long that you get the feeling you should REALLY be doing something else.
I feel the same way about gaming. I play a lot less anymore, and that is because the way to play a game is to dive in and really immerse yourself in it for a few hours straight.
Hell, you can't even get warmed UP in an online FPS game in under an hour.
3 hours a week seems SO extreme.
As an introvert kid, socialising mainly happened via video-games for me (and most of my circle of friends). With 3hs a week of ANY social interaction, I doubt I'd ever had made any friends, or developed ANY social skills at all.
As an introvert kid, socialising mainly happened via video-games for me (and most of my circle of friends). With 3hs a week of ANY social interaction, I doubt I'd ever had made any friends, or developed ANY social skills at all.
I'm sure I would think differently if I were a parent, but this kinda sucks from just the perspective of letting a kid be a kid.
I fondly recall draining days and days and days into online multiplayer games, made some of my best friends who are still with me to this day across state lines, and came to my wedding, while eating all sorts of stereotypically bad gamer junk food.
Other than spending too much time arguing with people online, I don't find myself outside of what people would consider "well adjusted."
Besides, most people don't spend their entire lives playing video games for hours on end. You do get tired of it.
On second thought, maybe such rules would help one keep their love of games for longer...
I fondly recall draining days and days and days into online multiplayer games, made some of my best friends who are still with me to this day across state lines, and came to my wedding, while eating all sorts of stereotypically bad gamer junk food.
Other than spending too much time arguing with people online, I don't find myself outside of what people would consider "well adjusted."
Besides, most people don't spend their entire lives playing video games for hours on end. You do get tired of it.
On second thought, maybe such rules would help one keep their love of games for longer...
Only online games. And kids could sign in using their parent’s account.
I’m appalled at how many people are defending this. I don’t think it’s comparable to any other western bans, I.e alcohol and tobacco. We don’t ban anything that goes into a child’s mind as long as their parents consent. Just because video games aren’t in societies best interest doesn’t mean a child should be barred from doing what they love. Man it’s so hard to fit in for some people and this is there escape. This really seems like just another of the hundreds of rules China uses to sap the absolute freedom and childhood out of kids. The school schedule is absolutely insane. I do think this will have negative effects on the Chinese culture
Conspiracy theory I just made up, don't take seriously:
This is to control the demand for GPUs, as there is now such a drastically psychotic situation around the supply that a nation-state must now intervene to allocate cards for their AI projects.
This is to control the demand for GPUs, as there is now such a drastically psychotic situation around the supply that a nation-state must now intervene to allocate cards for their AI projects.
I wonder why China feels so afraid of games.
Trying to look at from their point of view and in good faith, excessive childhood gaming seem to be causing problems for some people like stunting their personal and intellectual development. China seems to be taking a stance that their citizens are a human resource for their country, and excessive gaming is hurting their asset.
> like stunting their personal and intellectual development
This. And social development. What are the implications of having all of your friends online and never met them in real life?
This. And social development. What are the implications of having all of your friends online and never met them in real life?
Lower likelihood of Covid, for one
What else?
I can think of a dozen negatives
I can think of a dozen negatives
I wish I knew. I mean, no sex?
I really do wish we could have a better discussion about this - not this thread, or even this submission, but in general.
It's interesting how gaming addiction is on the fast track for a formal disorder diagnosis (https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/internet-gaming, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700715/). When I look at Candy Crush - just to pick on one - and other "gamified" (ie optimized for addiction) cases they seem to have a lot more negatives, particularly for groups with still-developing prefrontal cortexes. I really worry about the developmental impact of modern gaming and social media. I have increasingly seen kids that are just not well attached to reality in ways that are detrimental to them, going on several years now.
It feels bad to pick on escapism when the world is such a mess, but, just like the similarly increasing drug problems (particularly in opiates) it is only making the situation worse.
It's interesting how gaming addiction is on the fast track for a formal disorder diagnosis (https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/internet-gaming, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700715/). When I look at Candy Crush - just to pick on one - and other "gamified" (ie optimized for addiction) cases they seem to have a lot more negatives, particularly for groups with still-developing prefrontal cortexes. I really worry about the developmental impact of modern gaming and social media. I have increasingly seen kids that are just not well attached to reality in ways that are detrimental to them, going on several years now.
It feels bad to pick on escapism when the world is such a mess, but, just like the similarly increasing drug problems (particularly in opiates) it is only making the situation worse.
>What are the implications of having all of your friends online
Peace and quiet?
Peace and quiet?
They are addictive and conditioning and thus compete with the social conditioning from the Chinese government.
With that logic you'd expect the Chinese government to force the gaming companies to do the conditioning for them...
Addiction to Online/PC Gaming is a real problem in China.
Addiction to Online/PC Gaming is a real problem in China.
They see the effects that gaming has on children in neighboring countries, Japan and Korea, to the point that WHO added "Gaming disorder" as a disease and considers the addictive properties of video games, as well as monetization of that addiction to be a growing concern.
For various reasons, the issue is not nearly as prevalent in the U.S. or Europe but it's a pretty big issue across Asia.
Is this the right way to curb it? Absolutely not, the government should look to find the root causes of the addiction, mostly social in nature, and promote healthy alternatives, but like most things the government is more interest in easy and short term solutions.
For various reasons, the issue is not nearly as prevalent in the U.S. or Europe but it's a pretty big issue across Asia.
Is this the right way to curb it? Absolutely not, the government should look to find the root causes of the addiction, mostly social in nature, and promote healthy alternatives, but like most things the government is more interest in easy and short term solutions.
Most of them are addicting time wasting shit. Especially mobile games, good God.
Show me a mobile game that has a good story, little grind, works offline and sells for ~$60 with no in-game purchases.
Phones are as capable as a PS3/PS4 these days, too.
Show me a mobile game that has a good story, little grind, works offline and sells for ~$60 with no in-game purchases.
Phones are as capable as a PS3/PS4 these days, too.
Monument valley 1 & 2.
GTA San Andreas is a mobile game now. Matches all criteria except it's cheaper :D
I don't think ports count.
If you want to be the global superpower and also keep your strangehold on society, you don't want children spending a lot of time on games.
You want them to learn social skills (for future reproductive success), study math/science, etc.
The US brain-drained the entire world for more 100 years, and the CCP likely sees efforts like this as a way to catch up.
I disagree -- I think you become as powerful as the US by being the best place for smart people to move to, not by forcing your populous into a predetermined mold -- but they're never going to be the attractive bastion of freedom that the US was perceived as.
You want them to learn social skills (for future reproductive success), study math/science, etc.
The US brain-drained the entire world for more 100 years, and the CCP likely sees efforts like this as a way to catch up.
I disagree -- I think you become as powerful as the US by being the best place for smart people to move to, not by forcing your populous into a predetermined mold -- but they're never going to be the attractive bastion of freedom that the US was perceived as.
It's part of the recent big pro-fertility drive (same as banning 996 work-weeks).
They want kids to engage with work and, well, each other, to raise families, rather than having purely digital lives.
They want kids to engage with work and, well, each other, to raise families, rather than having purely digital lives.
Most of the answers here are about games being addictive and a time waste, but what about communication? I actually have no idea about this - is in-game communication in e.g. fortnite able to be monitored?
If not, and if the CCP is as interested in controlling discussion as people in the West think they are, online games are a problem. Youth are supposed to be more impressionable and easily influenced. So, the CCP may just be trying to limit competition.
If not, and if the CCP is as interested in controlling discussion as people in the West think they are, online games are a problem. Youth are supposed to be more impressionable and easily influenced. So, the CCP may just be trying to limit competition.
Same reason why they downgraded a lot of 2nd tier colleges to 'vocational' colleges: to increase the number of people they can put in a factory to work high pace, low pay slave jobs. This looks to be a shot at the laying flat kids who don't want to be taken advantage of, so they are removing the entertainment being relied on for something to do. Kids don't want to die for the party, they've seen nothing comes out of it, so they just passively resist.
> Same reason why they downgraded a lot of 2nd tier colleges to 'vocational' colleges: to increase the number of people they can put in a factory to work high pace, low pay slave jobs.
996 white colar jobs are not high pace low paying slave jobs?...
And how many such jobs are there anyway...
996 white colar jobs are not high pace low paying slave jobs?...
And how many such jobs are there anyway...
Parents hate games.
The governament is ran by parents.
That's why.
>Previously, China had limited the length of time under-18s could play video games to 1.5 hours on any day and three hours on holidays under 2019 rules.
How effective/strict has enforcement of the previously existing time limits been?
If time limits haven't been hard to circumvent or punishments for doing so severe, most kids would have routinely flouted the rules. Video games are quite the carrot.
It would be interesting if, by feebly enforcing these time limits, a totalitarian government would willingly commit the blunder of passing a law that trains children to disobey the state.
How effective/strict has enforcement of the previously existing time limits been?
If time limits haven't been hard to circumvent or punishments for doing so severe, most kids would have routinely flouted the rules. Video games are quite the carrot.
It would be interesting if, by feebly enforcing these time limits, a totalitarian government would willingly commit the blunder of passing a law that trains children to disobey the state.
I can't help but think that this action could very well spur out some 'unintended consequences'.
Prohibition can restrict and reduce participation and usage at an overall level, but certainly some portion of this will be pushed underground, or to unregulated spaces - probably just the thing the government WOULDN'T want to have.
Particularly when we are talking about some portion of the players being addicts here... how many are going to sign up for VPNs, Tor (or some other workaround) and find some other game or activity that satisfies that itch?
Prohibition can restrict and reduce participation and usage at an overall level, but certainly some portion of this will be pushed underground, or to unregulated spaces - probably just the thing the government WOULDN'T want to have.
Particularly when we are talking about some portion of the players being addicts here... how many are going to sign up for VPNs, Tor (or some other workaround) and find some other game or activity that satisfies that itch?
I wonder if game addiction is a bigger problem in China, if Chinese kids are feeling a lot more pressure compared to the US, and if (if both are true) that would explain the addiction problem.
Wouldn't those kids grow up resenting the CCP? If the CCP keeps doing this long enough, they're going to have millions of sullen people and then all it takes is just one spark.
> If the CCP keeps doing this long enough, they're going to have millions of sullen people and then all it takes is just one spark.
...and lots of disaffected people end up dead or beaten or in prison or, seeing those options demonstrated vividly, resigned to their fate under the CCP’s rule, unwelcome as it may be.
It’s not like this hasn't played out already several times over different issues.
...and lots of disaffected people end up dead or beaten or in prison or, seeing those options demonstrated vividly, resigned to their fate under the CCP’s rule, unwelcome as it may be.
It’s not like this hasn't played out already several times over different issues.
They have a billion citizens. At some point the few will become the many disaffected.
That’s why the CCP has tanks
> At some point the few will become the many disaffected.
Yes, we [*] know that, because its happened before, see, e.g., the ’89 Democracy Movement.
On the other hand, we [*] know how that ended, too.
[*] Unless our information comes exclusively from the CCP-filtered internet, in which case, maybe not.
Yes, we [*] know that, because its happened before, see, e.g., the ’89 Democracy Movement.
On the other hand, we [*] know how that ended, too.
[*] Unless our information comes exclusively from the CCP-filtered internet, in which case, maybe not.
"When I was young we didn't have..."
That's basically the story of 90% of parents in China pre 90s. This is more a continuation than disruption. These kids will play games when they turn into adults and enforce same limitations on their children. Keep in mind curbing video game addiction is something Chinese parents WANT, this is CCP listening to their base. Children don't vote in the west either, their interest are lobbied by adults.
That's basically the story of 90% of parents in China pre 90s. This is more a continuation than disruption. These kids will play games when they turn into adults and enforce same limitations on their children. Keep in mind curbing video game addiction is something Chinese parents WANT, this is CCP listening to their base. Children don't vote in the west either, their interest are lobbied by adults.
They try to create a very tight net to control people. This works quite „well“ in North Korea, China is trying to create a „better“ version of that, by using technology. Creating a social scoring system, rating every move you make and everything you say.
If people can’t express their resent at all, at some point they even stop thinking about it.
If people can’t express their resent at all, at some point they even stop thinking about it.
I fear you being correct as it would greatly erode my faith in the human species. Relocation of tens of millions of high school students to the countryside to work forced labour? A generation later, mowing down young protesters with tanks? Meh. But take away people's video games... that is an abuse too far.
The CCP doesn't keep its power by convincing everyone it's the best thing since sliced bread; it keeps it's power by convincing everyone it's both A) Inevitable and B) Not that bad.
Why? As adults they 'll be more understanding of why they were forced to stop that addictive behavior. And kids dont start revolutions
Do kids grow up resenting the US government for barring them from drinking? Are the acts of the ESRB likely to spark a revolution?
I don't think so, although I wish it were the case. Kids can play outside with other kids, or go do something different, no kid will recent anything because they can't play those dumb pay to win mobile games. The only looser here will be Tencent and the other gaming companies.
The lay down movement is the start of this, imo.
Or they'll just grow up into other hobbies besides gaming and not really care in the long run.
Most people probably don't know...but a time-limit ban was already in place in 2019 so this isn't really news. This just reduces it more.
Old ban: 1.5 hours per weekday, 3 hours on weekends
Old ban: 1.5 hours per weekday, 3 hours on weekends
[deleted]
The dismissive attitude commenters have in this thread towards the personal freedom aspect here is concerning.
Though, maybe when discussing China it seems like beating a dead horse to some...
Though, maybe when discussing China it seems like beating a dead horse to some...
Most people don't really appreciate the thing that they have until the day that they lost it. That why human history cyclical
This year has made it clear that counting on the Chinese market for your products is a very risky decision. It’s now transparent that the government come can from nowhere with a swift decision to ban or heavily restrict your industry as soon as announced. I don’t know who will want to deal with that kind of risk. Today the decision is for children, tomorrow another restriction can be for adults too, and you would see your audience vanish instantaneously.
This is insane.
There should be no debate about this, discussing the pros and cons of games and the potential for addiction.
Well, this is China, at least this has the merit of clarifying their policies.
There should be no debate about this, discussing the pros and cons of games and the potential for addiction.
Well, this is China, at least this has the merit of clarifying their policies.
Really strange decision to make in the middle of a pandemic. You would think they would be encouraging activities which enable social distancing, not banning them.
COVID have been under control for a long time in CN, there’s lambda outbreak here and there, but most of them are eliminated fast. Giant exhibition have been hold for more than a year now. And CN is getting kids back to school
US is also getting kids back to school but that doesn't mean the virus is under control here. At this point I don't think there is much of a reason to believe anything China is reporting to the rest of the world.
Giant cons in China are back to action for a long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzrxrN_3seo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJk7VGldrYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix1RY-2C9lA
Most of the corps are back to their 996 schedules, this includes low tier, manual heavy sweatshops. you can ask people who have contact in China, they will all tell you the same thing.
Knowing COVID, it's not possible "fake" it at this scale nor this long. They had COVID in control, more or less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzrxrN_3seo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJk7VGldrYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix1RY-2C9lA
Most of the corps are back to their 996 schedules, this includes low tier, manual heavy sweatshops. you can ask people who have contact in China, they will all tell you the same thing.
Knowing COVID, it's not possible "fake" it at this scale nor this long. They had COVID in control, more or less.
Chinese citizens: "What pandemic?"
The Chinese government was able to control the pandemic because they are authoritarian. Meanwhile Florida just received 14 portable morgues.
Before I get the "Fake News" crowd coming at me...I was on a video conference call last week with my Chinese counterparts in my company (my first meeting) and I was taken aback when everyone in the conference room didn't have masks...then I remember their spread is basically nill.
The Chinese government was able to control the pandemic because they are authoritarian. Meanwhile Florida just received 14 portable morgues.
Before I get the "Fake News" crowd coming at me...I was on a video conference call last week with my Chinese counterparts in my company (my first meeting) and I was taken aback when everyone in the conference room didn't have masks...then I remember their spread is basically nill.
I mean the virus came from China so I guess they didn't do that great of a job of controlling it. Not only that but can we really trust the numbers China is reporting? They have been completely non-compliant with investigations which could have resulted in saved lives. Lots of people (most?) in the US seem to have the same brazen attitude of not wearing masks in crowded spaces. Not long ago CDC was advising that people who are fully vaccinated don't need to wear masks in crowded public spaces.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It'd be a fantastic story if this lead to Chinese kids who are interested in gaming developing hacking & programming skills to get around the limits.
> Gaming companies will be barred from providing services to minors in any form outside the stipulated hours and must ensure they have put real-name verification systems in place, said the regulator, which oversees the country's video games market.
This will almost certainly be extended beyond China because of the obvious data mining revenue and will almost certainly be a net loss for consumers globally.
This will almost certainly be extended beyond China because of the obvious data mining revenue and will almost certainly be a net loss for consumers globally.
I get that China is authoritarian, so I'm not even going to argue about that, but even if you agree with the premise, three hours seems to be swinging too far in the other direction. Do they enforce the same rule with other entertainment? What about board games or MTG? And it's not like movies are much different, other than being passive. Actually, passive entertainment might be worse.
This seems like a good way to breed a generation of kids who are good at cracking/circumventing game restrictions, and play more offline games.
Creativity loves constraints.
It will be really interesting to see what types of games or hacks are cooked up to get around this.
Perhaps a burgeoning distributed gaming scene.
It will be really interesting to see what types of games or hacks are cooked up to get around this.
Perhaps a burgeoning distributed gaming scene.
I wonder how Blizzard is feeling about throwing in with the CCP right about now
Probably having a hard time thinking straight with all the piles of money around them?
they've lost 50% of their users in 4 years
and this was before the recent PR disaster
and this was before the recent PR disaster
> they've lost 50% of their users in 4 years
Blizzard maybe, but Blizzard is owned by ATVI and are still growing top line revenue QoQ:
https://www.reuters.com/companies/ATVI.OQ/financials/income-...
So, yes the company is technically still in "piles of cash" ($2.8B net cash from operations in 2020 for example).
Blizzard maybe, but Blizzard is owned by ATVI and are still growing top line revenue QoQ:
https://www.reuters.com/companies/ATVI.OQ/financials/income-...
So, yes the company is technically still in "piles of cash" ($2.8B net cash from operations in 2020 for example).
Doesn't Tencent flat out own Riot? I'd be much more interested in understanding what they (Tencent) think of this.
No, they own a significant minority stake.
They acquired the entire company in 2015. You are probably thinking of Epic Games.
They're having too much fun harassing employees to care.
They are probably too busy pretending to be activist and on the side of minorities in the western world, ie taking zero risks pretending to be virtuous.
In the meantime the actual authoritarians who are persecuting religions and minorities are walking all over them and getting them to comply.
In the meantime the actual authoritarians who are persecuting religions and minorities are walking all over them and getting them to comply.
I don't think it's useful or productive to go that far.
But I do think everyone would be better off if any game with a cash shop tied to randomness (loot boxes) or an in-game mechanic tied to randomness that can be exacerbated with cash shop purchases (Black Desert Online's gear improvement mechanic being a good example) be limited to those who are of gambling age.
But I do think everyone would be better off if any game with a cash shop tied to randomness (loot boxes) or an in-game mechanic tied to randomness that can be exacerbated with cash shop purchases (Black Desert Online's gear improvement mechanic being a good example) be limited to those who are of gambling age.
As a side note, this is more evidence that we're about to see the pendulum swing back towards decentralized IT systems. Social media, megatech companies, censorship, and privacy issues are taking some of the shine off highly centralized systems, and we might see a renaissance of offline, sometimes-connected, distributed, privacy-oriented systems.
The State should recognize that the responsibility begins with the Parents. If the State wants to promote a level of guidance that aligns with some common sense, then provide information/advice/recommendations to Parents on how to manage their children's growth. Mandates are a draconian move when you've lost control.
> Mandates are a draconian move when you've lost control.
Mandates are only enforceable if you have control in the first place, so your reasoning is backwards.
Mandates are only enforceable if you have control in the first place, so your reasoning is backwards.
Kids will just sink time in old games / old emulators. I had a phase playing gamse on TI83 growing up. The silver lining is hopefully the market will focus more on short single player offline experiences.
Or publishers can cirvument entirely by moving games web on foreign server, and it's another entertainment locked behind VPN situation.
Or publishers can cirvument entirely by moving games web on foreign server, and it's another entertainment locked behind VPN situation.
Good! Old emulators and (truly) offline games in general can't be lootbox casinos.
There is a time for nuance and there is a time for condemnation. This isn't the time for nuance. It's a government telling people what they can and can't do. It's deprioritizing happiness for merely ideological reasons. What do they expect kids to do instead? Lie Flat and watch the state propaganda channel?
Speaking only for myself, but... I have been playing +12h per day semi casually, taking non-scheduled brakes for weeks when it gets boring. For me it is more an escape than addiction. I do it because everything else sucks, not because I got symptoms if I don't play. I have real addictions and gaming is not one of them.
What are the odds that this isn't an effort to get kids offline, and instead an attempt at freeing bandwidth or reducing energy consumption? This feels like when they banned bitcoin mining at the same time they were having rolling brownouts - the issue wasn't the mining but the resources it consumed.
Anyone who seriously thinks that the reason for these restrictions are anything other than a means for the CCP to exert control and remind big tech (the entertainment industry in this case) exactly where they stand in the pecking order is simply naive. For the children my ass...
Well video game is the new cigarette for Chinese teenagers.
The harder the government bans it, the more tempting it would be.
The harder the government bans it, the more tempting it would be.
What about edutainment type games? Will there be a censor deciding which game is eligible? The loopholes and ambiguities are many. This could backfire, especially if not enforced in some visibly meaningful and fair manner...
Caveat: I know next to nothing about the gaming universe in China :-)
Caveat: I know next to nothing about the gaming universe in China :-)
[deleted]
I feel like this might unexpectedly have a good side for consumers.
The ban applies to the service, not the client. Could we have another Renaissance of local gaming again? More games allowing LAN-based play in response to minors not being able to regularly access a centralized server.
The ban applies to the service, not the client. Could we have another Renaissance of local gaming again? More games allowing LAN-based play in response to minors not being able to regularly access a centralized server.
3 hours a week is nothing... When I was a kid I was restricted to 2 hours a day for a certain period of time and I thought it was insufferable. A friend had restrictions of 30 minutes a day and I couldn't believe they lived with that.
This probably eliminates China as a serious esports region going forward. You can't even go anywhere near professional play without a lot of time and effort, and 3 hours a week simply isn't enough to even get into scouting range.
Online games. Play all the offline games you want.
Or log in with your older sibling’s ID or parents ID.
Or log in with your older sibling’s ID or parents ID.
I don't know how they can enforce this rule. First off, they can share accounts with adults; or pay adults to share their accounts. Second, I reckon people in China are already familiar with VPN services.
There are already many restrictions imposed for people under 18. To circumvent them kids link their parents' QQ when gaming so don't know how much of an impact this will actually have.
Not sure Chinese authorities have thought this through.
If the video game ban is strictly enforced, but 996 ban is not strictly enforced, that's a recipe for a lot of social discontent down the line.
