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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by zarzavat »

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

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

#802

Post by gnull »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #792
gnull wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 5…

> 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!).

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

#803

Post by omot »

zarzavat wrote: post #801

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-…

Dang… perfect metaphor.

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

#805

Post by AussieWog93 »

pizza234 wrote: post #734
gallamine wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We restrict our kids to 30 min /day of screens. Try telling them it's not worth it. They are absolutely rabid about it.

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.

>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

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

#806

Post by erklik »

rsanek wrote: post #786
nearbuy wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our restrictions came about through a democratic process 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?

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.

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

#807

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

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…

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.

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

#808

Post by uptown »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #807
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…

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?

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

#809

Post by Karunamon »

adotbacon wrote: post #695

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…

>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?

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

#810

Post by Diesel555 »

javierluraschi wrote: post #756
barnesto wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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.

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).

Post reply on HN