Though I'm not personally in favour of policies like this, why not? Governments do already set limits on things like drinking (for example, bars much close for certain hours during the day).
Though I'm not personally in favour of policies like this, why not? Governments do already set limits on things like drinking (for example, bars much close for certain hours during the day).
I think governments should trust their people to police themselves before intervening. I think nanny-states aggravate the problem as it takes the choice of behaviour out of the people who need to...
I think governments should trust their people to police themselves before intervening. I think nanny-states aggravate the problem as it takes the choice of behaviour out of the people who need to choose what's best for them. It's an education problem. But investing money and time on education is the long-term solution. Governments directly addressing this issue through these policies is a short-term solution; statistics will definitely show an impact and officials will point at their success, and move on.
Though I generally agree and definitely think China's policies are too aggressive in this case, the gaming industry has proven to be exploitive and can be particularly harmful to children. I don't...
Though I generally agree and definitely think China's policies are too aggressive in this case, the gaming industry has proven to be exploitive and can be particularly harmful to children. I don't actually know the specific games in the article, but thinking about loot boxes and such, I actually do think there should be more regulation in games. To be fair, regulating time a specific person is allowed to play per day is too much for me.
Because people getting out of a bar can get in their cars and kill people, or get into fights, or pass out from drinking too much? There have been studies about the impact of too much screen time...
Because people getting out of a bar can get in their cars and kill people, or get into fights, or pass out from drinking too much?
There have been studies about the impact of too much screen time on kids' minds, but I haven't seen a definitive "it's really bad," and I'm sure putting alcohol overconsumption as more dangerous.
I was more asking the question on why it's not the job of the federal government more so than if there should be a ban. The original comment I was replying to didn't mention if the ban should be...
I was more asking the question on why it's not the job of the federal government more so than if there should be a ban. The original comment I was replying to didn't mention if the ban should be in place.
You may also be interested in: Can China's government really limit how long kids play games? China’s gaming regulator to restrict new games amid concerns over children’s health China's Tencent to...
Definitely. I'm not against the idea, but I was living on my own at 18, and can't imagine being restricted this way. A friendly reminder or even a forced 15 min break maybe, but a firm limit...
Definitely. I'm not against the idea, but I was living on my own at 18, and can't imagine being restricted this way. A friendly reminder or even a forced 15 min break maybe, but a firm limit...
I think part of the problem is that China has also seen bad cases of cell phone addiction in the past few years. Having this hard line approach of absolute limits avoids gray areas and makes it...
I think part of the problem is that China has also seen bad cases of cell phone addiction in the past few years. Having this hard line approach of absolute limits avoids gray areas and makes it simple to force.
I think phone addiction (and addiction in general) exists everywhere. It's one thing to deal with addiction by offering support services and policies, but quite another to ban or limit it for all.
I think phone addiction (and addiction in general) exists everywhere. It's one thing to deal with addiction by offering support services and policies, but quite another to ban or limit it for all.
Depending on the locale and addiction, limits already are in place globally. Most countries have a limit on how much alcohol you can have before driving. The US also has public intoxication laws...
Depending on the locale and addiction, limits already are in place globally. Most countries have a limit on how much alcohol you can have before driving. The US also has public intoxication laws that limit how much you can drink. Sure there are loopholes depending on whether you drive, are in public, etc. Are you against these bans as well? Should we allow people to police themselves in regards to alcohol? What about drugs, gambling, games, etc.? Where do we draw the line and why? They are pretty much just defining limits on any addiction they’ve recognized. Are bans and limits not just strict policies?
We may not see phones, drugs, alcohol, road rules, religion, etc the same way as the Chinese gov but that doesn’t allow us to draw black and white lines based on our ideals while neglecting theirs. We can (and likely do) disagree with their policies and limits but that doesn’t mean it’s an issue with absolutes one way or another. So the real question is to understand why they chose the limits/ loopholes that they have.
For me, these are apples verses oranges. I believe in government regulation for a lot of things, including intoxication laws regarding public safety, gambling limitations and hard drugs. I'm not...
Are you against these bans as well? Should we allow people to police themselves in regards to alcohol? What about drugs, gambling, games, etc.? Where do we draw the line and why? They are pretty much just defining limits on any addiction they’ve recognized. Are bans and limits not just strict policies?
For me, these are apples verses oranges. I believe in government regulation for a lot of things, including intoxication laws regarding public safety, gambling limitations and hard drugs. I'm not sure what you mean by loopholes - for me, drinking at home is not a loophole. There's no law against literally drinking yourself to death at home or at most private places.
As all things, there must be lines. Government regulation is a giant topic, so limiting it to the article, here are my thoughts. 1) Limiting the industry verses the individual. 2) Legal age of consent.
1), Restricting the ability of an industry to exploit its users. This is subtly different from limiting an individual from using an exploitative product. Gambling rules, for example, may require "fair" (however they are defined) payouts, an inability for users "accidentally" bet everything or double or such, and so on. This is not the same as saying each person is only allowed one hour per day at any casino.
Children in general are exceptions. For example, in some places, children aren't allowed in tanning salons, or allowed to get tattoos without parental or guardian permission. So I'm not against government policies against the gaming industry to limit children players' actions in their products. But a 1 or 2 hour per day limit on an eight year old is different from one on a 17 year old.
We may not see phones, drugs, alcohol, road rules, religion, etc the same way as the Chinese gov but that doesn’t allow us to draw black and white lines based on our ideals while neglecting theirs. We can (and likely do) disagree with their policies and limits but that doesn’t mean it’s an issue with absolutes one way or another. So the real question is to understand why they chose the limits/ loopholes that they have.
Thanks for the articles you included, but I honestly found them too light to comment on. However, I can definitely say, I would not be okay with the government bricking my phone after some random time limit because some people can't turn off theirs.
I also don't agree. Chinese aren't some aliens from another planet. It's important to understand where their government is coming from, but there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with them. There are lots of hard black and white lines that should and are drawn all the time.
This should definitely NOT be the job of any federal government.
Though I'm not personally in favour of policies like this, why not? Governments do already set limits on things like drinking (for example, bars much close for certain hours during the day).
I think governments should trust their people to police themselves before intervening. I think nanny-states aggravate the problem as it takes the choice of behaviour out of the people who need to choose what's best for them. It's an education problem. But investing money and time on education is the long-term solution. Governments directly addressing this issue through these policies is a short-term solution; statistics will definitely show an impact and officials will point at their success, and move on.
Though I generally agree and definitely think China's policies are too aggressive in this case, the gaming industry has proven to be exploitive and can be particularly harmful to children. I don't actually know the specific games in the article, but thinking about loot boxes and such, I actually do think there should be more regulation in games. To be fair, regulating time a specific person is allowed to play per day is too much for me.
Because people getting out of a bar can get in their cars and kill people, or get into fights, or pass out from drinking too much?
There have been studies about the impact of too much screen time on kids' minds, but I haven't seen a definitive "it's really bad," and I'm sure putting alcohol overconsumption as more dangerous.
I was more asking the question on why it's not the job of the federal government more so than if there should be a ban. The original comment I was replying to didn't mention if the ban should be in place.
You may also be interested in:
Definitely. I'm not against the idea, but I was living on my own at 18, and can't imagine being restricted this way. A friendly reminder or even a forced 15 min break maybe, but a firm limit...
I think part of the problem is that China has also seen bad cases of cell phone addiction in the past few years. Having this hard line approach of absolute limits avoids gray areas and makes it simple to force.
Study finds obsessive mobile phone use is driving Chinese families apart or https://outline.com/rj9smu
I think phone addiction (and addiction in general) exists everywhere. It's one thing to deal with addiction by offering support services and policies, but quite another to ban or limit it for all.
Depending on the locale and addiction, limits already are in place globally. Most countries have a limit on how much alcohol you can have before driving. The US also has public intoxication laws that limit how much you can drink. Sure there are loopholes depending on whether you drive, are in public, etc. Are you against these bans as well? Should we allow people to police themselves in regards to alcohol? What about drugs, gambling, games, etc.? Where do we draw the line and why? They are pretty much just defining limits on any addiction they’ve recognized. Are bans and limits not just strict policies?
We may not see phones, drugs, alcohol, road rules, religion, etc the same way as the Chinese gov but that doesn’t allow us to draw black and white lines based on our ideals while neglecting theirs. We can (and likely do) disagree with their policies and limits but that doesn’t mean it’s an issue with absolutes one way or another. So the real question is to understand why they chose the limits/ loopholes that they have.
For me, these are apples verses oranges. I believe in government regulation for a lot of things, including intoxication laws regarding public safety, gambling limitations and hard drugs. I'm not sure what you mean by loopholes - for me, drinking at home is not a loophole. There's no law against literally drinking yourself to death at home or at most private places.
As all things, there must be lines. Government regulation is a giant topic, so limiting it to the article, here are my thoughts. 1) Limiting the industry verses the individual. 2) Legal age of consent.
1), Restricting the ability of an industry to exploit its users. This is subtly different from limiting an individual from using an exploitative product. Gambling rules, for example, may require "fair" (however they are defined) payouts, an inability for users "accidentally" bet everything or double or such, and so on. This is not the same as saying each person is only allowed one hour per day at any casino.
Thanks for the articles you included, but I honestly found them too light to comment on. However, I can definitely say, I would not be okay with the government bricking my phone after some random time limit because some people can't turn off theirs.
I also don't agree. Chinese aren't some aliens from another planet. It's important to understand where their government is coming from, but there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with them. There are lots of hard black and white lines that should and are drawn all the time.