If the video game ban is strictly enforced, but 996 ban is not strictly enforced, that's a recipe for a lot of social discontent down the line.
This is barely credible as the pitch for an episode of Black Mirror.
The rates of rule breaking and law breaking are much higher in China than they are in the West.
One of my goals if I were in charge of the Chinese government would be to get that rate down by making what rules and laws I introduce easy to enforce (and easy to understand and to follow).
In particular, if I were going to impose this kind of ban, I would've made it apply to everyone, not just under-18s. Well, actually, I would've made 2 tiers of restrictions, the looser tier allowing more hours per week, so that if a boy escapes the stricter tier of restrictions (e.g., by signing in with the credentials of an adult in his life) he still has some limits on how much he can play.
One of my goals if I were in charge of the Chinese government would be to get that rate down by making what rules and laws I introduce easy to enforce (and easy to understand and to follow).
In particular, if I were going to impose this kind of ban, I would've made it apply to everyone, not just under-18s. Well, actually, I would've made 2 tiers of restrictions, the looser tier allowing more hours per week, so that if a boy escapes the stricter tier of restrictions (e.g., by signing in with the credentials of an adult in his life) he still has some limits on how much he can play.
[deleted]
I really dont like that idea, in my opinion it should started with expending self awareness in parents more than moving center of gravity straight on the children.
Instead of regulating played time of video games for kids, how improving education so it's actually engaging and entertaining to kids, then they won't feel like they have to escape their boring and dull childhood?
I'm obviously against that kind of regulation coming from the state.
I'm saying that and I was addicted to WoW during end of high school and college. But guess what? It was better than any alternative. My life sucked at home, at school, and personally. I lived in country where I was a misfit. I was lucky to have a fun outlet that also made me fluent in English and learn a few skills along the way.
I'm obviously against that kind of regulation coming from the state.
I'm saying that and I was addicted to WoW during end of high school and college. But guess what? It was better than any alternative. My life sucked at home, at school, and personally. I lived in country where I was a misfit. I was lucky to have a fun outlet that also made me fluent in English and learn a few skills along the way.
China and heavy-handed intervention: name a more iconic duo.
Ahah, my problem solving was so honed by 13 hr per week Starcraft in high school.
My elders thought I should spend time doing normal things like watching TV instead.
Hilariously out of touch.
My elders thought I should spend time doing normal things like watching TV instead.
Hilariously out of touch.
Look for exceptions to this rule in the near future as eSports continues its rise in popularity, and even becomes offered as an official school activity.
I guess China really does want a revolt among the youth.
So far the only thread is about the utility of video games. This is not the first thing that comes to mind for me.
How can they possibly implement this regulation?
How can they possibly implement this regulation?
Finally I have an official excuse to tell my 9yr old why he must curtail his addiction. "You want daddy to go to Chinese jail???"
Rule #1 of parenting 2020+:
“Don’t stand in a way between a 9yo and Roblox”
They will absolutely send you in jail rather than give up Roblox/MC/Youtube.
“Don’t stand in a way between a 9yo and Roblox”
They will absolutely send you in jail rather than give up Roblox/MC/Youtube.
Think about this when you support "sin taxes". At some point the "sin" they target is going to be something you partake in. I generally dislike any government mandate punishing an entire society because some people lack the control to limit themselves.
I understand this is aimed at someone who isn't legally an "adult" so I can give some small leeway in that case. However, I don't think this enforceable at all and it really still comes down to the parents putting in time to limit them.
I understand this is aimed at someone who isn't legally an "adult" so I can give some small leeway in that case. However, I don't think this enforceable at all and it really still comes down to the parents putting in time to limit them.
I wonder how well their internet infrastructure and game servers will handle the enormous spike in traffic 8pm - 9pm Fri, Sat, and Sun.
Wouldn't this also crush their egame industry or is the environment there appreciably different from what it looks like here?
Haven't we been through at least two generations of ubiquitous video games in the west? Is society noticeably different?
Are you kidding? Look at the US in 1980 vs. now. There has been a lot of societal change. I don't think it has much to do with video games, though.
Nationwide BBSes (Compuserv, AOL, etc.) and then the Internet have made or accelerated societal change. People can congregate and share information at a scale that wasn't feasible before, and in particular marginalized groups have found strength in numbers that just wasn't possible before.
I think the 24 hour television news cycle (and the advertising it takes to support it) has also had more of an impact than games.
Nationwide BBSes (Compuserv, AOL, etc.) and then the Internet have made or accelerated societal change. People can congregate and share information at a scale that wasn't feasible before, and in particular marginalized groups have found strength in numbers that just wasn't possible before.
I think the 24 hour television news cycle (and the advertising it takes to support it) has also had more of an impact than games.
Technology has progressed, obviously, but I don't see any reason to assume video game addiction has had any real impact.
Sexual inactivity among males 22-35 has skyrocketed since the late 00s when social media and online games started getting really big. From ~7% to ~14% [1]. Similar explosion in depression/self-harm among both sexes.
[1] - https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-no...
[1] - https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-no...
This is an interesting policy to me.
I spent a LOT of time gaming in my teen years, but my parents practically forced me to play outside with friends, ride my bike, be a part of a church youth group, and greatly encouraged my hobbies programming and designing software formally starting at age 8.
I already had a pretty well-balanced life, and by this policy's standards, I would be "too addicted to gaming" and breaching its rules.
Today I work a wonderful job in tech getting paid well, and by and large love my life.
While in some ways, I can agree with the outcomes these policies are driving at, I can never get behind a government enforcing these at the risk of penalizing a family or children for breaching it.
Wars have been fought and won (rightfully) over the culmination of these types of far-reaching policies that seek to determine how an individual spends their recreational time outside of other obligations like school and work.
It also sets a terrible precedent for controlling the amount of time an individual spends on any other activity. I fundamentally reject the reasoning behind viewing gaming as a potential addiction when any other recreational activity could be classified as such if one spends a great deal of time pursuing it, especially given that many games incorporate history; useful story tropes for understanding life, myth, and relationships; and for online games, the social bonds, management of guilds/clans/resources, and other portable skills that readily translate to corollary activities in a multitude of career fields.
China really knows how to bum its citizens out on so many levels, and the fact that so many in Western cultures seek the cold-calculated utilitarian outcomes of policies like these for Western civilizations without considering the tangible, psychological, emotional, and cultural impacts (among others) on societies is absolutely appalling.
Western civilizations didn't endure wars and literal genocide over freedom from authoritarian lawmaking (and taxation) only to have these freedoms challenged again and again by a select few who have the audacity, hubris, and arrogance to impose on them in the name of the better good. Fuck that.
I spent a LOT of time gaming in my teen years, but my parents practically forced me to play outside with friends, ride my bike, be a part of a church youth group, and greatly encouraged my hobbies programming and designing software formally starting at age 8.
I already had a pretty well-balanced life, and by this policy's standards, I would be "too addicted to gaming" and breaching its rules.
Today I work a wonderful job in tech getting paid well, and by and large love my life.
While in some ways, I can agree with the outcomes these policies are driving at, I can never get behind a government enforcing these at the risk of penalizing a family or children for breaching it.
Wars have been fought and won (rightfully) over the culmination of these types of far-reaching policies that seek to determine how an individual spends their recreational time outside of other obligations like school and work.
It also sets a terrible precedent for controlling the amount of time an individual spends on any other activity. I fundamentally reject the reasoning behind viewing gaming as a potential addiction when any other recreational activity could be classified as such if one spends a great deal of time pursuing it, especially given that many games incorporate history; useful story tropes for understanding life, myth, and relationships; and for online games, the social bonds, management of guilds/clans/resources, and other portable skills that readily translate to corollary activities in a multitude of career fields.
China really knows how to bum its citizens out on so many levels, and the fact that so many in Western cultures seek the cold-calculated utilitarian outcomes of policies like these for Western civilizations without considering the tangible, psychological, emotional, and cultural impacts (among others) on societies is absolutely appalling.
Western civilizations didn't endure wars and literal genocide over freedom from authoritarian lawmaking (and taxation) only to have these freedoms challenged again and again by a select few who have the audacity, hubris, and arrogance to impose on them in the name of the better good. Fuck that.
Is crime going to skyrocket? These kids are going to have a lot of time on their hands and nowhere to spend it.
One could try reading a book, learning a new skill, or socializing.
I enjoy reading immensely, but even I hardly consider it to be a replacement for online gaming with your friends.
Or, if I'm being frank, a more inherently valuable form of entertainment than gaming.
Or, if I'm being frank, a more inherently valuable form of entertainment than gaming.
That's not how it works for the majority of bored kids with raging hormones.
In functioning societies with functioning economies, it certainly does work that way.
> or socializing
Perhaps by joining a gang…
Perhaps by joining a gang…
The energy and creativity would come out other ways, hopefully through more businesses, invention and art.
THAT will lead to the downfall of the regime :-)
OK, probably not. Kids will figure out how to go around it somehow.
OK, probably not. Kids will figure out how to go around it somehow.
[deleted]
China is also cracking down on the kpop/jpop style in the entertainment industry as well.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=...
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=...
It's about banning feminine characters and ultra youth idols.
This is gamification in game theory terms, so does it mean they are banning their own reform?
In an effort to get people to look into each other’s eyes more, and also to appease the mutes, the government has decided to allot each person exactly one hundred and sixty-seven words, per day.
When the phone rings, I put it to my ear without saying hello. In the restaurant I point at chicken noodle soup. I am adjusting well to the new way.
Late at night, I call my long distance lover, proudly say I only used fifty-nine today. I saved the rest for you.
When she doesn’t respond, I know she’s used up all her words, so I slowly whisper I love you thirty-two and a third times. After that, we just sit on the line and listen to each other breathe.
- Jeffery McDaniel
When the phone rings, I put it to my ear without saying hello. In the restaurant I point at chicken noodle soup. I am adjusting well to the new way.
Late at night, I call my long distance lover, proudly say I only used fifty-nine today. I saved the rest for you.
When she doesn’t respond, I know she’s used up all her words, so I slowly whisper I love you thirty-two and a third times. After that, we just sit on the line and listen to each other breathe.
- Jeffery McDaniel
Dang… perfect metaphor.
I expect to see lots of new “educational” apps with addictive qualities.
For those comparing to western standards, note that this is just an increase on existing regulation. According to wikipedia[0], China has had regulation limiting underage video game play time from as early as 2005, meaning that most children there have never actually lived in times when underage unrestricted play was allowed. So in terms of "voice", this is akin to parents deciding what's good for children, except on a national scale.
> China has sought to deal with addiction to video games by its youth by enacting regulations to be implemented by video game publishers aimed to limit consecutive play time particularly for children. As early as 2005 China's Ministry of Culture has enacted several public health efforts to address gaming and internet related disorders. One of the first systems required by the government was launched in 2005 to regulate adolescents' Internet use, including limiting daily gaming time to 3 hours and requiring users' identification in online video games. In 2007, an "Online Game Anti-Addiction System" was implemented for minors, restricting their use to 3 hours or less per day. The ministry also proposed a "Comprehensive Prevention Program Plan for Minors’ Online Gaming Addiction" in 2013, to promulgate research, particularly on diagnostic methods and interventions. China's Ministry of Education in 2018 announced that new regulations would be introduced to further limit the amount of time spent by minors in online games. While these regulations were not immediately binding, most large Chinese publishers took steps to implement the required features. For example, Tencent restricted the amount of time that children could spend playing one of its online games, to one hour per day for children 12 and under, and two hours per day for children aged 13-18. This is facilitated by tracking players via their state-issued identification numbers. This has put some pressure on Western companies that publish via partners in China on how to apply these new anti-addiction requirements into their games, as outside of China, tracking younger players frequently raises privacy concerns. Specialized versions of games, developed by the Chinese partner, have been made to meet these requirements without affecting the rest of the world; Riot Games let its China-based studio implement the requirements into League of Legends for specialized release in China.
> A new law enacted in November 2019 limits children under 18 to less than 90 minutes of playing video games on weekdays and three hours on weekends, with no video game playing allowed between 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. These are set by requiring game publishers to enforce these limits based on user logins. Additionally, the law limits how much any player can spend on microtransactions, ranging from about $28 to $57 per month depending on the age of the player.[126] In September 2020, the government implemented its own name-based authentication system to be made available to all companies to uphold these laws.[1]
So China is quite serious about it, even going as far as tying playtime to their national id system (which westerners are probably going to balk at), and imposing limits to micro-transactions for underage players (which, I think, is actually a good thing). It's interesting that eyesight issues are also brought up as a rationale (especially considering the school cramming culture there). Kind of a mixed bag IMHO, but alas, what'd you expect from mass-implemented regulations?
[0][1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_in_China#Governmen....
> China has sought to deal with addiction to video games by its youth by enacting regulations to be implemented by video game publishers aimed to limit consecutive play time particularly for children. As early as 2005 China's Ministry of Culture has enacted several public health efforts to address gaming and internet related disorders. One of the first systems required by the government was launched in 2005 to regulate adolescents' Internet use, including limiting daily gaming time to 3 hours and requiring users' identification in online video games. In 2007, an "Online Game Anti-Addiction System" was implemented for minors, restricting their use to 3 hours or less per day. The ministry also proposed a "Comprehensive Prevention Program Plan for Minors’ Online Gaming Addiction" in 2013, to promulgate research, particularly on diagnostic methods and interventions. China's Ministry of Education in 2018 announced that new regulations would be introduced to further limit the amount of time spent by minors in online games. While these regulations were not immediately binding, most large Chinese publishers took steps to implement the required features. For example, Tencent restricted the amount of time that children could spend playing one of its online games, to one hour per day for children 12 and under, and two hours per day for children aged 13-18. This is facilitated by tracking players via their state-issued identification numbers. This has put some pressure on Western companies that publish via partners in China on how to apply these new anti-addiction requirements into their games, as outside of China, tracking younger players frequently raises privacy concerns. Specialized versions of games, developed by the Chinese partner, have been made to meet these requirements without affecting the rest of the world; Riot Games let its China-based studio implement the requirements into League of Legends for specialized release in China.
> A new law enacted in November 2019 limits children under 18 to less than 90 minutes of playing video games on weekdays and three hours on weekends, with no video game playing allowed between 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. These are set by requiring game publishers to enforce these limits based on user logins. Additionally, the law limits how much any player can spend on microtransactions, ranging from about $28 to $57 per month depending on the age of the player.[126] In September 2020, the government implemented its own name-based authentication system to be made available to all companies to uphold these laws.[1]
So China is quite serious about it, even going as far as tying playtime to their national id system (which westerners are probably going to balk at), and imposing limits to micro-transactions for underage players (which, I think, is actually a good thing). It's interesting that eyesight issues are also brought up as a rationale (especially considering the school cramming culture there). Kind of a mixed bag IMHO, but alas, what'd you expect from mass-implemented regulations?
[0][1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_in_China#Governmen....
And as always, kids will find a way to circumvent restrictions no matter how the state will try to enforce. South Korea is a prime example of this - they had a law starting from 2011 where kids can't play online games after midnight. After the enactment of the law kids began to use other people's IDs (parents, older friends, ...) either by persuation or resorting to more "sneaky" methods, making the whole thing kinda pointless. The law was eventually abolished a few days ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_law
From the perpsective of someone who doesn't know too much details, China's ability to nope its way out of the social excesses of liberal capitalism is somewhat amazing here.
I'm guessing they took a look at Korea and Japan's well-known issues with young men isolating themselves enabled by the high availability of online gaming and said "nah". Both of those countries are also experiencing widening gaps in hetero gender relations whereby there's a big issue with how many people are unmarried past their 30s into middle-age, and I imagine the CCP is not interested in either unregulated population controls or having to erect infrastructure to cater to elderly and middle-aged single people as is already happening in Korea. Also related to the notion that the real estate game is nominally designed to accomodate single people graduating from apartments to houses as married couples.
I'm guessing they took a look at Korea and Japan's well-known issues with young men isolating themselves enabled by the high availability of online gaming and said "nah". Both of those countries are also experiencing widening gaps in hetero gender relations whereby there's a big issue with how many people are unmarried past their 30s into middle-age, and I imagine the CCP is not interested in either unregulated population controls or having to erect infrastructure to cater to elderly and middle-aged single people as is already happening in Korea. Also related to the notion that the real estate game is nominally designed to accomodate single people graduating from apartments to houses as married couples.
I can see what problem they are trying to avoid, but this is treating symptoms and not problems. Why do so many young men in Japan and Korea (and heck, the West too although to a lesser degree) retreat from society into <insert vice here>? Narrow culture ideas of what "success" is, and personal relationships being dependent on reaching that definition of "success"? Lack of meaning found in career? Inability to find meaning in things outside of your career because there is no work-life balance?
Video games are just a popular form of escapism. Limiting access will just drive people to other forms of escapism (potentially more dangerous ones) unless these underlying issues are solved.
Video games are just a popular form of escapism. Limiting access will just drive people to other forms of escapism (potentially more dangerous ones) unless these underlying issues are solved.
You could argue that recent Chinese crackdowns on bad working conditions and excessive cram schools do part of that. I agree it's nowhere near enough.
it does look like a very small part of their attempt to solve the looming demographics crisis - to get men out of their caves and have them start families.
Suicide might raise in China if school is not entertaining enough.
I think I am on board with this decision unless said the game is actually educational. Otherwise we have some students spending all the time shooting monsters and having bad health and lots of other problems as a result.
Great, now they will finally have time for social media.
It amusing how people are justifying playing video games. Backward rationalization is amazing. If parents are defending it, I guess apple is not going to fall away from the tree, is it?
My question is: how will this be enforced?
Realistically, how will this be enforced?
Facial recognition: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/9/22567029/tencent-china-fac...
I have an idea for Footloose 3: Pacman
This comment thread is a really interesting instance of a social phenomenon that happens in forums.
The overwhelming majority of comments here are both:
1. Partially or fully supportive of this policy.
2. Downvoted to grey.
There seem to be two ways people are engaging with this topic:
1. Writing a nuanced comment about how this is probably good for children or well meaning (to be downvoted by most readers).
2. Upvoting the handful of comments that point out how this is obviously a terrible overreach (but not writing as much in a comment because it has already been said).
Because those with an unpopular opinion have so much more to express, those perspectives generate the most comments and the fewest upvotes/most downvotes.
This phenomenon tends to make it seem like a minority opinion is held by the majority present.
The overwhelming majority of comments here are both:
1. Partially or fully supportive of this policy.
2. Downvoted to grey.
There seem to be two ways people are engaging with this topic:
1. Writing a nuanced comment about how this is probably good for children or well meaning (to be downvoted by most readers).
2. Upvoting the handful of comments that point out how this is obviously a terrible overreach (but not writing as much in a comment because it has already been said).
Because those with an unpopular opinion have so much more to express, those perspectives generate the most comments and the fewest upvotes/most downvotes.
This phenomenon tends to make it seem like a minority opinion is held by the majority present.
That's not how the thread turned out in general. It's a good idea to wait and see how things develop. The earliest comments usually are not representative of community opinion.
The thread may have more comments now, but the top ones are all still the same.
The top comment is still, "I have mixed feelings about this" and totally lumps together all "modern games" as the toxic problem this win-some-lose-some law might be "needed" for; and that's exactly the facade of nuance I'm complaining about.
Just because a law is intended to fix a real problem doesn't mean we need to prop up devil's advocate on stilts to balance it against criticism.
A government forcing tens of millions of children to log in to a centralized database to make sure they only play video games during a specific perscripted three hours/week is prima facie insane. Leading discussion about it with "mixed feelings" is utterly disingenuous and unrepresentative.
The top comment is still, "I have mixed feelings about this" and totally lumps together all "modern games" as the toxic problem this win-some-lose-some law might be "needed" for; and that's exactly the facade of nuance I'm complaining about.
Just because a law is intended to fix a real problem doesn't mean we need to prop up devil's advocate on stilts to balance it against criticism.
A government forcing tens of millions of children to log in to a centralized database to make sure they only play video games during a specific perscripted three hours/week is prima facie insane. Leading discussion about it with "mixed feelings" is utterly disingenuous and unrepresentative.
Glad I don’t live in China
[deleted]
China being bat shit crazy in their favorite authoritarian dystopian way as usual. Maybe they should ban the literal slavery and genocide that they do against the Uyghurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide, but oh wait they do that on purpose for political reasons so that wont happen. People in this thread are giving China way too much leeway.
If they cared so much about people not wasting their time maybe they shouldn't have forced thousands of people to become athletes solely for the Olympics and when they inevitably fail to become pro and they don't have any education because they spent their entire life sheltered training so they now have to beg on the street for handouts, that seems like a waste of time.
China is just North Korea in different clothes and with the long term aspirations of Nazi Germany during WWII. China will be the next catalyst for the next major war, they are pretty much that aggressive.
If they cared so much about people not wasting their time maybe they shouldn't have forced thousands of people to become athletes solely for the Olympics and when they inevitably fail to become pro and they don't have any education because they spent their entire life sheltered training so they now have to beg on the street for handouts, that seems like a waste of time.
China is just North Korea in different clothes and with the long term aspirations of Nazi Germany during WWII. China will be the next catalyst for the next major war, they are pretty much that aggressive.
How is that enforced?
Soon to be law in your nearest Democrat city
I don’t understand why there is such an outrage about this. I bet most of the HN crowd supports vaccine requirements to even buy groceries, always using the argument that is to protect everyone. Well the Chinese gov has determined that people being addicted to games is a threat to their society as a whole so they decided to restrict them. I’m sure you could even get some doctors to do publish some papers about how the games are really affecting these kids, that way you have the “Science” blessing.
Good luck enforcing this...
Good.
Some of the things Xi is doing is making me happy.
I'm with him on this, gambling, and even flapping a few billionaire's egos/finances.
I'm with him on this, gambling, and even flapping a few billionaire's egos/finances.
I am appalled by all the supportive comments in this thread. Why are HN users so comfortable with authoritarian government?
It’s about more than just online games. It’s about control.
I’m sure the great firewall is perfectly fine as well?
It’s about more than just online games. It’s about control.
I’m sure the great firewall is perfectly fine as well?
I have a feeling that there is a bit of subtle manipulation by the framing going on here. The current Reuters article title that I get is "Three hours a week: Play time's over for China's young video gamers", but the submission's title is "China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week". This conjures images of Chinese police raiding homes and punishing children or parents who are caught gaming too long.
But getting closer to the source (http://www.news.cn/english/2021-08/30/c_1310157673.htm), the regulation appears to be exclusively targetting the amount of on-line gaming services that companies are allowed to offer to minors. This doesn't any seem different in principle to various Western regulations attempting limit ads[1] or pornography[2] to children. Granted, some people in the West also consider these as examples authoritarian government overreach. But my guess is that a some people's reactions are driven substantially by the specific story framing (and of course, China), more than by principled reasoning.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulations_on_children%27s_te...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
But getting closer to the source (http://www.news.cn/english/2021-08/30/c_1310157673.htm), the regulation appears to be exclusively targetting the amount of on-line gaming services that companies are allowed to offer to minors. This doesn't any seem different in principle to various Western regulations attempting limit ads[1] or pornography[2] to children. Granted, some people in the West also consider these as examples authoritarian government overreach. But my guess is that a some people's reactions are driven substantially by the specific story framing (and of course, China), more than by principled reasoning.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulations_on_children%27s_te...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
It's not just limiting to three hours a week, but to three particular hours a week. Feels even more Draconian to me.
