Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#411

Post by mattgreenrocks »

blackbear_ wrote: post #150
lhorie wrote: post #91

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…

> ... 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.

> 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.

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#412

Post by cercatrova »

lhorie wrote: post #91

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…

> 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/

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#413

Post by yuy910616 »

rank0 wrote: post #402
jpambrun wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#414

Post by 908B64B197 »

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...

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#415

Post by 908B64B197 »

uncoder0 wrote: post #255
rank0 wrote: post #235

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?

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.

Australia seems to be rushing toward that future at an out of control pace.

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#416

Post by birbs »

sergiomattei wrote: post #346
birbs wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vie…

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 ke…

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.

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#417

Post by beaunative »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #329
beaunative wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dr…

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.

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#418

Post by refulgentis »

namelessoracle wrote: post #7

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 a…

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.

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#419

Post by enkid »

ericmay wrote: post #398
birbs wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vie…

> 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…

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.

Re: China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

#420

Post by keyb0ardninja »

godelski wrote: post #348
teawrecks wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN