Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshschreuder | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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?

Because one is forcing people to do something while the other is letting people choose for themselves.

Does this mean its outcome is inherently better and it should be the default decision? I find this super questionable, especially when we talk about children.

The burden of proof is on you.

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 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!).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com