Imagine the thundering herd problems you experience when all of your users have the same three hour time slots.
I worked at an ed-tech company for a few years. 80%+ of our traffic came on line in a 2-ish hour every morning. Additionally, because most schools have similar summer break schedules, we'd have this crazy ramp up in August and September where out daily active users would 10x in a little over two weeks.
It was actually a pretty unique challenge that had some weird trade-offs.
For example, when do you release new code? You've got this nice window at the end of each day when traffic is super low, so any issues with the release will affect a minimal amount of users, but on the other hand, if you release at the end of the day, you don't really know if your code works at scale until the next morning.
Similarly, what do you do during the summer period? You've got a couple quiet months in where almost no one is online where you can kind of swing for the fences in terms of changes, but at the same time, you won't really know whether it handle the full load of the customer base until September.
Sure there's things like load testing (which we did), but theres no way to truly predict how your customers will use your product. We had a really solid engineering team and ended up coming up with processes to handle a lot of these problems, but still, it was something that I hadn't dealt with before and I found pretty interesting.
It was actually a pretty unique challenge that had some weird trade-offs.
For example, when do you release new code? You've got this nice window at the end of each day when traffic is super low, so any issues with the release will affect a minimal amount of users, but on the other hand, if you release at the end of the day, you don't really know if your code works at scale until the next morning.
Similarly, what do you do during the summer period? You've got a couple quiet months in where almost no one is online where you can kind of swing for the fences in terms of changes, but at the same time, you won't really know whether it handle the full load of the customer base until September.
Sure there's things like load testing (which we did), but theres no way to truly predict how your customers will use your product. We had a really solid engineering team and ended up coming up with processes to handle a lot of these problems, but still, it was something that I hadn't dealt with before and I found pretty interesting.
The thundering herd problem in distributed systems is an often unexpected failure mode. This is great, and easy to plan for. You'd save buckets of money because most capacity is used for spikes, and you now have a good idea of when spikes occur.
Every Monday, an hour after school, scale up 5x, because the timer has reset for students. Scale down from Wednesday to Friday. Scale up 2x over the weekends.
Or whatever your data tells you.
Every Monday, an hour after school, scale up 5x, because the timer has reset for students. Scale down from Wednesday to Friday. Scale up 2x over the weekends.
Or whatever your data tells you.
I'd like this to be honest (from an infrastructure point of view). If the time is known for an influx of traffic I can prepare for that.
I currently look after a system which gets random spikes of traffic thats critical to serve. Which means I more or less need to run a huge amount of redundant servers 24 hours a day incase there is a spike at 2am.
We have horizontal scaling but our traffic has little lead time.
I currently look after a system which gets random spikes of traffic thats critical to serve. Which means I more or less need to run a huge amount of redundant servers 24 hours a day incase there is a spike at 2am.
We have horizontal scaling but our traffic has little lead time.
"Limiting advertisements" seems awfully different than "limiting minor's access to gaming servers to 3 specific hours in a week".
Yep, the policy itself isn't necessarily an issue, but the fact that it's being imposed by the government is a huge problem. (Especially since it's not even a democratically elected government. Taxation without representation and all that.) If a parent instituted the exact same policy for their kids I would have no problem with that.
If it were imposed by a democratically elected government, would it still be a problem?
How would that even happen? A Democratic society that votes for that and whose courts uphold that would be a very different kind of Democracy. I can't even conceive of it.
That feels like a loaded question because something like that simply would never pass in a Democracy.
That feels like a loaded question because something like that simply would never pass in a Democracy.
Yes but a smaller one
The correct answer is no, it'd still be a massive problem
Please reread what the question was and what I said. You have the question backwards.
Yes, in my opinion. If a law like this were passed in the United States I'd be vocally campaigning to get the law repealed and the people who voted for it replaced in the next election. Sadly, the Chinese people don't have that option, which only makes the situation that much worse.
Do you vocally campaign to repeal the law that bans under 18s from consuming alcohol and cigarettes?
Do you vocally campaign to repeal the law that prevents you buying and using asbestos in their buildings?
Do you vocally campaign to repeal the law that prevents you from buying and owning an anti-aircraft missile system?
Our democracies have plenty of laws about things we're not allowed to do. Some of them are for our own good, some are for the overall good of society.
Do you vocally campaign to repeal the law that prevents you buying and using asbestos in their buildings?
Do you vocally campaign to repeal the law that prevents you from buying and owning an anti-aircraft missile system?
Our democracies have plenty of laws about things we're not allowed to do. Some of them are for our own good, some are for the overall good of society.
And there's no definitive evidence that playing any video game for more than 3 hours a week is in conflict with our good or the good of the society.
Not all regulations are born equal and some of them are definitely not worth fighting against.
Not all regulations are born equal and some of them are definitely not worth fighting against.
> And there's no definitive evidence that playing any video game for more than 3 hours a week is in conflict with our good or the good of the society
I agree, though definitive evidence is clearly *not* the threshold for when laws to protect us are or are not created.
For example, there is a mountain of evidence that smoking is exceptionally bad for adults, but there's no law against it. I could smoke 20 packets a day from now on. I could even drink 10 bottles of vodka a day perfectly legally.
I agree, though definitive evidence is clearly *not* the threshold for when laws to protect us are or are not created.
For example, there is a mountain of evidence that smoking is exceptionally bad for adults, but there's no law against it. I could smoke 20 packets a day from now on. I could even drink 10 bottles of vodka a day perfectly legally.
One of the most interesting things about China related discussions is the flood of people who will arrive and post points/arguments with various levels of false equivalency with "western" law/practise/etc. _Not_ that you are doing that, maybe, but thats one of the challenges in these conversations, who is being genuine and who is not?
China _is_ authoritarian, denying that is ridiculous. The CCP creates laws that individually or in part can benefit its populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests.
That democracies have corruption or vested interests (whether "positively" motivated or not) influencing laws does not make the process or the results equivalent.
China _is_ authoritarian, denying that is ridiculous. The CCP creates laws that individually or in part can benefit its populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests.
That democracies have corruption or vested interests (whether "positively" motivated or not) influencing laws does not make the process or the results equivalent.
I 100% believe that it's coordinated gov shills. I cannot fathom that our worldviews live in such insanely different realities.
Maybe I'm the delusional one.
but given the many many reports on CCPs active propaganda and controlling of media/online content (hell the whole point of this discussion) gives me plenty of evidence to support large-scale coordinated govt propaganda tools, if not here, definitely elsewhere.
Maybe I'm the delusional one.
but given the many many reports on CCPs active propaganda and controlling of media/online content (hell the whole point of this discussion) gives me plenty of evidence to support large-scale coordinated govt propaganda tools, if not here, definitely elsewhere.
Annnd -4, and -1 on another comment that I don't think even is controversial, and aligns with views that most on HN typically hold on speech.
> who is being genuine and who is not
Does it matter? Judge the idea, not the person behind it I say. If the argument is not worthy to stand, it will fall.
> That democracies have corruption
But it's not corruption. That's the issue.
"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy" [1]
That's not corruption. If America was a true democracy, the country would look completely different.
> The CCP creates laws that individually or in part can benefit its populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests.
It doesn't seem like that from the outside. Looking in, it seems like the CCP has successfully pulled an astronomical amount of people out of poverty and increasing QoL insanely, all while maintaining public legitimacy.
Honestly, all it seems like, is that America drunk the cool aid too much and now believes so hard in it's own propaganda that it looks like brainwashing, while the reality is utterly different.
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america...
Does it matter? Judge the idea, not the person behind it I say. If the argument is not worthy to stand, it will fall.
> That democracies have corruption
But it's not corruption. That's the issue.
"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy" [1]
That's not corruption. If America was a true democracy, the country would look completely different.
> The CCP creates laws that individually or in part can benefit its populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests.
It doesn't seem like that from the outside. Looking in, it seems like the CCP has successfully pulled an astronomical amount of people out of poverty and increasing QoL insanely, all while maintaining public legitimacy.
Honestly, all it seems like, is that America drunk the cool aid too much and now believes so hard in it's own propaganda that it looks like brainwashing, while the reality is utterly different.
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america...
> Does it matter? Judge the idea, not the person behind it I say. If the argument is not worthy to stand, it will fall.
Of course it matters, what a bizarre statement.
>> That democracies have corruption > But it's not corruption. That's the issue.
Either deliberately, though in-attention or personal need you, are mis-interpreting and or changing the subject.
> It doesn't seem like that from the outside. Looking in, it seems like the CCP has successfully pulled an > astronomical amount of people out of poverty and increasing QoL insanely, all while maintaining public ? > legitimacy.
There is no good way to assert that, but it's a pretty common refrain.
> Honestly, all it seems like, is that America drunk the cool aid too much and now believes so hard in it's > own propaganda that it looks like brainwashing, while the reality is utterly different.
I'm not American.
All this cycles round to what I was saying. You could just be an interested observer, passionate about seemingly connected ideas. Or you could be deliberately derailing, trying to muddy the waters. There's no good way to tell, but ultimately it still paints China in a bad light - eventually no one will believe anything.
Of course it matters, what a bizarre statement.
>> That democracies have corruption > But it's not corruption. That's the issue.
Either deliberately, though in-attention or personal need you, are mis-interpreting and or changing the subject.
> It doesn't seem like that from the outside. Looking in, it seems like the CCP has successfully pulled an > astronomical amount of people out of poverty and increasing QoL insanely, all while maintaining public ? > legitimacy.
There is no good way to assert that, but it's a pretty common refrain.
> Honestly, all it seems like, is that America drunk the cool aid too much and now believes so hard in it's > own propaganda that it looks like brainwashing, while the reality is utterly different.
I'm not American.
All this cycles round to what I was saying. You could just be an interested observer, passionate about seemingly connected ideas. Or you could be deliberately derailing, trying to muddy the waters. There's no good way to tell, but ultimately it still paints China in a bad light - eventually no one will believe anything.
> Of course it matters, what a bizarre statement.
Why? Please elaborate.
As the person you replied to said, I feel that ideas should be judged on their merit, not on who came up with them. Plenty of "bad" people have good ideas and visa versa.
Why? Please elaborate.
As the person you replied to said, I feel that ideas should be judged on their merit, not on who came up with them. Plenty of "bad" people have good ideas and visa versa.
Sure.. but what I asked was who was being genuine, not whether exclusively ideas should be judged on their own merit, it was the other poster who pivoted what I said in that way. Similar to the way the poster below changed "making some rules that benefit themselves" to "its not possible to be successful if laws just benefit themselves" - which is not what I said.
It's a pretty typical tactic - but whether it was done because they want to boost the CCP or wether they just aren't good or careless at understanding or expressing themselves? I don't know.
Being genuine; the field of human interaction isn't some philosophical paper; if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again - not evaluating each thing they say on its merits is a rational choice.
If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.
It's a pretty typical tactic - but whether it was done because they want to boost the CCP or wether they just aren't good or careless at understanding or expressing themselves? I don't know.
Being genuine; the field of human interaction isn't some philosophical paper; if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again - not evaluating each thing they say on its merits is a rational choice.
If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.
> Sure.. but what I asked was who was being genuine, not whether exclusively ideas should be judged on their own merit, it was the other poster who pivoted what I said in that way. Similar to the way the poster below changed "making some rules that benefit themselves" to "its not possible to be successful if laws just benefit themselves" - which is not what I said.
For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.
What does the "genuine-ness" of the other person matter in terms of whether the idea should be judged on it's own merit or not. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it, regardless of whether the other person is being genuine or not genuine.
> "making some rules that benefit themselves"
You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.
Considering that in 1990, China had 750 million people under the poverty line and in 2016 (latest World Bank figures I could find with a quick google search) that number is 7.2m million. Clearly, the policies aren't entirely aimed at benefiting CCP with slight citizen benefit as a secondary thought. Or else maybe the CCP's incentives are very very well aligned with lifting people out of poverty.
> It's a pretty typical tactic
I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.
> if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again
but you don't know it's your cousin online talking to you. Therefore, what happens is that anyone who speaks against your preconceived notions must be working for the shadowy government to spread "propaganda".
> If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.
and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.
For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.
What does the "genuine-ness" of the other person matter in terms of whether the idea should be judged on it's own merit or not. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it, regardless of whether the other person is being genuine or not genuine.
> "making some rules that benefit themselves"
You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.
Considering that in 1990, China had 750 million people under the poverty line and in 2016 (latest World Bank figures I could find with a quick google search) that number is 7.2m million. Clearly, the policies aren't entirely aimed at benefiting CCP with slight citizen benefit as a secondary thought. Or else maybe the CCP's incentives are very very well aligned with lifting people out of poverty.
> It's a pretty typical tactic
I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.
> if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again
but you don't know it's your cousin online talking to you. Therefore, what happens is that anyone who speaks against your preconceived notions must be working for the shadowy government to spread "propaganda".
> If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.
and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.
>For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of >the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.
But it does, don't agree? OK.
>You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro >cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's >more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.
Much more accurate, but still not what the other poster claimed I was saying.
>I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is >a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.
That is bad, because it is a low-trust environment - deliberately so.
> and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.
That's your thoughts, not mine, but maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters, all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt. Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.
But it does, don't agree? OK.
>You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro >cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's >more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.
Much more accurate, but still not what the other poster claimed I was saying.
>I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is >a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.
That is bad, because it is a low-trust environment - deliberately so.
> and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.
That's your thoughts, not mine, but maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters, all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt. Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.
> Either deliberately, though in-attention or personal need you, are mis-interpreting and or changing the subject.
I don't think I was doing either. If I was, please explain what exactly you were saying and what I mis-interpreted.
My understanding is this:
1. China is authoritarian. 2. They make laws that benefit themselves (i.e. CCP) without care for the populace (populace benefit is secondary) 3. Democracy is corrupt. 4. However, even if corrupt, it's better since it is not equal to China's system where the laws are made mostly out of interest for the CCP.
This was my interpretation.
However, as I said, the evidence is the other way around.
1. China is authoritarian -> Sure.
2. They make laws that benefit themselvse ahead of the populace.
Poverty in 1990 -> 750 million. Poverty in 2016 -> 7.2 million. That's World Bank figures. Not China figures. Clearly, either they had policies actually aimed at benefiting the populace or the laws that benefit CCP also align extremely well with the populace. In which case, we should learn from them since aligning incentives for politicians and populace is a pretty insane trick.
3. Democracy is corrupt.
Democracy is not just corrupt. It is corrupt in a way that makes the voice of the citizen entirely useless. Democracy does not represent your views if you live in America at least.
4. However, even if corrupt, it's better since it is not equal to China's system where the laws are made mostly out of interest for the CCP.
Economic elites and the organized interest groups group control America. Not the average person.
> There is no good way to assert that, but it's a pretty common refrain.
What? World Bank figures should that China has pulled massive amounts of people out of poverty, and increased their Quality of Life. Public Legitimacy seems clear since there aren't mass protests (Hong Kong showed that it is certainly possible).
Forget that. Just fly to Beijing. It's arguably more modern than most Western cities and talking to people will show you how their lives have changed. I genuinely don't understand how you're denying the economic miracle that the CCP has engineered.
> You could just be an interested observer, passionate about seemingly connected ideas. Or you could be deliberately derailing, trying to muddy the waters.
I am the first one. I don't understand how I derailed? Or how you thought that happened? Either you entirely misunderstood me, or just have no interest in actually talking about the discussion?
> There's no good way to tell, but ultimately it still paints China in a bad light - eventually no one will believe anything.
I mean, again, you can literally dismiss every argument that goes against your preconceived notions and pretend that the other is a shill but that's a very weird way to live in my opinion. It's more better to actually critically analyse what the other says and break it down or agree with them.
If your goal is to see China in a bad light, it doesn't matter what I say. You will see them that way.
This is what I meant by drinking the Kool_Aid too much. (Not limited to Americans but the entire Western sphere)
I don't think I was doing either. If I was, please explain what exactly you were saying and what I mis-interpreted.
My understanding is this:
1. China is authoritarian. 2. They make laws that benefit themselves (i.e. CCP) without care for the populace (populace benefit is secondary) 3. Democracy is corrupt. 4. However, even if corrupt, it's better since it is not equal to China's system where the laws are made mostly out of interest for the CCP.
This was my interpretation.
However, as I said, the evidence is the other way around.
1. China is authoritarian -> Sure.
2. They make laws that benefit themselvse ahead of the populace.
Poverty in 1990 -> 750 million. Poverty in 2016 -> 7.2 million. That's World Bank figures. Not China figures. Clearly, either they had policies actually aimed at benefiting the populace or the laws that benefit CCP also align extremely well with the populace. In which case, we should learn from them since aligning incentives for politicians and populace is a pretty insane trick.
3. Democracy is corrupt.
Democracy is not just corrupt. It is corrupt in a way that makes the voice of the citizen entirely useless. Democracy does not represent your views if you live in America at least.
4. However, even if corrupt, it's better since it is not equal to China's system where the laws are made mostly out of interest for the CCP.
Economic elites and the organized interest groups group control America. Not the average person.
> There is no good way to assert that, but it's a pretty common refrain.
What? World Bank figures should that China has pulled massive amounts of people out of poverty, and increased their Quality of Life. Public Legitimacy seems clear since there aren't mass protests (Hong Kong showed that it is certainly possible).
Forget that. Just fly to Beijing. It's arguably more modern than most Western cities and talking to people will show you how their lives have changed. I genuinely don't understand how you're denying the economic miracle that the CCP has engineered.
> You could just be an interested observer, passionate about seemingly connected ideas. Or you could be deliberately derailing, trying to muddy the waters.
I am the first one. I don't understand how I derailed? Or how you thought that happened? Either you entirely misunderstood me, or just have no interest in actually talking about the discussion?
> There's no good way to tell, but ultimately it still paints China in a bad light - eventually no one will believe anything.
I mean, again, you can literally dismiss every argument that goes against your preconceived notions and pretend that the other is a shill but that's a very weird way to live in my opinion. It's more better to actually critically analyse what the other says and break it down or agree with them.
If your goal is to see China in a bad light, it doesn't matter what I say. You will see them that way.
This is what I meant by drinking the Kool_Aid too much. (Not limited to Americans but the entire Western sphere)
"are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests."
Come on. That's just false. You can't operate a country successfully at China's size by making law just to benefit the cadre / personal interests.
Don't get started by advocating that benefiting the people is just a way to benefit to cadre. It's infalsifiable and just pointless.
Come on. That's just false. You can't operate a country successfully at China's size by making law just to benefit the cadre / personal interests.
Don't get started by advocating that benefiting the people is just a way to benefit to cadre. It's infalsifiable and just pointless.
I'm placing my bet on the fact that vast majority of Chinese people probably support this, and that's fair.
If only there were some political system by which we could find out if this were true.
73% of Chinese people consider their government to be democratic. Only 49% of Americans said the same of their government.
The Chinese Communist Party is seen as a meritocracy within China, which draws on an ancient tradition of bureaucracy. It's hard for Americans to understand.
[1]: https://twitter.com/bopinion/status/1281853054078386181?lang...
The Chinese Communist Party is seen as a meritocracy within China, which draws on an ancient tradition of bureaucracy. It's hard for Americans to understand.
[1]: https://twitter.com/bopinion/status/1281853054078386181?lang...
I don’t mean this to disagree, it’s a genuine question: to what degree can one really conduct a public poll about the relative merit of the Chinese government within China? In the US, there’s no credible argument (or at least no widespread belief) that saying bad things about the government to a pollster will get you incarcerated; as an outsider, I don’t know that the same is true in China.
It sounds like any bad reports you hear come out of China is evidence that China is bad, and any good reports you hear come out of China is evidence that China is lying or has brainwashed its population. That's a pretty flawed epistemology in my opinion.
Trying to figure out truth or fiction from China is complicated by the CCP's direct censorship/influence.
Good news comes almost direct from CCP. Bad news is from anywhere-but-CCP.
Neither good/bad news can be judged as 100% true or false but the "CCP influence" means I have to use a fudge factor that decreases the trustworthiness of good news in comparison to bad news.
It doesn't outright invalidate "good news" but it introduces a significant element of doubt.
Good news comes almost direct from CCP. Bad news is from anywhere-but-CCP.
Neither good/bad news can be judged as 100% true or false but the "CCP influence" means I have to use a fudge factor that decreases the trustworthiness of good news in comparison to bad news.
It doesn't outright invalidate "good news" but it introduces a significant element of doubt.
I don’t believe that’s what I said or what I asked.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Would any government risk to antagonize its future voters like this? I imagine teenagers hit by such regulations would remember who made these decisions and vote appropriately.
I feel like the last year of 'quarantine' for most of the Western world has made people more comfortable with authoritarian governments and actions. It's rather alarming how widespread and quickly this change in ideology has happened.
I don't even know where people are coming from any more.
Like literally everyone else in tech who knows how the sausage gets made, I'm appalled by the teams of Ph.Ds which exist solely to exploit the dopamine response of children. However, it never would have ever crossed my mind to jump from "here's a particular problem" to "the government should control how much of a specific activity your child can do at home"
Like literally everyone else in tech who knows how the sausage gets made, I'm appalled by the teams of Ph.Ds which exist solely to exploit the dopamine response of children. However, it never would have ever crossed my mind to jump from "here's a particular problem" to "the government should control how much of a specific activity your child can do at home"
There are all sorts of things governments express control over, even at home.
The obvious scenarios are alcohol, nicotine & drugs. As a parent of young children, there are addition parallels between Minecraft / Roblox / Alcohol / Cigarettes.
To a real degree, more effort is put into making gaming deliberately additive - although flavored vaping (bubble gum, cotton candy, etc) would like to enter the conversation.
The obvious scenarios are alcohol, nicotine & drugs. As a parent of young children, there are addition parallels between Minecraft / Roblox / Alcohol / Cigarettes.
To a real degree, more effort is put into making gaming deliberately additive - although flavored vaping (bubble gum, cotton candy, etc) would like to enter the conversation.
the US has imposed many rules on the manufacturers and distributors of addictive substances as well (banning flavored vapes, marketing towards children), I think it would be much more constructive to impose some regulation on how games are made, and how they are pushed rather than the behavior of children.
I don't know if we're coming at it from the same angle if we're lumping Minecraft in with alcohol and cigarettes. To your initial point, though, just because the government currently expresses control is not actually an argument that they should continue to do so or be granted additional powers to do more. Because it's normal, doesn't mean it's correct.
Flavored vaping products are for sure bad. I'll happily give you that. I'll also give you sugar, processed food, alcohol, cigarettes, McDonalds, and a near never ending supply of things we regularly consume (food, entertainment, or other).
I wouldn't petition the government to control access to any of them. I tend to trust the millions of individual personal (or parental) decisions over the long haul more than I do centrally planned, top-down mandates.
Flavored vaping products are for sure bad. I'll happily give you that. I'll also give you sugar, processed food, alcohol, cigarettes, McDonalds, and a near never ending supply of things we regularly consume (food, entertainment, or other).
I wouldn't petition the government to control access to any of them. I tend to trust the millions of individual personal (or parental) decisions over the long haul more than I do centrally planned, top-down mandates.
Videogame addiction probably stunted my childhood development as much as drugs would have, so I can see where the Chinese government is coming from if it's from an addiction perspective.
[deleted]
> I don't know if we're coming at it from the same angle if we're lumping Minecraft in with alcohol and cigarettes.
My belief is that's a reasonable debate with very valid points on both sides. At a personal level, kids 2-12 are Addicted to games (Minecraft, Roblox, etc). Taking the games away has the same impact as taking away narcotics from an addict.
The unregulated ability of these platforms to target children (and they do), seems very analogous to pre-regulated cigarettes, drug, and alcohol marketing.
I wager more psychological studies are done on driving MAU, rapid viral adoption, and upping Click Through Rates than were done for nicotine.
My belief is that's a reasonable debate with very valid points on both sides. At a personal level, kids 2-12 are Addicted to games (Minecraft, Roblox, etc). Taking the games away has the same impact as taking away narcotics from an addict.
The unregulated ability of these platforms to target children (and they do), seems very analogous to pre-regulated cigarettes, drug, and alcohol marketing.
I wager more psychological studies are done on driving MAU, rapid viral adoption, and upping Click Through Rates than were done for nicotine.
What makes you think adults don't like flavored liquids?
Seems insane to suggest that adults would prefer the taste of ashtray over apple or orange (I like fruity aromas). I mostly vape without flavoring nowadays because I'm lazy, but I just don't get the mindset. Adults like sugar, sweets, lemonade and all that stuff just as much as children do. Some seem to really like the taste of cigarettes, but I think for the most part people are just more comfortable to say "I like the taste" instead of "I'm addicted to nicotine", because inhaling burnt plant matter along with the diffused active agents and aromatic compounds generally isn't good for taste. Weed also tastes much better vaped.
Seems insane to suggest that adults would prefer the taste of ashtray over apple or orange (I like fruity aromas). I mostly vape without flavoring nowadays because I'm lazy, but I just don't get the mindset. Adults like sugar, sweets, lemonade and all that stuff just as much as children do. Some seem to really like the taste of cigarettes, but I think for the most part people are just more comfortable to say "I like the taste" instead of "I'm addicted to nicotine", because inhaling burnt plant matter along with the diffused active agents and aromatic compounds generally isn't good for taste. Weed also tastes much better vaped.
I think it's more a response to two decades of corporations having free rein to exploit kids (and adults honestly but I understand such a policy would be less palatable). We've known since forever that the only solution would be government intervention since the market will never correct a dopamine lever and just .. nothing happened because it's profitable.
It's honestly nice to see a not totally incompetent government try a novel policy with good intentions. It's welcome break from the firehose of our own government making policies that seem to only target the poor and minorities.
It's honestly nice to see a not totally incompetent government try a novel policy with good intentions. It's welcome break from the firehose of our own government making policies that seem to only target the poor and minorities.
You make it sound a lot more scientific than it is.
Seconded. It doesn’t take a team of PhD’s to run A/B testing on features and variations that improve lift. Tie performance bonuses to improved engagement and sales, and you can motivate many non doctorates to find novel ways to make things addictive.
Pretty sure Candy Crush has such a team of PhD's though. Not all games, but the big games definitely do.
You can read about it here from their own page:
https://careers.king.com/kingdom-news/data-at-king/
> That experiment is typical of how we learn from data at King. We have about 150 people working in data roles, out of a total workforce of 2,000. They come from a range of backgrounds. Many are from the games industry, of course, but we also bring in lots of recruits straight from university.
> These people will have just done their masters or PhD in a wide range of disciplines. Many of our team studied statistics, physics or computer science but we also have people who came from theoretical biology because work on DNA sequencing in that field has produced a lot of data-sophisticated people. Others are behavioural psychologists or behavioural economists.
Now in the specific example they choose to highlight they saw that making the game less frustrating made people spend more money. However if making the game more frustrating turned out to make more money since users bought more powerups then they absolutely would do it.
You can read about it here from their own page:
https://careers.king.com/kingdom-news/data-at-king/
> That experiment is typical of how we learn from data at King. We have about 150 people working in data roles, out of a total workforce of 2,000. They come from a range of backgrounds. Many are from the games industry, of course, but we also bring in lots of recruits straight from university.
> These people will have just done their masters or PhD in a wide range of disciplines. Many of our team studied statistics, physics or computer science but we also have people who came from theoretical biology because work on DNA sequencing in that field has produced a lot of data-sophisticated people. Others are behavioural psychologists or behavioural economists.
Now in the specific example they choose to highlight they saw that making the game less frustrating made people spend more money. However if making the game more frustrating turned out to make more money since users bought more powerups then they absolutely would do it.
None of that requires any special knowledge of the brains dopamine response
Australia seems to be rushing toward that future at an out of control pace.
My wife and I were actually considering moving there. We even started some
of the paperwork but after seeing the absurdity of their covid measures We have decided against it for now.
What about their covid measures put you off? When for so much of the pandemic they were seen as absolute world leaders and were living as normal when the rest of us were in lockdowns?
World leader in fining people thousands of dollars for the most benign reasons. Australians also can't leave their own country anymore.
Sorry to grave dig. This is more recent but, check out this quote... and tell me you want to live in this kind of society:
“ The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person. “We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,””
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...
“ The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person. “We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,””
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...
I can describe my own objection to international travel to restrictive countries:
Australia was a model for success, until a cab driver in Sydney contracted the delta variant. Much of the country is now in total lockdown, while the army patrols Sydney streets and daily COVID cases continue to rise exponentially, far exceeding any previous COVID outbreak in Australia. There is no ten billion dollar program to develop vaccines for new variants, no path to eradication, and no way out of the continuing crisis except to ignore it. Therefore, I expect that this situation of mandatory quarantines, mandatory vaccination proof, mandatory negative test result proof, and multiple new-variant outbreaks and lockdowns annually will continue until politically untenable, and I conclude that countries instituting hard lockdowns are not places where I want to live or travel, until they eventually reform.
Australia was a model for success, until a cab driver in Sydney contracted the delta variant. Much of the country is now in total lockdown, while the army patrols Sydney streets and daily COVID cases continue to rise exponentially, far exceeding any previous COVID outbreak in Australia. There is no ten billion dollar program to develop vaccines for new variants, no path to eradication, and no way out of the continuing crisis except to ignore it. Therefore, I expect that this situation of mandatory quarantines, mandatory vaccination proof, mandatory negative test result proof, and multiple new-variant outbreaks and lockdowns annually will continue until politically untenable, and I conclude that countries instituting hard lockdowns are not places where I want to live or travel, until they eventually reform.
Existing vaccines work pretty well against Delta.
Australia knows it can just... get vaccines right? They are sitting at 27.1% fully vaccinated vs 52% in the US. What's their excuse?
Australia knows it can just... get vaccines right? They are sitting at 27.1% fully vaccinated vs 52% in the US. What's their excuse?
>Australia knows it can just... get vaccines right? They are sitting at 27.1% fully vaccinated vs 52% in the US. What's their excuse?
The five key reasons that come to mind, after witnessing events unfold:
1. Sitting at a lower global priority on the vaccine purchase list for Pfizer due to very low case numbers.
2. Government deciding that the bulk of vaccines should be produced locally (likely due to a combination of sourcing being difficult, and for national security reasons). This inevitably means taking a bit longer to ramp production up.
3. The Australian Immunization Advisory Group declaring that the vaccine produced locally should be used on people aged 60+, while Pfizer would be the preferred vaccine for everyone else.
4. No vaccine injury scheme. If you are unlucky and get a rare blood clotting disorder, you have to wear the full treatment cost. And because of #3, you have to see a doctor and sign a waiver to get AstraZeneca. (This has since been relaxed now and does not have to be a doctor consultation. You can just sign the waiver at the point of vaccination)
5. Government not pushing as hard, as it in hindsight should have, to purchase more Pfizer. This is a difficult call for any government to have made at the start of the pandemic though and really ties back into #1. The locally produced vaccine would have easily covered the entire population, but the chance of blood clotting really did a number on this strategy.
The five key reasons that come to mind, after witnessing events unfold:
1. Sitting at a lower global priority on the vaccine purchase list for Pfizer due to very low case numbers.
2. Government deciding that the bulk of vaccines should be produced locally (likely due to a combination of sourcing being difficult, and for national security reasons). This inevitably means taking a bit longer to ramp production up.
3. The Australian Immunization Advisory Group declaring that the vaccine produced locally should be used on people aged 60+, while Pfizer would be the preferred vaccine for everyone else.
4. No vaccine injury scheme. If you are unlucky and get a rare blood clotting disorder, you have to wear the full treatment cost. And because of #3, you have to see a doctor and sign a waiver to get AstraZeneca. (This has since been relaxed now and does not have to be a doctor consultation. You can just sign the waiver at the point of vaccination)
5. Government not pushing as hard, as it in hindsight should have, to purchase more Pfizer. This is a difficult call for any government to have made at the start of the pandemic though and really ties back into #1. The locally produced vaccine would have easily covered the entire population, but the chance of blood clotting really did a number on this strategy.
> 4. No vaccine injury scheme. If you are unlucky and get a rare blood clotting disorder, you have to wear the full treatment cost. And because of #3, you have to see a doctor and sign a waiver to get AstraZeneca. (This has since been relaxed now and does not have to be a doctor consultation. You can just sign the waiver at the point of vaccination)
If I buy a car, there's a warranty on it. Why doesn't the government stand by what it's recommending people inject?
If I buy a car, there's a warranty on it. Why doesn't the government stand by what it's recommending people inject?
Good question, and Australia is pretty much the only developed nation to just not have a program at all.
> Australia knows it can just... get vaccines right? They are sitting at 27.1% fully vaccinated vs 52% in the US. What's their excuse?
Ahh. This one is good old pure utter incompetence plus possibly some good old corruption thrown in to the mix as well.
As much as a I understand, the gov decided not to buy Pfizer early in the pandemic since they could produce AstraZeneca plus an early vaccine candidate developed at University of Queensland at CSL (Australian BioTech company).
Instead of placing multiple orders with multiple providers, they put all their faith into CSL and it's trials.
Turns out, the vaccine at University of Queensland returned false positives of HIV cases. Stage 2/3 trials never occurred.
AstraZeneca later turned out to have side effects that quickly led to vaccine-hesitancy. By that time, Pfizer had supply issues since the US went full swing in to the vaccination drive.
There were some reports that the PM's mates were high up in CSL. I am not entirely sure of that bit but it doesn't seem unlikely.
Ahh. This one is good old pure utter incompetence plus possibly some good old corruption thrown in to the mix as well.
As much as a I understand, the gov decided not to buy Pfizer early in the pandemic since they could produce AstraZeneca plus an early vaccine candidate developed at University of Queensland at CSL (Australian BioTech company).
Instead of placing multiple orders with multiple providers, they put all their faith into CSL and it's trials.
Turns out, the vaccine at University of Queensland returned false positives of HIV cases. Stage 2/3 trials never occurred.
AstraZeneca later turned out to have side effects that quickly led to vaccine-hesitancy. By that time, Pfizer had supply issues since the US went full swing in to the vaccination drive.
There were some reports that the PM's mates were high up in CSL. I am not entirely sure of that bit but it doesn't seem unlikely.
That's an opinion from your filter bubble. Try get some info from conservative and libertarian sources. The results may shock you.
You're not kidding. Notice the language they're using and how the government is granting "new freedoms".
"From September 13, NSW residents that are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will be given new freedoms.
Residents of hotspots can leave home for an hour of recreation on top of their exercise hour, while people in other areas can meet five others outdoors.
Premier Gladys Berejiklian said the vaccination milestone of six million reached this week would allow for a small renewal in freedoms for residents with the jab."
https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1430707532134236163
"From September 13, NSW residents that are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will be given new freedoms.
Residents of hotspots can leave home for an hour of recreation on top of their exercise hour, while people in other areas can meet five others outdoors.
Premier Gladys Berejiklian said the vaccination milestone of six million reached this week would allow for a small renewal in freedoms for residents with the jab."
https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1430707532134236163
> how the government is granting "new freedoms".
Freedom is never granted, only earned.
Freedom is never granted, only earned.
This is comparing apples and oranges, frankly.
I would say in both cases it's the government exhibiting control over its citizens lives under the notion that it's for their own protection. I think everyone has a point at which government control becomes tyranny. For some it's lockdowns during a pandemic, for others it's time-limits on video games. Seems like all apples, to me.
Your kid playing videogames 12 hours a day has no impact on my life. You giving me Covid does. These situations are not the same and the complete lack of nuance on when government authority is good and needed, and when it is bad and harmful is...well, I don't have the word(s), perhaps disappointing.
I don't get the desire to see everything as black and white and boil everything problem down to a slippery slope fallacy.
I don't get the desire to see everything as black and white and boil everything problem down to a slippery slope fallacy.
One could absolutely argue that kids playing videogames 12h a day has an impact on your life, because if every kid spent their time that way, society would crumble in a generation because young people are choosing to play games instead of work.
The topic in question was whether Covid restrictions has made people more comfortable with other authoritarian measures which are implemented to benefit society as a whole. I actually think it's a very apt point and I'm surprised you don't see the connection.
The topic in question was whether Covid restrictions has made people more comfortable with other authoritarian measures which are implemented to benefit society as a whole. I actually think it's a very apt point and I'm surprised you don't see the connection.
Authoritarianism often comes with a good reason, in a moment of crisis, such as war, ethnic tensions, etc. The problem is getting rid of it once the crisis abates. Power tends to work on a ratchet.
If you are only looking for a cartoon villain and not, say, yourself, you might be caught flat footed when it arrives at your door.
If you are only looking for a cartoon villain and not, say, yourself, you might be caught flat footed when it arrives at your door.
Okay, but this example doesn't really apply here as we've already seen what relatively limited restrictions were imposed rolled back across states and localities to varying degrees. It doesn't have to be so dramatic.
Temporary and mild authoritarian measures during a once-in-a-century pandemic make complete sense, even to very libertarian people. The U.S. has a track record of such measures being temporary, such as the much more extreme measures taken during WW2.
Comparing this kind of thing to what China is doing is drawing a false equivalency. There is no legitimate comparison to be made.
Comparing this kind of thing to what China is doing is drawing a false equivalency. There is no legitimate comparison to be made.
I agree with you about China going beyond that.
But now would be a good time to roll back all the temporary 9/11 stuff, if there are any politicians wanting to see some trust lent to talk about 'temporary'. Hard to see a better occasion for it ever coming up, with the 20th anniversary in a couple weeks.
About the WW2 example, I was surprised how much was still on the books and even in continuing 'emergency' use, reading https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Leviathan-Critical-Government-...
But now would be a good time to roll back all the temporary 9/11 stuff, if there are any politicians wanting to see some trust lent to talk about 'temporary'. Hard to see a better occasion for it ever coming up, with the 20th anniversary in a couple weeks.
About the WW2 example, I was surprised how much was still on the books and even in continuing 'emergency' use, reading https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Leviathan-Critical-Government-...
A lot of laws stay on the books but are not employed. Many of them should be struck down and many would be if they were ever brought to court. Judges need cases to strike them down.
The U.S. legal system is by no means perfect but there are very few examples of real abuse that go unchecked for long periods. U.S. history is full of overreach that is curtailed relatively quickly, although it can go on for years at a time.
The Patriot Act was not renewed. Very little over the overreach inspired by 9/11 is still in place. Even mass surveillance has been curtailed and restricted to a large degree (although not enough by my estimation).
The U.S. legal system is by no means perfect but there are very few examples of real abuse that go unchecked for long periods. U.S. history is full of overreach that is curtailed relatively quickly, although it can go on for years at a time.
The Patriot Act was not renewed. Very little over the overreach inspired by 9/11 is still in place. Even mass surveillance has been curtailed and restricted to a large degree (although not enough by my estimation).
Airport security theater and ID mandates; the AUMF; mass domestic spying, extent unknown but normalized and unquestionably at a level 20th-C. Americans would consider completely unamerican. For a start.
I think it's status-quo bias to look at this picture and think the high-order bit is that yes, temporary emergency measures were temporary. In the bigger picture there are dozens of separate national emergencies getting repeatedly renewed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i....
I think it's status-quo bias to look at this picture and think the high-order bit is that yes, temporary emergency measures were temporary. In the bigger picture there are dozens of separate national emergencies getting repeatedly renewed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i....
I have lived in Mainland China and the West both equally long. What's happening in the West now is of course not exactly the same but it's absolutely comparable. There is a trend towards authoritarianism that did not even start with the pandemic, but it was a massive catalyst which suddenly made the problem much bigger. For many people in the system, this isn't apparent to them at all. Ask the average Chinese person and they will tell you nothing's wrong, things are going fine. They just restricted overseas travel and have stopped issuing passports in China. Many locals don't even know that because it wasn't reported much. Similarly, as someone who cares about civil rights, I notice that a lot of people in the West are not well informed about all the very concerning developments since the corona crisis. This goes to absurd levels like in Australia where the majority will tell you the government is handling things great, all the while protests are forbidden under threat of $5000 fines and jail time, people have been issued $1000 fines for talking to each other in public, parliament in Victoria is suspended, people get arrested for "illegaly" crossing state borders of their own country, etc...
No, the West isn't find. Mild tyranny isn't cool and how temporary these measures are is debated. If they actually were temporary, why is there no restriction for how long they can last? How much longer will it go? Nobody knows.
This is a loophole in our constitutions, they can use "emergency" situations to suspend civil rights indefinitely. This very same method has been used many times in history to establish dictatorships and totalitarian systems, so it's a very legitimate concern.
No, the West isn't find. Mild tyranny isn't cool and how temporary these measures are is debated. If they actually were temporary, why is there no restriction for how long they can last? How much longer will it go? Nobody knows.
This is a loophole in our constitutions, they can use "emergency" situations to suspend civil rights indefinitely. This very same method has been used many times in history to establish dictatorships and totalitarian systems, so it's a very legitimate concern.
This isn't a made up "emergency" being used as an excuse to get people to wear masks...
And the U.S. has a legal system unlike any other country, that has proven itself able to prevent long-standing and unjustified overreach. The Supreme Court is incredibly powerful and has the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, and has done so many times.
People should be concerned about this issue and pay close attention. But there is very little reason to be very concerned at all. These mask mandates, or even requiring vaccine proof, is not a cover story for a take over of the U.S.
These are extremely rational and justified, and even mild, measures being taken to address a very real and easily verified threat.
The U.S. is not Australia. No one's first amendment rights are being curtailed. Anything anyone wants to say is perfectly accessible to the public. No one is being fined.
And the U.S. is not China or a a banana republic and there's absolutely no evidence that we're in any danger of becoming like either.
And the U.S. has a legal system unlike any other country, that has proven itself able to prevent long-standing and unjustified overreach. The Supreme Court is incredibly powerful and has the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, and has done so many times.
People should be concerned about this issue and pay close attention. But there is very little reason to be very concerned at all. These mask mandates, or even requiring vaccine proof, is not a cover story for a take over of the U.S.
These are extremely rational and justified, and even mild, measures being taken to address a very real and easily verified threat.
The U.S. is not Australia. No one's first amendment rights are being curtailed. Anything anyone wants to say is perfectly accessible to the public. No one is being fined.
And the U.S. is not China or a a banana republic and there's absolutely no evidence that we're in any danger of becoming like either.
I'm surprised to see you getting hammered for this sentiment. I agree with you and with the parent comment.
Both things can be simultaneously true.
I think you've implicitly agreed that the pandemic countermeasures were authoritarian, and this thread is saying "authoritarian bad." But we all saw what happened to places that delayed or denied countermeasures. If authoritarian bad, then that questions whether non-authoritarian is actually good in this case.
Both things can be simultaneously true.
I think you've implicitly agreed that the pandemic countermeasures were authoritarian, and this thread is saying "authoritarian bad." But we all saw what happened to places that delayed or denied countermeasures. If authoritarian bad, then that questions whether non-authoritarian is actually good in this case.
The parent made a specific claim:
>"Temporary and mild authoritarian measures during a once-in-a-century pandemic make complete sense, even to very libertarian people. "
I have not seen any (even centrist) libertarians supporting these measures; having checked the most mainstream libertarian publication (Reason). Additionally, 'very libertarian people' are minarchists, who definitely don't support these measures.
Have you actually seen/heard 'very libertarian people' endorsing these measures? Is it possible that the parent is projecting their beliefs onto others?
>"Temporary and mild authoritarian measures during a once-in-a-century pandemic make complete sense, even to very libertarian people. "
I have not seen any (even centrist) libertarians supporting these measures; having checked the most mainstream libertarian publication (Reason). Additionally, 'very libertarian people' are minarchists, who definitely don't support these measures.
Have you actually seen/heard 'very libertarian people' endorsing these measures? Is it possible that the parent is projecting their beliefs onto others?
Libertarians? Sure, a few from my Twitter circle. Also pg comes to mind.
Very-libertarians? That’s a good point; I’m not sure I’ve seen any. But it’s hard to know who among us is very-libertarian except those who say so, which may be a small subset.
Very-libertarians? That’s a good point; I’m not sure I’ve seen any. But it’s hard to know who among us is very-libertarian except those who say so, which may be a small subset.
> Temporary
"Ahh, they fell for the temporary fallacy!"
"Ahh, they fell for the temporary fallacy!"
U.S. history is full of examples of temporary measures taken during emergencies. This isn't a conspiracy by Big Mask.
>even to very libertarian people
I'm not even "very" libertarian at all, yet I find the "temporary" (which is not so very temporary) and "mild" (which is not so very mild) authoritarian measures absolutely reprehensible.
Just saying something is a false equivalency doesn't make it so. Both instances have the government putting limits on your autonomy in unprecedented ways. The government is very boldly telling you what you can and cannot do and how much of it when allowed. I completely reject your characterization of totalitarianism as "mild" and "making complete sense."
I'm not even "very" libertarian at all, yet I find the "temporary" (which is not so very temporary) and "mild" (which is not so very mild) authoritarian measures absolutely reprehensible.
Just saying something is a false equivalency doesn't make it so. Both instances have the government putting limits on your autonomy in unprecedented ways. The government is very boldly telling you what you can and cannot do and how much of it when allowed. I completely reject your characterization of totalitarianism as "mild" and "making complete sense."
Which libertarians are you talking to? Every libertarian I've read or heard from has been against these "[t]emporary and mild authoritarian measures". The more popular libertarian publication/website, "Reason" has been against (all?) these measures.
Libertarians or libertarians? I know a half dozen people that are, what I consider, very libertarian (not Libertarian) personally that think its entirely reasonable.
Most Libertarians are extremist libertarians in my view.
Most Libertarians are extremist libertarians in my view.
Temporary? We're a year and a half in, with no end in sight. If the vaccines weren't the end game, there is no end game. Indefinite public health authoritarianism.
Mild? Australians can't travel more than 5km from their homes. For essential purposes only. Vaccinated Australians can only leave their homes for 2 hours a day (unvaxed 1 hour a day).
Mild? Australians can't travel more than 5km from their homes. For essential purposes only. Vaccinated Australians can only leave their homes for 2 hours a day (unvaxed 1 hour a day).
> If the vaccines weren't the end game, there is no end game.
Your argument is already flawed. We don't have vaccines available to everyone in the US yet.
Your argument is already flawed. We don't have vaccines available to everyone in the US yet.
I mean, delta changed the math of how effective the vaccine was at preventing spread and mild illness. This is why the idea of a _novel_ coronavirus epidemic was bad, we had no idea where it was gonna go.
In Oregon we were on a very bad trajectory in the last two weeks with hospitals full and "elective" medical procedures suspended in some areas (my family being directly effected by this), that is now being deflected a bit by the renewed mask mandate. And in America we're very fortunate with how easy access we have to vaccines, other places aren't as lucky so they have to enact harsher measures...
In Oregon we were on a very bad trajectory in the last two weeks with hospitals full and "elective" medical procedures suspended in some areas (my family being directly effected by this), that is now being deflected a bit by the renewed mask mandate. And in America we're very fortunate with how easy access we have to vaccines, other places aren't as lucky so they have to enact harsher measures...
This is all true, but at the same time, it is a legitimate question to ask 'when does this stop?' I think we can all agree that it can't last forever. But Kate Brown mandated masks even outdoors, and while her intentions may be pure, she didn't provide any metrics that she will use to decide the mandate can be dropped. We are past the 70% vaccination threshold she originally used. Even then, the metric was created well after the mandates, and I disagree with that. When we are going to put such rules in place they should be defined from the beginning as temporary or permanent, and in the case of the former should come with a definition for the end. A date, a set of metrics, something specific.
It will stop when our hospitals aren't stretched past their limits. I don't think anyone knows when that will be right now.
I've complained in other spaces about this, but it really feels like we're reliving the 1918 flu again. People dealt with restrictions the first year, but got fed up the second year. Costing lots of human lives.
I've complained in other spaces about this, but it really feels like we're reliving the 1918 flu again. People dealt with restrictions the first year, but got fed up the second year. Costing lots of human lives.
> It will stop when our hospitals aren't stretched past their limits. I don't think anyone knows when that will be right now.
My problem is simply the loose definition. Kate Brown didn't even say that much, I don't think. But if that's the metric, it should be easy enough to say so, and define it. E.g. "When ICU bed occupancy is below 90% and has declined for three consecutive weeks, the mandate is lifted."
I think many people would quibble less about the mandates if they weren't open-ended.
My problem is simply the loose definition. Kate Brown didn't even say that much, I don't think. But if that's the metric, it should be easy enough to say so, and define it. E.g. "When ICU bed occupancy is below 90% and has declined for three consecutive weeks, the mandate is lifted."
I think many people would quibble less about the mandates if they weren't open-ended.
LOL at people still thinking any of this is "temporary" or it will stay "mild". You're looking at stratification of society a year from now where anyone whose mandatory booster shot is older than 6 months can't participate, you must quadruple mask and wear a buttplug (farts spread covid too, you know), and you can't complain on FB or anywhere else about any of this because you'll get banned not just from FB but from everywhere, and lose your job, too.
>once-in-a-century
There’s a newsworthy virus (usually SARS-like) every 2-5 years. There are notable “variants” every few months. The perceived risk of COVID has a lot to do with reporting, which is fickle at best. Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands and we basically don’t care.
>temporary
Nixon’s closing the Gold window and Bush’s GWOT come to mind as substantial counter-examples. I don’t foresee the US politburo giving up on their newfound unlimited and totally arbitrary authority so long as their appointed brain trust says it’s for your own good. Their subjects might start to ignore them, though.
There’s a newsworthy virus (usually SARS-like) every 2-5 years. There are notable “variants” every few months. The perceived risk of COVID has a lot to do with reporting, which is fickle at best. Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands and we basically don’t care.
>temporary
Nixon’s closing the Gold window and Bush’s GWOT come to mind as substantial counter-examples. I don’t foresee the US politburo giving up on their newfound unlimited and totally arbitrary authority so long as their appointed brain trust says it’s for your own good. Their subjects might start to ignore them, though.
How many of these variants or noteworthy viruses kill as many people? Genuine question, because covid has been on a different scale to SARS, MERS or any of the various animal flu pandemics, in terms of R number and how difficult it is to control.
It's crazy to me because I would have thought the last year or so would produce the opposite effect. But a fearful populace is a malleable populace, I guess.
This is exactly what F. A. Hayek warned us about in his book The Road to Serfdom.
I don't know why this man has such a large following outside of economics. There are a lot of better analysis of how such oppressive systems form. I respect Hayek but The Road to Serfdom is a boring read.
The analogy doesn't hold. It's hard to say that video games are an acute crisis causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Perhaps because we've all seen firsthand the reckless social irresponsibility of a massive segment of the population.
Faced with this, it's not surprising to me that many people would see a more authoritarian government to be preferable to a laissez faire approach that requires the vast majority of individuals to make reasonably good choices for the collective and understand the wider implications of their behavior.
It would be ironic if the right wing shrieking for 'freedom' ends up backlashing on all of us because they've simultaneously demonstrated that we're not mature enough to handle that level of freedom.
Faced with this, it's not surprising to me that many people would see a more authoritarian government to be preferable to a laissez faire approach that requires the vast majority of individuals to make reasonably good choices for the collective and understand the wider implications of their behavior.
It would be ironic if the right wing shrieking for 'freedom' ends up backlashing on all of us because they've simultaneously demonstrated that we're not mature enough to handle that level of freedom.
COVID has convinced me that a functioning society can’t just throw its hands up and exclusively rely on Nash Equilibrium to deal with all problems. If you rely on everyone being rational self-interest-optimizing actors, you’ll never solve problems that require voluntary collective, coordinated action. It just ends up as a giant game of prisoner’s dilemma with everyone choosing DEFECT.
Yeah, there's basically no way the pandemic is ever going to end without broad vaccine mandates. I would expect China to be one of the first countries to move in that direction, but we'll see.
> I feel like the last year of 'quarantine' for most of the Western world has made people more comfortable with authoritarian governments and actions.
Half of the US is up in arms about it, for better or worse. I think you'd have a hard time imposing anything on the US.
The other half doesn't think immunizations are authoritarian, just science.
Maybe 1% of the loud and attention grabbing people on either side of the isle wants to impose things on the other just for the sake of imposing them.
So not exactly.
Half of the US is up in arms about it, for better or worse. I think you'd have a hard time imposing anything on the US.
The other half doesn't think immunizations are authoritarian, just science.
Maybe 1% of the loud and attention grabbing people on either side of the isle wants to impose things on the other just for the sake of imposing them.
So not exactly.
That 1%, if they are loud enough, can move overton window for the whole society. Recall how fast vaccine passports moved from a crazy right wing conspiracy theory to an obvious and necessary measure. Last year is full of such examples.
I think you have it backwards. In the last year, vaccines passports (in other words, immunization records) went from an obvious and necessary measure to a crazy wight wing conspiracy theory.
A year ago in my country, vaccine passports were very much a conspiracy theory, and back in 2020, our PM assured us they wouldn't be coming. [1] A year later, as the GP mentioned, this has instead become the standard to expect going forward. [2]. Exactly what they described has happened, something which was once considered an irrational fear of libertarians has become reality.
[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7576955/coronavirus-vaccine-passp...
[2] https://globalnews.ca/news/8104692/canada-getting-proof-of-v...
[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7576955/coronavirus-vaccine-passp...
[2] https://globalnews.ca/news/8104692/canada-getting-proof-of-v...
Alcohol pretty much universally prohibited for minors and nobody calls that authoritarian. Governments have responsibility for the wellbeing of citizen, even against themselves (mandatory seatbelts comes to mind).
Meanwhile, gaming addiction can also be very destructive.
Meanwhile, gaming addiction can also be very destructive.
Lots of others ITT are expressing the same view, and I understand the logic behind it.
Alcohol is an addictive, psychoactive, carcinogen. The difference between drugs and “online game time” is pretty stark from my perspective.
The essence of your argument seems to be: “we already give up some control for other health-related regulations and online game time is no different.”
I have to admit, drawing the exact line is difficult and I’m unable to create a clear definition of government overreach. This specific example is obvious to me, but clearly some people disagree.
Where do you think the line should be? Would you be okay with CCP mandated exercise, sleep time, or diet? Do you believe there should be a line at all?
Not trying to be adversarial here, I am genuinely curious.
Alcohol is an addictive, psychoactive, carcinogen. The difference between drugs and “online game time” is pretty stark from my perspective.
The essence of your argument seems to be: “we already give up some control for other health-related regulations and online game time is no different.”
I have to admit, drawing the exact line is difficult and I’m unable to create a clear definition of government overreach. This specific example is obvious to me, but clearly some people disagree.
Where do you think the line should be? Would you be okay with CCP mandated exercise, sleep time, or diet? Do you believe there should be a line at all?
Not trying to be adversarial here, I am genuinely curious.
I don't think a perfect line exist - a perfect line that maximizes a country's output, for example. Laffer curve is real.
But it's more of a experiment - life is an experiment.
But it's more of a experiment - life is an experiment.
This line is indeed hard to define. I am not sure that such a limit would be enforceable even in China. However, it will have the side effect of making time gated games and other addicting dark patterns illegal or impractical, which it probably a net good thing.
To your last question, many jurisdictions are making fast food or sugary drinks illegal thus imposing a diet. I am fine with that. Some company are lowering health premium to those who do exercise, imposing exercise. I am fine with that too..
To your last question, many jurisdictions are making fast food or sugary drinks illegal thus imposing a diet. I am fine with that. Some company are lowering health premium to those who do exercise, imposing exercise. I am fine with that too..
The state mandates physical exercise for children in many countries (PE classes) and most people support it.
> Alcohol is an addictive, psychoactive, carcinogen. The difference between drugs and “online game time” is pretty stark from my perspective.
Requires elaboration. When "online game time" is intentionally designed to be addictive, its affects on addicts need to be critically examined - loss of physical fitness, loss of social fitness, loss of motivation, agoraphobia. That both can be consumed responsibly in small quantities does not preclude that addiction is a serious problem and too often not treated like a serious problem in Western countries.
Requires elaboration. When "online game time" is intentionally designed to be addictive, its affects on addicts need to be critically examined - loss of physical fitness, loss of social fitness, loss of motivation, agoraphobia. That both can be consumed responsibly in small quantities does not preclude that addiction is a serious problem and too often not treated like a serious problem in Western countries.
I was about to reply with something opposing your thought and then realized other countries don't have an age limit and they don't have a billion underage kids dying of alcohol. If anything that probably happens more in the states where there is an age limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age
I mean, yes, "other countries" don't have age limits, but it's pretty rare and it's overwhelmingly not what you'd call successful or stable countries.
I mean, yes, "other countries" don't have age limits, but it's pretty rare and it's overwhelmingly not what you'd call successful or stable countries.
You don't consider Europe stable or successful?
You don’t consider an age minimum of 18 to purchase alcohol an age limit?
The link they posted even has a pretty picture within of the areas without age limits. They’re all mostly in Africa, Vietnam has a shout at stable and successful though.
The link they posted even has a pretty picture within of the areas without age limits. They’re all mostly in Africa, Vietnam has a shout at stable and successful though.
Equivocating alcohol with video gaming is ridiculous. One is a toxic chemical that has physical, neurological effects on an individual and easily kills tens of thousands of people a year. The other is watching and interacting with pixels on a screen as you're doing at this very moment.
It's well known that gambling- and gaming addictions exist.
And more and more online games use psychological tactics to encourage spending.
And more and more online games use psychological tactics to encourage spending.
The dose makes the poison.
Emphasizing the physical effects of alcohol, and reducing the mental effects of any human computer interaction to “watching and interacting with pixels on a screen” isn’t the right way to go about it.
There’s a difference between checking your feed and doom scrolling, there’s a difference between playing fortnite with friends, maybe even a little too late into the night, and compulsively grinding.
The dose makes the poison.
Emphasizing the physical effects of alcohol, and reducing the mental effects of any human computer interaction to “watching and interacting with pixels on a screen” isn’t the right way to go about it.
There’s a difference between checking your feed and doom scrolling, there’s a difference between playing fortnite with friends, maybe even a little too late into the night, and compulsively grinding.
The dose makes the poison.
Indeed, the effects is not the right way to go about it. Perhaps looking at the health statistics (and car accident statistics due to alcohol) would be a better way to compare the severity of the two problems
Well, at this point we might as well blame social media feeds (which we can also call pixels on screens) for killing more people than drunk driving, at least in 2020 and 2021.
Sorry I misread age of purchase with age of consumption (which can effectively be the same thing in most modern countries).
My bad.
My bad.
[deleted]
It's hard enough for their parents to enforce these decisions. Good luck with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM6hEOtV92E
When kids game excessively, I'd wager it's an escape for them. It's an escape just as much as it was for the geeky / nerdy kids of America, as it is for the kids in China who have goukou.
You can try to enforce whatever culture you're gonna enforce, but I think we've seen from the war on drugs that these kinds of things don't really work. There's always some deep psychological and/or physiological deficit whenever there is an "addiction" at play. And you're trying to treat the disease by treating the symptoms. You can try to tighten control so that you can try to force that "ideal" society, but when you do that, things have a way of becoming authoritarian in a handbasket. Everything messed up about China is about socialist idealism turning authoritarian, and you can say that about other countries too.
People should have figured that out when they did that study on rats, where the rats that lived in some enriched environment, with plenty of playtime, did not get addicted to sugar water the way that the rats trapped in cages did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM6hEOtV92E
When kids game excessively, I'd wager it's an escape for them. It's an escape just as much as it was for the geeky / nerdy kids of America, as it is for the kids in China who have goukou.
You can try to enforce whatever culture you're gonna enforce, but I think we've seen from the war on drugs that these kinds of things don't really work. There's always some deep psychological and/or physiological deficit whenever there is an "addiction" at play. And you're trying to treat the disease by treating the symptoms. You can try to tighten control so that you can try to force that "ideal" society, but when you do that, things have a way of becoming authoritarian in a handbasket. Everything messed up about China is about socialist idealism turning authoritarian, and you can say that about other countries too.
People should have figured that out when they did that study on rats, where the rats that lived in some enriched environment, with plenty of playtime, did not get addicted to sugar water the way that the rats trapped in cages did.
People have been making a lot of prediction about China, such that market economy would lead to more political openness or a middle class would demand more political freedom - all good guess but turn out wrong.
I think we're bad at prediction - so why not let them experiment and see how it turns out 50 years later.
I think we're bad at prediction - so why not let them experiment and see how it turns out 50 years later.
So, in a way, you could be seen as arguing for authoritarianism.
> And you're trying to treat the disease by treating the symptoms
So, for example, Opiods. In the United States we're treating the symptoms by banning it (and this is pretty much supported by both political parties). Yet we know the root cause: People that are effectively feeling worthless, do not feel connected to a specific social group and/or disengaged from culture.
Other aspects of our entire culture is causing people to feel like that: 1. Changing family values, 2. Disconnected from people, connected to devices and online popularity, 3. Impossible to succeed and feel valuable.
I feel like we have a really weird problem: Our capitalistic environment or, greed in general, are driving these problems. So the solution is authoritarianism.
Sorry that's just the way my mind works. I see right through issues to their root causes and it makes my worldview weird.
> And you're trying to treat the disease by treating the symptoms
So, for example, Opiods. In the United States we're treating the symptoms by banning it (and this is pretty much supported by both political parties). Yet we know the root cause: People that are effectively feeling worthless, do not feel connected to a specific social group and/or disengaged from culture.
Other aspects of our entire culture is causing people to feel like that: 1. Changing family values, 2. Disconnected from people, connected to devices and online popularity, 3. Impossible to succeed and feel valuable.
I feel like we have a really weird problem: Our capitalistic environment or, greed in general, are driving these problems. So the solution is authoritarianism.
Sorry that's just the way my mind works. I see right through issues to their root causes and it makes my worldview weird.
Would reading too many books be destructive?
Edit: and too many newspapers?
Edit: and too many newspapers?
In elementary school I got in trouble for reading books during class.
It was a mild addiction and the feelings of my teacher was that it could be disruptive to my experience and those of students around me.
It was a mild addiction and the feelings of my teacher was that it could be disruptive to my experience and those of students around me.
I've met alcoholics and I've met people who play League of Legends too much. Of the latter, they are all alive...
Different magnitudes.
Different magnitudes.
I'm very far against alcohol being restricted for consumption by minors. I think it's completely ridiculous and almost completely counterproductive.
I'm no more or less comfortable with authoritarian government than I am with an authoritarian market-based corporatocracy.
Odds are that you are under an NDA which limits your freedom of speech. Odds are that if you refused to sign one, you couldn't afford a mortgage in a place with a lot of tech. Odds are you will sign more NDAs so your kids can keep going to the same school. The freedom of no regulation is an illusion.
Companies will keep making what sells, even if it's bad for you. Without regulation, video games will become more and more addicting. Without regulation, companies will keep running advertising, even if ads harm culture and the overall economy.
To manage all of this, we need a better system. I, for one, am excited about countries trying something different. The CCP seems to be implementing a lot of measures which stand to increase overall quality-of-life, from limiting stress on kids, to workforce stress, to limiting unhealthy activities. I'd like to see how that plays out.
As a footnote, I'd even be excited about a fundamentalist Muslim government in Afghanistan, if it wasn't expansionary, and if people were free to emigrate if it was't working for them.
Odds are that you are under an NDA which limits your freedom of speech. Odds are that if you refused to sign one, you couldn't afford a mortgage in a place with a lot of tech. Odds are you will sign more NDAs so your kids can keep going to the same school. The freedom of no regulation is an illusion.
Companies will keep making what sells, even if it's bad for you. Without regulation, video games will become more and more addicting. Without regulation, companies will keep running advertising, even if ads harm culture and the overall economy.
To manage all of this, we need a better system. I, for one, am excited about countries trying something different. The CCP seems to be implementing a lot of measures which stand to increase overall quality-of-life, from limiting stress on kids, to workforce stress, to limiting unhealthy activities. I'd like to see how that plays out.
As a footnote, I'd even be excited about a fundamentalist Muslim government in Afghanistan, if it wasn't expansionary, and if people were free to emigrate if it was't working for them.
I'm not sure a country that commits cultural genocide and sent a million or more Muslim Uighurs into reeducation camps is where you should be looking for a "better system". Forced sterilization, forced labor...
Or a country that has no freedom of the press, savagely beats or murders political dissidents, will take away your job and livelihood if you dare question CCP orthodoxy...
The fact that you think is somehow morally equivalent to an NDA is just absolutely astonishing.
Or a country that has no freedom of the press, savagely beats or murders political dissidents, will take away your job and livelihood if you dare question CCP orthodoxy...
The fact that you think is somehow morally equivalent to an NDA is just absolutely astonishing.
Well, the US did kinda oops away a million Muslims in response to 9/11, and over a half-million Americans in lack of response to COVID19. And we do have that whole gitmo thing. Plus, we had the whole slavery bit we keep forgetting about. I could list this stuff for a while, but that's besides the point.
It's not the current state that matters, but possible future outcome.
We're both hill-climbing trying to improve systems from an imperfect present. The US is higher up its hill than China right now, but it's not clear that China won't pass the US in a few decades. Or the US will race ahead. Or how other systems will fare.
It's also not clear how those will change as the world itself evolves.
I like having a diversity of political and economic systems, even is some are better than others. I also like a diversity of cultures, even if there are ones I strongly disagree with.
#simulatedannealing #geneticalgorithms
It's not the current state that matters, but possible future outcome.
We're both hill-climbing trying to improve systems from an imperfect present. The US is higher up its hill than China right now, but it's not clear that China won't pass the US in a few decades. Or the US will race ahead. Or how other systems will fare.
It's also not clear how those will change as the world itself evolves.
I like having a diversity of political and economic systems, even is some are better than others. I also like a diversity of cultures, even if there are ones I strongly disagree with.
#simulatedannealing #geneticalgorithms
Your best argument for defending the CCP committing genocide is to Whatabout Slavery? AN institution that ended over 150 years ago?
No, I'm not defending the CCP's actions, and my best argument for the CCP is that I'd like a diversity of economic, political, and cultural systems around the world. I don't like monocultures. They're brittle.
Ahh, the Uighurs, American's most favored type of Muslim.
>Odds are that you are under an NDA which limits your freedom of speech.
These are mostly very specific, very limited and largely perfectly sensible. Yes some NDAs are onerous but they're quite rare. China has no concept of freedom of speech at all. It simply doesn't exist. I don't see how that's better.
>Companies will keep making what sells, even if it's bad for you.
We actually do have market regulation in the west, more in some countries than others, but it's a well established principle. You may disagree with the regulations we have, that's a matter of opinion, but we do have regulations on safety, quality, etc. If you want further regulations you are free to campaign for them, but the lack of any relations you might want is not a flaw in the system, it's just a consensus choice you disagree with.
>The CCP seems to be implementing a lot of measures which stand to increase overall quality-of-life...
All western states, even the US, have regulated labour markets including controls on working hours, minimum wages, mandatory breaks, etc. 996 is in practice illegal in almost every (possibly actually every) western country already. We are way, way ahead of China on this, so much so that you thinking China is breaking ground is frankly laughable.
Many countries already have guidelines in place on activities like video games. Public health systems recognise, provide advice and support, and even treatment for games addiction. The CCP is not breaking any novel ground on any of this. The fact is it has a woefully inadequate public health system and primitive social services that are so bad they have to resort to crude dictatorial mandates like this because it's all they have left. That is not a good thing.
>As a footnote...
Oh good grief.
These are mostly very specific, very limited and largely perfectly sensible. Yes some NDAs are onerous but they're quite rare. China has no concept of freedom of speech at all. It simply doesn't exist. I don't see how that's better.
>Companies will keep making what sells, even if it's bad for you.
We actually do have market regulation in the west, more in some countries than others, but it's a well established principle. You may disagree with the regulations we have, that's a matter of opinion, but we do have regulations on safety, quality, etc. If you want further regulations you are free to campaign for them, but the lack of any relations you might want is not a flaw in the system, it's just a consensus choice you disagree with.
>The CCP seems to be implementing a lot of measures which stand to increase overall quality-of-life...
All western states, even the US, have regulated labour markets including controls on working hours, minimum wages, mandatory breaks, etc. 996 is in practice illegal in almost every (possibly actually every) western country already. We are way, way ahead of China on this, so much so that you thinking China is breaking ground is frankly laughable.
Many countries already have guidelines in place on activities like video games. Public health systems recognise, provide advice and support, and even treatment for games addiction. The CCP is not breaking any novel ground on any of this. The fact is it has a woefully inadequate public health system and primitive social services that are so bad they have to resort to crude dictatorial mandates like this because it's all they have left. That is not a good thing.
>As a footnote...
Oh good grief.
There's a famous quote attributed to Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” The only way we'll find better ones is if we keep exploring.
It's not so much that I want more or fewer regulations, as I want to explore systems other than market-based incentives. I'm not sure that regulations + free markets will get us to a place where people aren't addicted to video games, eat healthy, exercise, have quality education, and generally lead the good life. In 1930, there were a lot of ideas for how to get there, and a lot of those seem plausible. I'd like to see how some of those play out in practice.
I'll mention that I'm aware of where China is with regards to labor practices, freedom-of-speech, and so on, but with regards to public health systems, China is way ahead of the US. Everyone has access to decent, affordable healthcare. It's not at the same level as $50,000 procedures in the US, but it's good enough, and everyone has it.
It's also not really fair to compare countries with $64k per-capita GDP to ones with $10k per-capita GDP. It's even more unfair if one considers where the per-capita GDP was a decade or two ago. 25 years ago, China had a per-capita GDP of under $1000 -- that's less than Nigeria today. I think that's a more fair comparison between systems of government. Would you rather live in Nigerian democracy or Chinese CCP? That's not a loaded question -- they're quite different.
> Oh good grief.
Islam has a lot of good ideas too. For example, it has a wealth tax, and it discourages debt-based economies. You don't need to swallow political and economic systems wholesale.
It's not so much that I want more or fewer regulations, as I want to explore systems other than market-based incentives. I'm not sure that regulations + free markets will get us to a place where people aren't addicted to video games, eat healthy, exercise, have quality education, and generally lead the good life. In 1930, there were a lot of ideas for how to get there, and a lot of those seem plausible. I'd like to see how some of those play out in practice.
I'll mention that I'm aware of where China is with regards to labor practices, freedom-of-speech, and so on, but with regards to public health systems, China is way ahead of the US. Everyone has access to decent, affordable healthcare. It's not at the same level as $50,000 procedures in the US, but it's good enough, and everyone has it.
It's also not really fair to compare countries with $64k per-capita GDP to ones with $10k per-capita GDP. It's even more unfair if one considers where the per-capita GDP was a decade or two ago. 25 years ago, China had a per-capita GDP of under $1000 -- that's less than Nigeria today. I think that's a more fair comparison between systems of government. Would you rather live in Nigerian democracy or Chinese CCP? That's not a loaded question -- they're quite different.
> Oh good grief.
Islam has a lot of good ideas too. For example, it has a wealth tax, and it discourages debt-based economies. You don't need to swallow political and economic systems wholesale.
>I'll mention that I'm aware of where China is with regards to labor practices, freedom-of-speech, and so on, but with regards to public health systems, China is way ahead of the US.
This is not true at all, I know because my wife is Chinese. Almost everyone is covered by health insurance in theory, but in practice this has limited use by most people because it only covers 50% of costs, and less than that for serious illnesses. Those on low incomes simply can't afford it anyway and there is nothing comparable to the level of cover under Medicaid or CHIPS, or Medicare for the elderly. Everyone under the public system has to pay up or not get treatment. Employer plans are better, but still very basic compared to typical US corporate plans. Waiting lists can also often put treatment out of practical reach unless you are willing to pay a lot of money to the right people.
It's also very scammy. They charge for everything they do, from painkillers, saline drips, blood tests, being hooked up to a blood oxymeter. On arrival they will set up all of that, the works, whether it's necessary or not so they can charge you for it. There is little to no regulation to prevent such abuses, and no practical way to get redress for malpractice.
On experimentation, communism and authoritarianism have been tried many, many times. There's nothing novel or experimental about it. We know it sucks. We know what Taliban style Islamic theocracies are like too, Afghanistan has been under one before remember?
This is not true at all, I know because my wife is Chinese. Almost everyone is covered by health insurance in theory, but in practice this has limited use by most people because it only covers 50% of costs, and less than that for serious illnesses. Those on low incomes simply can't afford it anyway and there is nothing comparable to the level of cover under Medicaid or CHIPS, or Medicare for the elderly. Everyone under the public system has to pay up or not get treatment. Employer plans are better, but still very basic compared to typical US corporate plans. Waiting lists can also often put treatment out of practical reach unless you are willing to pay a lot of money to the right people.
It's also very scammy. They charge for everything they do, from painkillers, saline drips, blood tests, being hooked up to a blood oxymeter. On arrival they will set up all of that, the works, whether it's necessary or not so they can charge you for it. There is little to no regulation to prevent such abuses, and no practical way to get redress for malpractice.
On experimentation, communism and authoritarianism have been tried many, many times. There's nothing novel or experimental about it. We know it sucks. We know what Taliban style Islamic theocracies are like too, Afghanistan has been under one before remember?
> On experimentation, communism and authoritarianism have been tried many, many times. There's nothing novel or experimental about it. We know it sucks. We know what Taliban style Islamic theocracies are like too, Afghanistan has been under one before remember?
And Democracy was tried several times during the French Revolution, as well as in many countries in Africa, to great failure. You can't generalize from small n.
It's really unclear how Communism would have worked out if not for Stalin. Communism isn't fundamentally authoritarian. The concept of workers soviets as a political system sounds pretty plausible to me. Things played out that way, but it's only been tried once.
And as far as a planned economy, I think the feasibility really changes with access to computers which can simulate complex systems. Market economies are a greedy algorithm. It's likely there's a better system.
What I like in the current Chinese model is market economy for commodity businesses (like restaurants) and central control of rent-seeking ones (like banking). That seems more efficient. I also like the concept of systems of governance which are more meritocratic (which contrasts with populist ideals in the US), where competent people make decisions, and where you can plan strategically over long periods. I don't think China has yet stumbled on the right model there. But they're trying.
And Democracy was tried several times during the French Revolution, as well as in many countries in Africa, to great failure. You can't generalize from small n.
It's really unclear how Communism would have worked out if not for Stalin. Communism isn't fundamentally authoritarian. The concept of workers soviets as a political system sounds pretty plausible to me. Things played out that way, but it's only been tried once.
And as far as a planned economy, I think the feasibility really changes with access to computers which can simulate complex systems. Market economies are a greedy algorithm. It's likely there's a better system.
What I like in the current Chinese model is market economy for commodity businesses (like restaurants) and central control of rent-seeking ones (like banking). That seems more efficient. I also like the concept of systems of governance which are more meritocratic (which contrasts with populist ideals in the US), where competent people make decisions, and where you can plan strategically over long periods. I don't think China has yet stumbled on the right model there. But they're trying.
>Communism isn't fundamentally authoritarian.
Sorry, but Marxism has coercion at it's core because it's maximally redistributive. I'm no libertarian fundamentalist, I'm proud if my contribution to society through my taxes, but Marxism takes confiscation to the ultimate extreme. All property belongs to the state, all needs are decided and provided by the state. Max called it 'society' and said that society would regulate every aspect of the economy, but in practice it's the state.
As for tried out once, er, this whole thread is about China not the USSR. Stalin died 39 years before the collapse of the USSR, they had four decades to fix it. There's also Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia. Robert Mugabe was a Maoist, Hugo Chavez was a Marxist. It's been tried over and over. They've all either run their country into the ground or basically given up on Marxism and clung on to power anyway.
You're quite right that democracy has had plenty of failures, that's irrefutable. It certainly does create a moral dilemma, but I still believe in allowing as much individual choice and autonomy as is practically achievable.
Sorry, but Marxism has coercion at it's core because it's maximally redistributive. I'm no libertarian fundamentalist, I'm proud if my contribution to society through my taxes, but Marxism takes confiscation to the ultimate extreme. All property belongs to the state, all needs are decided and provided by the state. Max called it 'society' and said that society would regulate every aspect of the economy, but in practice it's the state.
As for tried out once, er, this whole thread is about China not the USSR. Stalin died 39 years before the collapse of the USSR, they had four decades to fix it. There's also Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia. Robert Mugabe was a Maoist, Hugo Chavez was a Marxist. It's been tried over and over. They've all either run their country into the ground or basically given up on Marxism and clung on to power anyway.
You're quite right that democracy has had plenty of failures, that's irrefutable. It certainly does create a moral dilemma, but I still believe in allowing as much individual choice and autonomy as is practically achievable.
Just because an authoritarian government made a decision doesn’t necessarily mean the decision was authoritarian.
In the U.S., it’s somehow become popular opinion that the government shouldn’t do anything. Without the ability to make coordinated decisions, the U.S. has predictably fallen behind on a wide variety of metrics (income equality, health care, education, mass transit, etc.)
You should reflect on why you view a government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing.
In the U.S., it’s somehow become popular opinion that the government shouldn’t do anything. Without the ability to make coordinated decisions, the U.S. has predictably fallen behind on a wide variety of metrics (income equality, health care, education, mass transit, etc.)
You should reflect on why you view a government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing.
But this is authoritarian.
Why should the government control how I manage my time? I'm pretty sure this site would be pretty outraged if the government decided we could only code 3 hours a week.
And please don't use the "but coding is constructive!1!" argument. A good use of time is defined by whoever spends it, not whatever someone else's idea of wasting time is.
As a case in point, playing hours of Splitgate has kept me sane during the pandemic as a college student locked in a room for 1.8 years. I meet on Discord with friends and discuss topics while playing. I've made more friends gaming than physically in the past year. That's pretty constructive if you ask me.
Why should the government control how I manage my time? I'm pretty sure this site would be pretty outraged if the government decided we could only code 3 hours a week.
And please don't use the "but coding is constructive!1!" argument. A good use of time is defined by whoever spends it, not whatever someone else's idea of wasting time is.
As a case in point, playing hours of Splitgate has kept me sane during the pandemic as a college student locked in a room for 1.8 years. I meet on Discord with friends and discuss topics while playing. I've made more friends gaming than physically in the past year. That's pretty constructive if you ask me.
I live in the state of Georgia where most of the state belives in the "smaller the government the better". Alcohol sales can't happen during certain hours on Sundays...all because of...wait for it...religion. LOL.
Why should the government tell stores & restaurants when they can or cannot sell alcohol? How can the government tell me when I can, or cannot buy/consume alcohol. How is that a benefit to society? Why is it in a country codified for separation of religion and government are they allowed to have this in law?
Why should the government tell stores & restaurants when they can or cannot sell alcohol? How can the government tell me when I can, or cannot buy/consume alcohol. How is that a benefit to society? Why is it in a country codified for separation of religion and government are they allowed to have this in law?
The government is controlling how children spend their time. In the U.S., the government mandates a lot about how children spend their time. They need to go to school and they aren’t allowed to buy alcohol or tobacco. Children under 16 aren’t allowed to spend any time driving an automobile, etc.
So why can’t you use the same logic to justify any arbitrary regulation?
I don’t agree that having SOME laws means that the government should be able to pass ANY law.
I don’t agree that having SOME laws means that the government should be able to pass ANY law.
To justify any arbitrary regulation imposed on children.
No child owns his own life or decision making. Typically parents make most decisions, the government makes some others e.g. mandatory schooling, setting standards that parents most abide by if they don't want their children taken away from them (sufficient food and shelter etc.).
No child owns his own life or decision making. Typically parents make most decisions, the government makes some others e.g. mandatory schooling, setting standards that parents most abide by if they don't want their children taken away from them (sufficient food and shelter etc.).
> Why should the government control how I manage my time?
The government didn't. They just put online-game service providers to the same category as alcohol or drugs.
The government didn't. They just put online-game service providers to the same category as alcohol or drugs.
People can't be left to their own accord.
If you believe this then surely you'd want less government since you can't leave these people to their own accord and also making decisions.
there is a strong correlation between strong government and higher GDP. Weak economies are weak because of corrupt and weak government. So that would be my case for government action - collectively or through a good dictator.
Your logic seems good but is removed from history and reality.
Your logic seems good but is removed from history and reality.
Why is GDP implicitly the thing we should maximize? It's like this weird unstated thing everyone agrees on without critical examination.
I'd rather have less GDP and no CCP; I'd also "sacrifice" max GDP for universal healthcare, fewer wars, jail reform...all kinds of things.
I'd rather have less GDP and no CCP; I'd also "sacrifice" max GDP for universal healthcare, fewer wars, jail reform...all kinds of things.
But China is better than the US in all of those things. They don't wage war, they have better health care (no massive drug monopoly charging obscene prices for cheap insulin), higher life expectancy, way fewer people in jail per capita, less of a drug problem (no opoid epidemic), less obesity, not nearly as much violence, practically no school shootings (as opposed to weekly shootings), etc.. this iist is LONG.
But is China better than Norway? Or New Zealand? Or Switzerland?
The US (pockets at least) are dysfunctional but other countries demonstrate the model of not having to live under a dictatorship that commits genocide and restricts liberties and have high values in the things you mentioned.
Not to mention that obesity comes from… consuming too much food. Chinese will be obese too soon as they become wealthier. Well, unless the government mandates calories or something like they do hours playing video games..
The US (pockets at least) are dysfunctional but other countries demonstrate the model of not having to live under a dictatorship that commits genocide and restricts liberties and have high values in the things you mentioned.
Not to mention that obesity comes from… consuming too much food. Chinese will be obese too soon as they become wealthier. Well, unless the government mandates calories or something like they do hours playing video games..
China will probably become much better than Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland once they increase their GDP. They have made major strides already despite their relatively low GDP per capita.
The US is the only country committing genocide. They have killed over a hundred innocent civilians in Afghanistan just the past few weeks. Over the past decodes they've killed around a million innocent civilians in the name of the hyper-aggressive and hypocritical "war on terror". Indirectly, they're responsible for several millions criminal murders during the same timespan, and they've not once been put to trial. They're not only failing their citizens, they're a genocidal, terrorist state.
The US is the only country committing genocide. They have killed over a hundred innocent civilians in Afghanistan just the past few weeks. Over the past decodes they've killed around a million innocent civilians in the name of the hyper-aggressive and hypocritical "war on terror". Indirectly, they're responsible for several millions criminal murders during the same timespan, and they've not once been put to trial. They're not only failing their citizens, they're a genocidal, terrorist state.
Yea. Also if you want to look at GDP - US is #1. And on a per-capita basis we're just below Norway and ahead of countries like Denmark and the UK.
Personally I'd propose things like longevity, obesity, parks per-capita, household wealth, etc.
Personally I'd propose things like longevity, obesity, parks per-capita, household wealth, etc.
Yeah infant mortality, press freedom, corruption index, childhood educational rankings? There are a TON of things I'd put over GDP.
And if you look at the past 200 years that we've made large progress towards all the things you mentioned, with each of those accomplishments have been enabled by...GDP growth
GDP is the thing we should measure because without it, you can't have all the things you mentioned - you might be able to not start wars but you still need a strong army.
To say that money isn't everything is already a luxury
To say that money isn't everything is already a luxury
I never said it wasn't important, but we literally have the largest GDP - we won, game over! And we don't have universal healthcare.
It's like we've confused a metric (GDP) with success; we maximized the metric and can't even wake up and realize it's not what we were actually trying to accomplish.
It's like we've confused a metric (GDP) with success; we maximized the metric and can't even wake up and realize it's not what we were actually trying to accomplish.
what is success then? what are you trying to accomplish?
I'd argue the best way to accomplish whatever you're thinking about that we should be accomplishing - something that is hard to measure - is by maximizing GDP. Because GDP is correlated with everything you're thinking about accomplishing.
I'd argue the best way to accomplish whatever you're thinking about that we should be accomplishing - something that is hard to measure - is by maximizing GDP. Because GDP is correlated with everything you're thinking about accomplishing.
>I'd also "sacrifice" max GDP for universal healthcare, fewer wars, jail reform...all kinds of things.
Because GDP pays for universal healthcare, for example...?
Because GDP pays for universal healthcare, for example...?
Not in our case, so apparently not - it COULD but it obviously doesn't.
Also countries "worth" less seem to pay for it, so maybe it's that we have fucked up priorities?
Also countries "worth" less seem to pay for it, so maybe it's that we have fucked up priorities?
These are minor details - US probably should pay for it. But directionally, if you're a developing country, you can't afford it.
The best way to progress has been GDP growth - modern medicine is not driven by good-will, kindness, or faith. It's driven by profit
The best way to progress has been GDP growth - modern medicine is not driven by good-will, kindness, or faith. It's driven by profit
I don't think that was the statement made, just that strong government is correlated with strong economies. Strong economies/governments are a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for those other things.
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here. Maybe you can help?
You say that people can't be left to the own accord, but then you also want people that you can't trust (leave to their own accord) to be in charge of you and managing a country?
You say that people can't be left to the own accord, but then you also want people that you can't trust (leave to their own accord) to be in charge of you and managing a country?
Yes, I do think people can't be left to their own accord and some people should be allow to make rules for others. How we determine who those `some people` are is a matter of what we tried already and what was effective.
What would you suggest?
What would you suggest?
I don't really have a good suggestion. I wish I did. I kind of believe in the "democracy is the worst form of government except all of the others" statement because it appears to be so. You can probably make better democracies though but they require education and participation. Education you can do at scale, but participation is hard to achieve amongst heterogeneous populations, especially when they're large.
IMO that's why we're seeing problems with the U.S. that simply will never resolve. The long-term future is balkanization in some fashion. Either outright via secession or implied via arbitrary restrictions that make certain places undesirable to go to. Contrast that with a country like Iceland where the population is more homogenous and the democracy seems to work better.
And it's not a race thing so much as a belief/culture thing. Just in case someone mistakenly believe that was what I was implying, it's not.
But I do think it's hard to reconcile saying that you fundamentally mistrust people but then you still want to give them power to make rules for you. The safer bet would be to have less or no government in that scenario unless you trust that you can create a process that really weeds out those who are not trustworthy. It's hard to do that too. Even people who are highly credible (scientists, doctors, etc.) often aren't people you would want making rules for you because they're not philosophers...
IMO that's why we're seeing problems with the U.S. that simply will never resolve. The long-term future is balkanization in some fashion. Either outright via secession or implied via arbitrary restrictions that make certain places undesirable to go to. Contrast that with a country like Iceland where the population is more homogenous and the democracy seems to work better.
And it's not a race thing so much as a belief/culture thing. Just in case someone mistakenly believe that was what I was implying, it's not.
But I do think it's hard to reconcile saying that you fundamentally mistrust people but then you still want to give them power to make rules for you. The safer bet would be to have less or no government in that scenario unless you trust that you can create a process that really weeds out those who are not trustworthy. It's hard to do that too. Even people who are highly credible (scientists, doctors, etc.) often aren't people you would want making rules for you because they're not philosophers...
I disagree that the safer bet is to have less government - look at the macro picture, things are better than ever as governments are exerting more controls, so there must exist a process of which allows for better prosperity for all by allowing government to modify our behavior.
Making rules is a function of government, and government is a function of the collective will of the people. So rules are nothing more that what I, and most of my neighbors, believe how everyone should behave, and the process is ultimately a trial and error; an experiment.
Making rules is a function of government, and government is a function of the collective will of the people. So rules are nothing more that what I, and most of my neighbors, believe how everyone should behave, and the process is ultimately a trial and error; an experiment.
[deleted]
I know why you made this comment about race, but even Aristotle hundreds of years ago noticed that multi-culti does not work with democracy, simply because it breaks homogenousity of citizens.
Its not so uncommon belief/opinion.
Its not so uncommon belief/opinion.
Because in the US a large number of us value the freedom to live our lives as we choose. Given that a policy like this one effectively allows the government to intervene in an activity that does not harm others (only oneself) it stands that we in the US view it as appalling.
Other societies may look at it differently and feel ok delegating decisions about how their lives should be lived to their government. I, for one, would never be OK with that.
Other societies may look at it differently and feel ok delegating decisions about how their lives should be lived to their government. I, for one, would never be OK with that.
Oh please, the US government actively intervenes trying to prevent minors from seeing adults having sex, an activity that does not harm others (and even whether it harms minors who view it is questionable). But I've yet to hear an American state that they view it as "appalling" that children can't watch porn.
If what the article says is true, this is the definition of authoritarianism.
> Just because an authoritarian government made a decision doesn’t necessarily mean the decision was authoritarian.
True.
> In the U.S., it’s somehow become popular opinion that the government shouldn’t do anything.
Amongst some people and some topics. Liberals don't think the government should do anything about heroin needles and homeless people, and conservatives don't think the government should do anything about gay conversion camps (arbitrary examples). This is the core of how democracy works. What you're seeing here actually is a breakdown in homogeneity when you have 300+ million people trying to make decisions when they have different values.
> Without the ability to make coordinated decisions, the U.S. has predictably fallen behind on a wide variety of metrics (income equality, health care, education, mass transit, etc.)
Which depends again on factors such as demographics, etc. and is largely a function of the lack of homogeneity. Not to mention all sorts of compelling arguments. Like we have people who won't take a vaccine, but we were also one of the first countries to roll out mass vaccinations. It's not simple.
> You should reflect on why you view a government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing.
I think many people do reflect on that. It's a precarious balance of liberty, management of a nation state, and many other things. I don't think it's wise to try and over-simplify these things into "well the government just wants you to be healthy". Ok. Let's ban all junk food, alcohol, cars, high-end restaurants, skydiving, and make everybody walk 10,000 steps/day or else they go to jail. I mean, why would you view the government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing?
True.
> In the U.S., it’s somehow become popular opinion that the government shouldn’t do anything.
Amongst some people and some topics. Liberals don't think the government should do anything about heroin needles and homeless people, and conservatives don't think the government should do anything about gay conversion camps (arbitrary examples). This is the core of how democracy works. What you're seeing here actually is a breakdown in homogeneity when you have 300+ million people trying to make decisions when they have different values.
> Without the ability to make coordinated decisions, the U.S. has predictably fallen behind on a wide variety of metrics (income equality, health care, education, mass transit, etc.)
Which depends again on factors such as demographics, etc. and is largely a function of the lack of homogeneity. Not to mention all sorts of compelling arguments. Like we have people who won't take a vaccine, but we were also one of the first countries to roll out mass vaccinations. It's not simple.
> You should reflect on why you view a government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing.
I think many people do reflect on that. It's a precarious balance of liberty, management of a nation state, and many other things. I don't think it's wise to try and over-simplify these things into "well the government just wants you to be healthy". Ok. Let's ban all junk food, alcohol, cars, high-end restaurants, skydiving, and make everybody walk 10,000 steps/day or else they go to jail. I mean, why would you view the government making a decision for the health of its citizens as a bad thing?
Your examples are awful. Liberals, if there was such a thing as a monolithic block, are the ones that want to use government resources to combat people using dirty needles, and want to provide shelters for the homeless. Some conservatives probably want to make conversion therapy mandatory, some want it to be allowed, and some probably want it outlawed. I think I understand what you're saying with the rest, but you're overally generic and incorrect examples makes it really hard to actually support your point.
[deleted]
I'm not in favour of governments doing this.
But I have to admit I will relish the opportunity to tell my (11 year old) son about this around the dinner table tonight (after he spent the whole day hiding inside playing Terraria and Minecraft)
And I wish as a parent I had the actual ability to enforce such a limit myself (maybe not so drastic). But the battle would be intense, futile, and conflict ridden. It's been tried.
The government has no business doing this, but there's something to be said for community / cultural standards and leadership. Parents in our society are on their own, fighting a tide of digital "addiction" without supports. And in fact key pillars of our kind of society (that is, corporations) are working to encourage screen time, rather than the other way around. A year of COVID isolation has made it so much worse, too.
I wonder what the outcome of this policy will be and if it will make China's youth more competitive and their society healthier. Or if it will be a total an abject failure and laughed at in a couple generations (most likely).
But I have to admit I will relish the opportunity to tell my (11 year old) son about this around the dinner table tonight (after he spent the whole day hiding inside playing Terraria and Minecraft)
And I wish as a parent I had the actual ability to enforce such a limit myself (maybe not so drastic). But the battle would be intense, futile, and conflict ridden. It's been tried.
The government has no business doing this, but there's something to be said for community / cultural standards and leadership. Parents in our society are on their own, fighting a tide of digital "addiction" without supports. And in fact key pillars of our kind of society (that is, corporations) are working to encourage screen time, rather than the other way around. A year of COVID isolation has made it so much worse, too.
I wonder what the outcome of this policy will be and if it will make China's youth more competitive and their society healthier. Or if it will be a total an abject failure and laughed at in a couple generations (most likely).
"You see my son, these children with limited human rights..."
It's a human right to play online video games?
Our amazing world where video games are a human right, but health care and housing are not.
China has as pretty scary high success rate with policies often deemed "doomed to fail" by the outside world.
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it's highly successful at cutting down on game addiction (which is a problem you easily carry into adulthood).
Worth mentioning they aren't banning children playing games outside these hours. They are only restricting access to online games. Namely multiplayer games like Honor of Kings. If a parent is happy for their child to play other games that don't require online services they are free to do that.
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it's highly successful at cutting down on game addiction (which is a problem you easily carry into adulthood).
Worth mentioning they aren't banning children playing games outside these hours. They are only restricting access to online games. Namely multiplayer games like Honor of Kings. If a parent is happy for their child to play other games that don't require online services they are free to do that.
> China has as pretty scary high success rate with policies
Easy to have when you control what the media reports.
Easy to have when you control what the media reports.
I’ve skimmed the comments with the same dismay until I read yours. The lack of concern about using coercive force to control how people dispose of their leisure time is disturbing to say the least. Maybe that over a billion people out there who are living with the same freedom as inmates in a minimum security prison in the US should be a more pressing issue than the nuances of the normative value of video games.
It does seem like there has been a lot of news lately about curious social engineering policies coming out of China. I wonder if the politburo suspects trouble.
It does seem like there has been a lot of news lately about curious social engineering policies coming out of China. I wonder if the politburo suspects trouble.
A lot of these people would much rather live in what you disparagingly call a minimum security prison than the comparative anarchy of what we call freedom. Freedom to get stabbed if I don’t give the junkie my belongings.
I don’t think well of the CCP for many reasons but please, this is a very superficial understanding of China on display. It seems more well suited to Soviet about half a century ago.
I don’t think well of the CCP for many reasons but please, this is a very superficial understanding of China on display. It seems more well suited to Soviet about half a century ago.
How is limiting the amount of time a Chinese child can play online games worse than barring me from buying Diablo as a teenager? If people are acting comfortable with authoritarian government, it's because we grew up under a quite similar one.
It's a somewhat academic difference but ESRB rating age restrictions aren't enforced by law in the US: it's a voluntary system. The movie rating system is the same.
On the other hand, both systems owe their existence in part to government saber-rattling that they would impose actual regulation. Some attempts at actual legal enforcement have been struck down over the years.
On the other hand, both systems owe their existence in part to government saber-rattling that they would impose actual regulation. Some attempts at actual legal enforcement have been struck down over the years.
In practice there weren't tools around to actually stop you from getting and playing D2 when you were a teenager. There are now.
I do agree with you that a lot of rules on kids even in our "free countries" were hypocritical and didn't actually work.
I do agree with you that a lot of rules on kids even in our "free countries" were hypocritical and didn't actually work.
Taliban just banned music recently, again. There are two topics here, one is authoritarianism and the other is parenting.
Kids shouldn’t be playing games 5 hours a day and looking up to streamers. The government shouldn’t be involved in this.
I think the larger threat of gaming in today’s society is that we have a situation where the standards have gone up dramatically for everyone to be an average mediocre person. You will have to do something serious if you want a real career in the future. You will have to be social and socially astute to navigate social networks (pretty much as early as 10). The pressure is much higher at a much younger age, and chronic gaming is going to be the goto escape. We don’t have a reasonable enough society where gaming can just be an innocuous past time. It’s going to be a hideout for people growing up under the enormous pressure of this new world.
I expect drug use, and prescription medication use to be going up on exactly the same curve.
Kids shouldn’t be playing games 5 hours a day and looking up to streamers. The government shouldn’t be involved in this.
I think the larger threat of gaming in today’s society is that we have a situation where the standards have gone up dramatically for everyone to be an average mediocre person. You will have to do something serious if you want a real career in the future. You will have to be social and socially astute to navigate social networks (pretty much as early as 10). The pressure is much higher at a much younger age, and chronic gaming is going to be the goto escape. We don’t have a reasonable enough society where gaming can just be an innocuous past time. It’s going to be a hideout for people growing up under the enormous pressure of this new world.
I expect drug use, and prescription medication use to be going up on exactly the same curve.
Buying is completely different from playing.
So the outrage is that they let children spend their money on something they then can't fully use? As barring buying prevented me from playing as well.
I'm against that but don't see it as overly authoritarian.
I'm against that but don't see it as overly authoritarian.
Naturally, most of the comments here are expressing dissent to yours, simply because there is more to be said on that perspective.
Most of the people who agree with you simply upvote your comment and move on.
Most of the people who agree with you simply upvote your comment and move on.
>Naturally, most of the comments here are expressing dissent to yours, simply because there is more to be said on that perspective.
I think HN crowd is more prone to question their own believes and playing devil's advocate to just bashing on authoritative regimes. It is a blessing and a curse.
I think HN crowd is more prone to question their own believes and playing devil's advocate to just bashing on authoritative regimes. It is a blessing and a curse.
Actually refreshing to see comments arguing instead of just downvotes for wrong think
Here in the United States, minors aren't allowed in bars for even 1 hour per week! Is the difference here the "amount of authoritarianism," or simply the types of things each country believes are harmful enough for minors that they ought to be banned or restricted?
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Actually though this is a fucking big brother atrocity of a policy that people will inevitably circumvent and the government will pick and choose when to enforce.
Actually though this is a fucking big brother atrocity of a policy that people will inevitably circumvent and the government will pick and choose when to enforce.
Except the people aren't our enemy. We're worried about an authoritarian government harming our friends.
My initial (and final) interpretation was:
1. The people being enforced will find ways around these laws, naturally because it's considered unreasonable and overreaching in some regards.
2. In doing so, the government will selectively enforce these rules based on the limited amount of information or surveillance used to enforce these rules, so those who are busted for breaking them will pay the price, while others who are breaking the rules without getting caught will not pay the price.
I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence by breaking this down, but it's worth clarifying the scenarios.
While I agree with the GP's sentiment (it's very much overreaching into the private lives of its citizens who may wish to decide for themselves (or their family) how they spend their free, recreational time), the argument is no different from the fact that many DUI offenders never get caught while some do and pay the penalties.
I don't think this is a strong enough argument to mount a realistic protest against it, but it's a small factor that's unequivocally true -- many will get away with gaming longer than 3 hours anyway.
Gaming longer than 3 hours will give youth a good thrill at least. ;)
Jokes aside, this policy sucks.
1. The people being enforced will find ways around these laws, naturally because it's considered unreasonable and overreaching in some regards.
2. In doing so, the government will selectively enforce these rules based on the limited amount of information or surveillance used to enforce these rules, so those who are busted for breaking them will pay the price, while others who are breaking the rules without getting caught will not pay the price.
I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence by breaking this down, but it's worth clarifying the scenarios.
While I agree with the GP's sentiment (it's very much overreaching into the private lives of its citizens who may wish to decide for themselves (or their family) how they spend their free, recreational time), the argument is no different from the fact that many DUI offenders never get caught while some do and pay the penalties.
I don't think this is a strong enough argument to mount a realistic protest against it, but it's a small factor that's unequivocally true -- many will get away with gaming longer than 3 hours anyway.
Gaming longer than 3 hours will give youth a good thrill at least. ;)
Jokes aside, this policy sucks.
The CCP is the one making the mistake, not the people. No one said it was the people.
It is easy to read the above comment that way. Often people confuse governments with people. Americans vs American Government. Chinese vs CCP. Etc. We should be clear about the distinction because certain factions have a vested interest in promoting this.
Except that the comment itself drew a distinction between the government's decision, how the people will respond, and how the government will respond to the people's response. I could see confusion happening only if the reader gave up part way through.
It's better to give the other person the benefit of doubt, and in case of confusion to ask for clarification rather than making the more uncharitable interpretation of the possible interpretations and thereby questioning the morality of the other person.
> It's better to give the other person the benefit of doubt
I fully agree with this and actively encourage this behavior, but we also need to be careful with our words because 1) we're in a time that we're discouraging this kind of practice and 2) as stated above there are factions actively promoting confusion about this specific subject matter (specifically ones relevant to this conversation).
I would love if we could all argue in good faith and give the benefit of the doubt, but it should not be a working assumption.
I fully agree with this and actively encourage this behavior, but we also need to be careful with our words because 1) we're in a time that we're discouraging this kind of practice and 2) as stated above there are factions actively promoting confusion about this specific subject matter (specifically ones relevant to this conversation).
I would love if we could all argue in good faith and give the benefit of the doubt, but it should not be a working assumption.
The people are harmed by the mistake, even if they aren't the ones making it.
eranima(1)
To play devil's advocate for a moment, is this different from age-gating we do anywhere else on the internet? We require you to be 18 or over to look at adult sites or view particularly edgy stuff on youtube. Is the difference just that there's an implicit wink going on because it relies on the user being honest about their age? I'm sure if we had a real ID system like China in place, laws would mandate its use given US attitudes about porn and gore.
There is no difference; it's evil and needs to die.
I'd also be careful with the labels based just around the flavor of authoritarianism you're used to for all your life. FWIW, drinking age is generally customary rather than codified in practice in China, as is public drinking.
It's not the support that I find appalling, this is fine in a free-speech society, but the issue i have with modern HN is that any sort criticism of censorship as an act regardless of the content or who's the person on the receiving end gets a tremendous amount of downvotes (almost instantly), which makes me think that the majority of people here (or those who read comments) believe that censorship is OK depending on the topic. For example: censoring Alex Jones is OK no matter what the context is, but censoring criticism of North Korea is not ok. So they clearly understand the concept, they just choose to apply it selectively and think that's fine. This varies depending on the person and the circles the go in.
Almost every single comment I make with that sentiment gets instant downvoted or flagged.
Almost every single comment I make with that sentiment gets instant downvoted or flagged.
It’s about more than just online games. It’s about control
Isn't this more likely to provoke the opposite? Addictive time-wasters are an aid to authoritarian government.
Assuming this policy is effectively enforced, Chinese youth suddenly have a lot more free time on their hands.
Isn't this more likely to provoke the opposite? Addictive time-wasters are an aid to authoritarian government.
Assuming this policy is effectively enforced, Chinese youth suddenly have a lot more free time on their hands.
> Addictive time-wasters are an aid to authoritarian government.
They're an aid to control; however, the government has interests apart from control. If the government feels that it has sufficient control, but worries about economic output, it may prioritize economics over control. Ultimately government needs to achieve both.
They're an aid to control; however, the government has interests apart from control. If the government feels that it has sufficient control, but worries about economic output, it may prioritize economics over control. Ultimately government needs to achieve both.
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’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.
Nowhere else in the non-authoritarian world has any regulation remotely like this. This is not the same as age limits on alcohol or cigarettes or gambling. They are limiting a leisure activity to a specific “CCP approved” window complete with a real-id and facial recognition tracking system.
This is a horrendous infringement on personal liberty. No human should ever have to endure government mandates over such trivial parts of their lives “for the greater good”. This tactic is used by the likes of the Taliban who banned painting, music, sports etc.
I mentioned the great firewall to illustrate what Chinas real goals here are: total and absolute control over their citizens. The CCP restricts access to free information, political dissent, and freedom of religion.
These are new laws being introduced which would make it illegal for a teenager to play ONLINE CHESS on a Wednesday. How is this not overreach? If the dark software patterns were really the issue they would just make the loot boxes and micro purchases illegal. It’s 100% about power.
This is a horrendous infringement on personal liberty. No human should ever have to endure government mandates over such trivial parts of their lives “for the greater good”. This tactic is used by the likes of the Taliban who banned painting, music, sports etc.
I mentioned the great firewall to illustrate what Chinas real goals here are: total and absolute control over their citizens. The CCP restricts access to free information, political dissent, and freedom of religion.
These are new laws being introduced which would make it illegal for a teenager to play ONLINE CHESS on a Wednesday. How is this not overreach? If the dark software patterns were really the issue they would just make the loot boxes and micro purchases illegal. It’s 100% about power.
Some people don't like this move personally, but at the same time appreciate diversity of value systems around the world. Its a hedge. If the whole world followed the same value system, a systemic flaw could result in much disaster.
By that same argument, it would be better not to have all of China forced to follow the same "value system", yet that is exactly what authoritarian policy like this intends.
So the whole country of 1.3-1.4B people has the same value system?
This is more like the CCP imposing its value system on them.
This is more like the CCP imposing its value system on them.
HN has often had a decent contingent of first-generation Chinese immigrants / present Chinese citizens that are happy to defend policies that really don’t make sense in a framework defined with Western values.
I’m not surprised. Sad? A bit. It normalizes authoritarianism. But what are you going to do? I want to live in a globalized society and internet, and China is a huge portion of that, despite their best efforts to insulate their citizens from the world.
I’m not surprised. Sad? A bit. It normalizes authoritarianism. But what are you going to do? I want to live in a globalized society and internet, and China is a huge portion of that, despite their best efforts to insulate their citizens from the world.
"Under-18s" are already in control of their parent so their parents can force such rule and allowed to do so. So this one is not really comparable with great firewall. For example in my country parents can't chose to not send their kids to school. This one is in same category with that.
Obviously it is ridicules to common sense though it is also sound pretty normal thing for a government like China to do.
This isn’t any more authoritarian than the US banning alcohol and cannabis for people under 21. At least China is allowing kids to do a little bit of gaming. Meanwhile in the US young adults and children are outright forbidden from intoxicating substances (as opposed to many European countries where teens can buy low-alcohol beverages.)
Weed is illegal in China and they do have a drinking age there, albeit 18 not 21, so this seems like a false equivalency.
Drinking age in China exist only on paper, and it doesn't exist for most people. If you call the police in China for drinkning age violation, they would probably think you are insane. Hardly can be said in the US.
Alcohol has been scientifically proven to cause long-term health consequences to children. It is also an incredibly addictive and dangerous substance that often results in lifetime debilitation, cancers, and other deadly diseases.
This is not in any way similar to video games.
This entire thread seems to be overrun with Tankies or CCP bots.
This is not in any way similar to video games.
This entire thread seems to be overrun with Tankies or CCP bots.
Governments are always about control, that's why they exist, the question is, to what extent?
A good policy is a good policy, a bad policy is a bad policy, how hard to think this way. People are not talking about great firewall. So next time when people talking about election in US, I should say "killing Iraqis is perfectly fine as well"?
People don't care about what China does inside China as opposed to what it does outside.
you can be supportive of a policy without being supportive of the type of government that runs it. I'm for it if it was done in a democratic way.
[deleted]
HN users are extremely contrarian.
I'm encouraged by how many people say they have mixed feelings about this. Hopefully that's an indication that they're able to see news from China outside of the monopolar propaganda view--that everything that the CPC does is evil; Or authoritarianism is evil per se--that's so common in the West (not that HN exclusively represents the West it does not but its anglophone nature correlated with its silicon valley roots severely biased it towards that type of thinking and perspective).
I think people recognize the efficiency--that they, China can actually pull something like this off; if they mandate that they're going to restrict this then it doesn't get mired in debate and bogged down in Parliament to eventually passes as a watered down concession representing everybody's possible interest group; rather if they say they're going to do something they just go ahead and they execute on that--and I think people can admire that.
And certainly probably nobody else in the world can do this at that kind of scale.
So I think ultimately that sets China up for great success by evolving a system of government because they can afford to run the experiments.
Other countries they can't afford to run the experiments: first off, they don't have the data or the scale to do so; second they don't have the ability to do so; and third they're not able to conjure the political will to be able to run an experiment.
But if China wants to run an experiment and figure out if this policy is going to work or what the effects are going to be--if it's going to help or not--they can afford to do that and they can iterate quickly. And that's what they do.
So in the long term China has a better, more scientific approach to figuring out a system of governance for their people. and this is not some slap dash theory I'm just pulling out of thin air and predicting what the future of China would look like in some fantasy: this is how the CPC have run things for the last 70 years.
Contrast with the West and liberal Democratic systems we have in the West: because we cannot move so quickly, we have to--to some extent--assume what we're doing is right prima facie and so a lot of our rhetoric reflects that. Our political rhetoric about ourselves reflects our sense of moral or procedural superiority to the rest of the world. we constantly remind ourselves you know of the superiority of our system even while acknowledging its flaws. instead of being able to implement policies, at scale, and collect data and move quickly we commission studies, and design intricate theories, and funnel money to think tanks, and often these policy manufacturing initiatives are partisan dalliances with foregone conclusions serving the interests of some of the number of competing groups.
But we cannot iterate as quickly are effectively as China can. But interestingly there's no real reason why we can't. If you consider the scale of our so-called Western civilization stretching from the EU to all of the anglophone world and even South America we should be able to run policy experiments. But consistently we do not. So we fret away the hours theorizing, debating and raising ginormous elections while the world keeps on turning.
so ultimately in the long game even if we started out ahead with a better system--even if--China is going to be able to create a better system in the long term because they can run more experiments more quickly, more efficiently, with bigger scale and they're going to have bigger data. so they can iterate more quickly they can analyze the bigger data that they have and they can come up with the optimal policies to drive their nation and their people forward.
one danger for the West is as China gets deeper into that approach the choices they make are going to seem more and more perplexing to people in the west because the choices are based on a set of assumptions and knowledge that we simply don't have in the west: because we haven't been able to run those experiments we don't have the benefit of that experience. so we're not going to understand China or how they make these choices. and I think that's dangerous for the West politically because we'll fall further behind but it's also dangerous you know culturally and individually because there'll be an increasing empathy Gap between people from different systems which will I suppose in the online world get reduced to a binary polarization of zero nuance and zero understanding which we see the beginnings of today very clearly.
so China is playing a high-risk high reward strategy to some extent. (And it's funny because I think there's a stereotype in the west where people often think of Chinese as very risk averse people. But if you look at the way that China has run its government it's calculating but they take a lot of risks. And you want to push that stereotype further you know a lot of Chinese people start businesses so I feel that stereotype is wrong: the Chinese culture embraces risk.)
If it's not clear what I'm talking about with the term experiments here, it's policy experiments. We are not able to run policy experiments in the west because everything gets bogged down; we can't execute on a plan and the short-term need to appeal to the lowest common denominator and people's sentimental or emotional nature or to their amygdala--their fear--this kind of pragmatic political necessity in our Western liberal Democratic systems distorts the discourse and the issues of democratic politics away from something substantial and towards something that's pretty ephemeral, often insubstantial and even petty.
What kind of future are we creating for ourselves and for our culture and for the legions of people who have sacrificed throughout our history with this kind of behavior?
And I think this abuse of our position is especially egregious when compounded with the lack of empathy and understanding towards the different system that the Chinese are doing when if we could look at it clearly I think we would have much to learn. At least much to give us pause and reflect about our own flaws but instead what you see happening is people look at this different system and instead of reflecting on themselves, they puff themselves up with--an almost seemingly reactionary or even compensatory-- pride about how good their own is, using some fabricated pretense of the evil bogeyman Other and how righteous they are themselves. you might dismiss this as simply the reaction of the common person but that reaction is very important in politics and that drives the discourse and ultimately constrains the thinking and the policy of the nations that comprise the west.
So China can afford to run the experiments and they can afford to think long-term. So who's going to win in like 200 years? it doesn't have to come down to a military conflict. they just have to win at everything else. And then who's going to be the more likely primary aggressor? The side that's on top or the side that's embittered and feeling their foregone place in the world has been stolen and with the history of amassing enormous military power and utilizing it sometimes seemingly haphazardly?
I think the Western system really has to evolve if we are really going to back up our grandiose self-important rhetoric and self-congratulatory triumphal political narratives about ourselves with real results. And I think the core of that is our governance system. It has to be flexible enough to prosecute our interest in a changing world we can't outsource that adaptability solely to the military because while necessary it overly constrains our strategy. We need a flexible government as the core of everything. that's one thing that I've learned by watching and thinking about China over the last 10 years. And I think in order to start doing that there needs to be a correction to the narrative of how Western culture thinks about and talks about china. That's what I'm trying to achieve with this comment: contribute to that correction.
I think people recognize the efficiency--that they, China can actually pull something like this off; if they mandate that they're going to restrict this then it doesn't get mired in debate and bogged down in Parliament to eventually passes as a watered down concession representing everybody's possible interest group; rather if they say they're going to do something they just go ahead and they execute on that--and I think people can admire that.
And certainly probably nobody else in the world can do this at that kind of scale.
So I think ultimately that sets China up for great success by evolving a system of government because they can afford to run the experiments.
Other countries they can't afford to run the experiments: first off, they don't have the data or the scale to do so; second they don't have the ability to do so; and third they're not able to conjure the political will to be able to run an experiment.
But if China wants to run an experiment and figure out if this policy is going to work or what the effects are going to be--if it's going to help or not--they can afford to do that and they can iterate quickly. And that's what they do.
So in the long term China has a better, more scientific approach to figuring out a system of governance for their people. and this is not some slap dash theory I'm just pulling out of thin air and predicting what the future of China would look like in some fantasy: this is how the CPC have run things for the last 70 years.
Contrast with the West and liberal Democratic systems we have in the West: because we cannot move so quickly, we have to--to some extent--assume what we're doing is right prima facie and so a lot of our rhetoric reflects that. Our political rhetoric about ourselves reflects our sense of moral or procedural superiority to the rest of the world. we constantly remind ourselves you know of the superiority of our system even while acknowledging its flaws. instead of being able to implement policies, at scale, and collect data and move quickly we commission studies, and design intricate theories, and funnel money to think tanks, and often these policy manufacturing initiatives are partisan dalliances with foregone conclusions serving the interests of some of the number of competing groups.
But we cannot iterate as quickly are effectively as China can. But interestingly there's no real reason why we can't. If you consider the scale of our so-called Western civilization stretching from the EU to all of the anglophone world and even South America we should be able to run policy experiments. But consistently we do not. So we fret away the hours theorizing, debating and raising ginormous elections while the world keeps on turning.
so ultimately in the long game even if we started out ahead with a better system--even if--China is going to be able to create a better system in the long term because they can run more experiments more quickly, more efficiently, with bigger scale and they're going to have bigger data. so they can iterate more quickly they can analyze the bigger data that they have and they can come up with the optimal policies to drive their nation and their people forward.
one danger for the West is as China gets deeper into that approach the choices they make are going to seem more and more perplexing to people in the west because the choices are based on a set of assumptions and knowledge that we simply don't have in the west: because we haven't been able to run those experiments we don't have the benefit of that experience. so we're not going to understand China or how they make these choices. and I think that's dangerous for the West politically because we'll fall further behind but it's also dangerous you know culturally and individually because there'll be an increasing empathy Gap between people from different systems which will I suppose in the online world get reduced to a binary polarization of zero nuance and zero understanding which we see the beginnings of today very clearly.
so China is playing a high-risk high reward strategy to some extent. (And it's funny because I think there's a stereotype in the west where people often think of Chinese as very risk averse people. But if you look at the way that China has run its government it's calculating but they take a lot of risks. And you want to push that stereotype further you know a lot of Chinese people start businesses so I feel that stereotype is wrong: the Chinese culture embraces risk.)
If it's not clear what I'm talking about with the term experiments here, it's policy experiments. We are not able to run policy experiments in the west because everything gets bogged down; we can't execute on a plan and the short-term need to appeal to the lowest common denominator and people's sentimental or emotional nature or to their amygdala--their fear--this kind of pragmatic political necessity in our Western liberal Democratic systems distorts the discourse and the issues of democratic politics away from something substantial and towards something that's pretty ephemeral, often insubstantial and even petty.
What kind of future are we creating for ourselves and for our culture and for the legions of people who have sacrificed throughout our history with this kind of behavior?
And I think this abuse of our position is especially egregious when compounded with the lack of empathy and understanding towards the different system that the Chinese are doing when if we could look at it clearly I think we would have much to learn. At least much to give us pause and reflect about our own flaws but instead what you see happening is people look at this different system and instead of reflecting on themselves, they puff themselves up with--an almost seemingly reactionary or even compensatory-- pride about how good their own is, using some fabricated pretense of the evil bogeyman Other and how righteous they are themselves. you might dismiss this as simply the reaction of the common person but that reaction is very important in politics and that drives the discourse and ultimately constrains the thinking and the policy of the nations that comprise the west.
So China can afford to run the experiments and they can afford to think long-term. So who's going to win in like 200 years? it doesn't have to come down to a military conflict. they just have to win at everything else. And then who's going to be the more likely primary aggressor? The side that's on top or the side that's embittered and feeling their foregone place in the world has been stolen and with the history of amassing enormous military power and utilizing it sometimes seemingly haphazardly?
I think the Western system really has to evolve if we are really going to back up our grandiose self-important rhetoric and self-congratulatory triumphal political narratives about ourselves with real results. And I think the core of that is our governance system. It has to be flexible enough to prosecute our interest in a changing world we can't outsource that adaptability solely to the military because while necessary it overly constrains our strategy. We need a flexible government as the core of everything. that's one thing that I've learned by watching and thinking about China over the last 10 years. And I think in order to start doing that there needs to be a correction to the narrative of how Western culture thinks about and talks about china. That's what I'm trying to achieve with this comment: contribute to that correction.
908B64B197(1)
Most people assume governments are benevolent. The rest are bots and/or promoting a political agenda.
[deleted]
I'm not in favor at all - but it doesn't seem like a massive overstep.
I honestly don't see what the big difference is between online games and weed.
It doesn't really seem off-brand for governments these days to be making these kinds of decisions.
I mean, if they decided to make coffee illegal for kids - yeah, that seems dumb, right? But is that REALLY that big of a difference than making tobacco illegal?
I just don't see a huge difference with online gaming.
I honestly don't see what the big difference is between online games and weed.
It doesn't really seem off-brand for governments these days to be making these kinds of decisions.
I mean, if they decided to make coffee illegal for kids - yeah, that seems dumb, right? But is that REALLY that big of a difference than making tobacco illegal?
I just don't see a huge difference with online gaming.
So, in the US, we have freedom to assemble and associate with other people. Some people are turning to VR Chat and MMOs to congregate. This is especially a thing during a pandemic when we can't physically come together to do things.
Video games aren't all mindless watching of bibs and bobs and dodads and shinies. They're often organized groups of social activity.
Video games aren't all mindless watching of bibs and bobs and dodads and shinies. They're often organized groups of social activity.
Is this...are you being serious?
Honestly, I wish I could delete at least half the comments here, including yours. It's as if the moment somebody mentions "government", the majority of HN that is American goes "bu-bu-but it's authoritarian!!!!" and cries about freedom. It's ridiculous.
The CCP is an authoritarian government. Yes. Is this being proposed in the US? No. Why all the whining and insane amount of pearl-clutching then?
Frankly, I was hoping to see more discussion about the (potential) effects of (excessive) gaming or the potential/unforeseen consequences of the ban, but apparently people here seem to go braindead the moment China, government or freedom is mentioned. It feels like I'm back on Facebook or Reddit again. Has the level of discourse really become that much worse on HN over the years?
The CCP is an authoritarian government. Yes. Is this being proposed in the US? No. Why all the whining and insane amount of pearl-clutching then?
Frankly, I was hoping to see more discussion about the (potential) effects of (excessive) gaming or the potential/unforeseen consequences of the ban, but apparently people here seem to go braindead the moment China, government or freedom is mentioned. It feels like I'm back on Facebook or Reddit again. Has the level of discourse really become that much worse on HN over the years?
> Honestly, I wish I could delete at least half the comments here, including yours.
It sounds like if you had your way, you'd be quite the authoritarian. Do you hear yourself?
> The CCP is an authoritarian government. Yes. Is this being proposed in the US? No. Why all the whining and insane amount of pearl-clutching then?
Vaccine passports and mandated lockdown and vaccines without informed consent are bringing us closer to authoritarianism than we ever have before.
> Has the level of discourse really become that much worse on HN over the years?
So in response you create a meta post complaining about others complaining about authoritarianism?
It sounds like if you had your way, you'd be quite the authoritarian. Do you hear yourself?
> The CCP is an authoritarian government. Yes. Is this being proposed in the US? No. Why all the whining and insane amount of pearl-clutching then?
Vaccine passports and mandated lockdown and vaccines without informed consent are bringing us closer to authoritarianism than we ever have before.
> Has the level of discourse really become that much worse on HN over the years?
So in response you create a meta post complaining about others complaining about authoritarianism?
> It sounds like if you had your way, you'd be quite the authoritarian. Do you hear yourself?
So every forum that has mods to moderate the posts that are made is "authoritarian"? Do you listen to yourself? It's not authoritarian to ensure a certain level of quality or level of discourse. And what's going on in these comments does not meet any reasonable bar.
So every forum that has mods to moderate the posts that are made is "authoritarian"? Do you listen to yourself? It's not authoritarian to ensure a certain level of quality or level of discourse. And what's going on in these comments does not meet any reasonable bar.
I'm glad I have certain inalienable rights, but I'm also happy to see the authoritarian government experiment continue.
There is a chance that liberal government is the most effective government, ever - the so-called end of history argument, but let's not forget the shot heard around the world was fired less than 250 years ago. Benevolent dictatorship could still work - especially today. Look at Singapore, look at China - lifting millions and billions of people out of poverty is an achievement that shouldn't be denied because they're an authoritarian government.
There is a chance that liberal government is the most effective government, ever - the so-called end of history argument, but let's not forget the shot heard around the world was fired less than 250 years ago. Benevolent dictatorship could still work - especially today. Look at Singapore, look at China - lifting millions and billions of people out of poverty is an achievement that shouldn't be denied because they're an authoritarian government.
> lifting millions and billions of people out of poverty is an achievement that shouldn't be denied
This is an oft-repeated propaganda talking point. Their system created their poverty in the first place. Not sure breaking something then fixing it again is much of an achievement. Not to mention, the Chinese government changed the definition of what constituted poverty in order to make that claim. I really don't care about the US vs China war because I think the US has already lost but it is quite annoying to hear people repeat propaganda.
This is an oft-repeated propaganda talking point. Their system created their poverty in the first place. Not sure breaking something then fixing it again is much of an achievement. Not to mention, the Chinese government changed the definition of what constituted poverty in order to make that claim. I really don't care about the US vs China war because I think the US has already lost but it is quite annoying to hear people repeat propaganda.
It's a fairly valid argument imo. The idea that liberal ideals is the best way to organize markets is good - but you can't just ignore the outliers.
If it was easy to fixing it - every country that has been colonized should be at least middle income by now right?
If it was easy to fixing it - every country that has been colonized should be at least middle income by now right?
How are they realistically gonna enforce it?
They force the gaming companies to use real-name ID and face verification.
Look back to July's news of Tencent implementing facial recognition via smartphones for an example.
same way it's always done. Pick and choose enforcement based on whims, political opponents or anyone otherwise whom they target.
Note that it's specifically Online games, not all games.
China, apparently, does not know any 18 year olds. I'm sure they'll all voluntarily comply, no problem. /s
Rules for how online gaming companies can offer their service is kind of the opposite of expecting users to comply voluntarily with restrictions on online gaming?
There are also self-hosted, and offline games. Shit, my 17 yo plays until 4 in the morning somehow even though his internet turns off at 10pm and his phone has no data plan.
So your point is that people won't follow regulation targeting online games, by playing not-online games?
My point is that if "playing games" for days on end is a concern, this does next to nothing to fix that. In fact, I'm not even sure there is a fix per se. As a parent, I think this is a big problem. Literally an entire generation of young men and women are wasting entire days on their YouTube/TikTok/computer games addiction (often all three) and neither learning nor doing anything worthwhile with their lives. That bill will come due in the form of poverty, crime, substance abuse, and death 10-20 years from now, when these folks see that they can't get paid for watching youtube all day. At least not reliably. Kudos to the Chinese for seeing a little bit ahead of everyone else, even if their "solution" is nothing of the sort.
[deleted]
Thinking back to my gaming binges with Ultima Online… imposing something like this would have turned me into a radical.
I’m mad just thinking about it. And to think people want socialism / communism in the US.
I’m mad just thinking about it. And to think people want socialism / communism in the US.
Presumably, a market for video game time will emerge…
Here is the thing, those online games prey on inner mechanism of the human nature for profit, and kids are specially vulnerable, so to some extent, certain level of restriction would be desirable.
Also note the general background of Chinese bureaucracy, especially at country level are almost all at Biden's age. Imagine their rage when their children abandon them for games and now it's their time to pay them back.
That being said, it's still surprising since 3 hours/day seems fair and ok, but 1 hour/day and 3 hours/weeks feels overreaching.
Also note the general background of Chinese bureaucracy, especially at country level are almost all at Biden's age. Imagine their rage when their children abandon them for games and now it's their time to pay them back.
That being said, it's still surprising since 3 hours/day seems fair and ok, but 1 hour/day and 3 hours/weeks feels overreaching.
> Here is the thing, those online games prey on inner mechanism of the human nature for profit
You're painting with far too broad of a brush here.
You're painting with far too broad of a brush here.
The state clawing its hands inside families' decision making
It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the proposition, this should not be decided by the state
It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the proposition, this should not be decided by the state
Seeing how people dying playing games like PUBG. I'd like my government also implement this. Though I don't know how could it be implemented. Must be at ISP level.
Uncertain why my comment triggered others. Google and you'd find stories. Do not take every other ban an attack against democracy.
This is the thing that is going to spur a backlash against the CCP in China. Or at least it should. Minors are the perfect protesters: are you going to jail, beat, or kill them? The international backlash would be incredible.
Yes. Taking away entertainment from the youth so they have to find something else to fill their time with. What could possibly go wrong.
Sadly when I hear news like this my first reaction is wondering when it’s coming to the US :-(
Do you feel the same restrictions should be put in place for social media, TV, and non-educational books as well?
That's a pretty misguided reaction, considering there's no legal mechanism for this to be enforced in the US.
Do you think the US gov is going to propose requiring all gamers to provide a real ID to prove age, and people will just be ok with that? No way in hell.
Do you think the US gov is going to propose requiring all gamers to provide a real ID to prove age, and people will just be ok with that? No way in hell.
We did lockdowns which were previously unimaginable in a free society.
I don’t take anything for granted these days.
I don’t take anything for granted these days.
"...coaches of the Chinese Olympic volleyball teams decry this move, saying 'it will condemn our great nation to certain defeat in 2024'". /s
(Though to look at reaction here on HN, doing a 's/games/video games/' in the title would be utterly superfluous.)
(Though to look at reaction here on HN, doing a 's/games/video games/' in the title would be utterly superfluous.)
One point I haven't seen brought up yet is the amount of interaction and forum type communications that happen in modern games within the context of CCPs wanting to control all online speech.
The TV show Occupied (norway Okkupert) has a fun example where a militarized group uses video game live audio chat to secretly communicate and pass info.
I think there are memes about COD waiting rooms too illustrating digital forums of speech, even the most dumb teenager smack talk you can think of!
And that seems scary to CCP.
The TV show Occupied (norway Okkupert) has a fun example where a militarized group uses video game live audio chat to secretly communicate and pass info.
I think there are memes about COD waiting rooms too illustrating digital forums of speech, even the most dumb teenager smack talk you can think of!
And that seems scary to CCP.
I recall back during the early days of the "war on terror" Afghanistan war / Iraq war, there were statements that terrorists were using WoW servers for planning attacks lol
Edit: Found a story about it - https://www.wired.com/2008/09/world-of-warcra/
> Toavs, for one, believes that spies will have to spend more time in virtual worlds like WoW, if they want to have a hope of keeping tabs on what goes on inside 'em. Which means, some day soon, we might find secret agents in World of Warcraft, along with the druids and orcs and night elves.
Truly absurd. Sounds to me like someone at the CIA just wants to play WoW instead of working.
Edit: Found a story about it - https://www.wired.com/2008/09/world-of-warcra/
> Toavs, for one, believes that spies will have to spend more time in virtual worlds like WoW, if they want to have a hope of keeping tabs on what goes on inside 'em. Which means, some day soon, we might find secret agents in World of Warcraft, along with the druids and orcs and night elves.
Truly absurd. Sounds to me like someone at the CIA just wants to play WoW instead of working.
Could be, but i don't think they have a problem policing speech anywhere else, why would they particularly focus on it in games in a way to restrict the time? If it was the case there's always another online property people can occur to converse. the correct English acronym is CPC now, i think
Didn't know about that acronym!
Yeah i think the point that they don't have a problem policing speech everywhere else kind of points out that this is just another excuse (or value add minimally).
The online places that the less tech savvy majority have is shrinking.
Yeah i think the point that they don't have a problem policing speech everywhere else kind of points out that this is just another excuse (or value add minimally).
The online places that the less tech savvy majority have is shrinking.
Yeah fair enough that's an interesting way to turn it around. I guess we come at it from different perspectives. I suppose I get you see it as the main thing the CPC is trying to do is control people's thoughts and speech and everything is subsumed to that goal and so all the other reasons are just fake pretexts in order to achieve that single goal.
But I suppose I have a more broad view of the cpc's goals and while I definitely acknowledge and I'm okay to some extent with their attempts to control speech because I see the utility of them doing that and I understand the reason they try to do that. I also think they have a lot of other goals that they're trying to do. you know they are trying to create various types of social reform and get people to behave in ways that they think of as good for the country. so I do believe that this is genuinely about that; I mean they want to free up young people to do some useful work and enhance themselves and not just you know become sort of slaves to these game companies and make the money or become addicted to that kind of behavior.
but I think the argument you propose is sort of an effective counter narrative to the cpc's policy argument there I guess so if people wanted to criticize it they could claim it was just you know another suppression of speech but at the same time that trope seems a little bit tired and stretched thin particularly I think if you look at the realities of what they do achieve and I think from the point of view of a CPC adversary you know the danger of using thinly stretched tropes is they lose value and they lose weight over time.
so if that's your bag I suggesy coming up with sort of a constantly you know updating set of counter narratives. because that's certainly what the CPC narrative engineers and propagandists are doing they are always refining their rhetoric and their arguments so if you want to compete you can't do it with a tired thin stretch trope you have to kind of constantly be innovating.
Hope that helps! ;P ;) xx
But I suppose I have a more broad view of the cpc's goals and while I definitely acknowledge and I'm okay to some extent with their attempts to control speech because I see the utility of them doing that and I understand the reason they try to do that. I also think they have a lot of other goals that they're trying to do. you know they are trying to create various types of social reform and get people to behave in ways that they think of as good for the country. so I do believe that this is genuinely about that; I mean they want to free up young people to do some useful work and enhance themselves and not just you know become sort of slaves to these game companies and make the money or become addicted to that kind of behavior.
but I think the argument you propose is sort of an effective counter narrative to the cpc's policy argument there I guess so if people wanted to criticize it they could claim it was just you know another suppression of speech but at the same time that trope seems a little bit tired and stretched thin particularly I think if you look at the realities of what they do achieve and I think from the point of view of a CPC adversary you know the danger of using thinly stretched tropes is they lose value and they lose weight over time.
so if that's your bag I suggesy coming up with sort of a constantly you know updating set of counter narratives. because that's certainly what the CPC narrative engineers and propagandists are doing they are always refining their rhetoric and their arguments so if you want to compete you can't do it with a tired thin stretch trope you have to kind of constantly be innovating.
Hope that helps! ;P ;) xx
We live in interesting times, indeed. All the devices we own now become bricks in the walls government wants to build around us. Make no mistake, China is just the first state to implement such a measure and video gaming is just the first use case.
It's really obvious by now that more and more policies like this will be embedded into software. There are so many applications: Cars (how much, where, and how do you drive), TVs (what do you watch and when), personal assistants (what do you talk about with your children)...
It's really obvious by now that more and more policies like this will be embedded into software. There are so many applications: Cars (how much, where, and how do you drive), TVs (what do you watch and when), personal assistants (what do you talk about with your children)...
I think this rule only applies to "online gaming services", which is significantly less dystopian.
But I agree with your larger point, and would argue that insofar as we no longer understand our tools' functioning then they can (and will) be used to control us.
But I agree with your larger point, and would argue that insofar as we no longer understand our tools' functioning then they can (and will) be used to control us.
I’d read kids can sign in with other IDs to get around this.
The biggest problem with this legislation seems to be not its intended target (youth gaming), but the fact that, since it is likely to be very difficult to enforce and a lot of kids will try to break the rules, it opens up a wide opportunity for selective enforcement - $opposition_politician lets his kids game too much, $foreign_company has ineffective age verification for their online servers, et cetera.
With that said, I'm not surprised to find people in the West wondering what else we're going to do about "artificial addictions".
With that said, I'm not surprised to find people in the West wondering what else we're going to do about "artificial addictions".
Importantly this is limited to online games. The reuters article doesn't make that clear, but NYT / WSJ articles do [1][2].
Many online games use matchmaking which push you towards a 50% win rate which keeps you more interested than if you were to 'always' win or lose. Depending on the game, you might then spend money or grind time in an attempt to improve the resources available. And in some of those, 3 hours a week necessitates redesigning these games so that they're playable - at least segmenting China's user experience to retain interest. If this regulation can encourage developers to better respect gamers' time and resources, that's a win.
On the other hand, games with longer matches like DotA2/League in their standard modes may run too long to squeeze into an hour. I don't think the experience in those games themselves disrespects the time of users, but the 50% win-rate matchmaking and dream of getting out of 'dumpster tier ELO' can be problematic. On a hot streak or a cold streak? "Let's play til we win/lose."
Single-player games have less pressure and more ability to walk away at mostly anytime (especially these days with quick-save) so you're playing them more on your schedule rather than beholden to the game itself (really the people playing). Multiplayer creates a lot of replayability through the unique decisions other players are making.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/business/media/china-onli... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sets-new-rules-for-youth-...
Many online games use matchmaking which push you towards a 50% win rate which keeps you more interested than if you were to 'always' win or lose. Depending on the game, you might then spend money or grind time in an attempt to improve the resources available. And in some of those, 3 hours a week necessitates redesigning these games so that they're playable - at least segmenting China's user experience to retain interest. If this regulation can encourage developers to better respect gamers' time and resources, that's a win.
On the other hand, games with longer matches like DotA2/League in their standard modes may run too long to squeeze into an hour. I don't think the experience in those games themselves disrespects the time of users, but the 50% win-rate matchmaking and dream of getting out of 'dumpster tier ELO' can be problematic. On a hot streak or a cold streak? "Let's play til we win/lose."
Single-player games have less pressure and more ability to walk away at mostly anytime (especially these days with quick-save) so you're playing them more on your schedule rather than beholden to the game itself (really the people playing). Multiplayer creates a lot of replayability through the unique decisions other players are making.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/business/media/china-onli... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sets-new-rules-for-youth-...
>Many online games use matchmaking which push you towards a 50% win rate which keeps you more interested than if you were to 'always' win or lose.
Any competitive, skill-based matchmaking system that's tuned to produce the fairest game will strive to produce games where all participants have a statistically equal chance of victory. That includes non-video games.
Why are you spinning this as if it's some dirty, manipulative ploy?
Any competitive, skill-based matchmaking system that's tuned to produce the fairest game will strive to produce games where all participants have a statistically equal chance of victory. That includes non-video games.
Why are you spinning this as if it's some dirty, manipulative ploy?
Matchmaking alone isn't inherently evil. As you allude to: what's the point playing if you're going to win 100% of the time or lose 100% of the time?
I'm commenting in the context of why China might ban online gaming. If you can learn the strategies that you fight against in a bot in offline play - or exploit the blunders they make - it can still be fun, but there's less variance and more predictability. You'll probably get tired of it sooner than seeing emergent strategies from other players. Until games are built with bots that can effectively mimic the full range of ELO and unique strategies like you get in online play, I think there will be something missing in offline play. Even then, do we derive the same satisfaction from beating a bot?
Partner up matchmaking with engagement tricks like "first win of the day" and other quests that net you some in-game resources like battle passes and you create a sense of FOMO that drains player time (while ensuring active players to keep queues fast). Add in micro-transactions and financial drain can happen too.
I'm commenting in the context of why China might ban online gaming. If you can learn the strategies that you fight against in a bot in offline play - or exploit the blunders they make - it can still be fun, but there's less variance and more predictability. You'll probably get tired of it sooner than seeing emergent strategies from other players. Until games are built with bots that can effectively mimic the full range of ELO and unique strategies like you get in online play, I think there will be something missing in offline play. Even then, do we derive the same satisfaction from beating a bot?
Partner up matchmaking with engagement tricks like "first win of the day" and other quests that net you some in-game resources like battle passes and you create a sense of FOMO that drains player time (while ensuring active players to keep queues fast). Add in micro-transactions and financial drain can happen too.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28356141&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28356141&p=3
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28356141&p=4
Comments like this will eventually go away...sorry for the annoyance.