This question is inspired by the Australian law that bans people under the age of 16 from social media. But then when I though about it, couldn’t the same argument be made for video games? I mean there are kids just waste their time on video games and not do any of their school assignments.
This purpose of post isn’t me arguing for or against the Australian law or any hypothetical law about a similar ban on video games, I just want to see Lemmy’s opinions on video games compared to social media. To me they seem like both have valid arguments of being harmful.
Edit: Added “Why or why not?” to the question.
No.
/thread
I think one difference is, video games appropriate for kids aren’t going to expose them to tons of peer pressure and the horrors of the real world to nearly the same degree that social media can.
Sure, it’s possible to cone up with extreme scenarios for either. But I think most of us know that something like reddit or 4chan is potentially far more harmful to an eight year old than Mario Cart.
No.
Most of the issues with video games come from either game-related social media (e.g. bullying, political indoctrination, or just the massive time sink that MMOs and other multiplayer games can be which has an element of peer pressure) or stuff that is relatively easy to police on a per-game-basis (e.g. gambling, extreme contents). You can certainly waste a lot of time with single player games, too, but at that point we might as well not allow children to go home from school at all.
Certain TYPES of video games, probably. If there’s an active lootbox or gambling component? Definitely. Online competitive multiplayer? Most likely.
But a normal single player, offline video game is not harmful in the same way a social media site is.
Online can be ok, but I do think that a game should take the Nintendo approach to online gameplay if it wants to be accessible to kids. Games like Splatoon or Mario Kart have online components that seem kid-friendly enough to me.
I always hate to dip into to “back in my day” territory, but I am grateful I grew up when I did, when all games were offline experiences. I never had to grow up with “the algorithm,” and my social gaming experience was just talking about them with friends at school the next day. I know times change, and tastes along with it, but I have to believe 10-year-old me wouldn’t enjoy today’s games as much. I was a shy kid and would have hated randos intruding in my gaming time.
Does the Australian law ban social media solely on the basis of overuse? How does it define overuse? This post reads like a false equivalancy argument with the way the question is phrased right now.
No.
Who am I supposed to wreck in the game if all the kids are banned?
lol more like the kids are pwning you. It is other old people you actually pwning
It’s true. Once a GoldenEye master, now I can’t touch my kids in video games.
You shouldn’t be touching kids anyway.
Just pick second moonraker elite so the noobs are unable to hit you.
I’d be in support for a ban to paid gambling mechanics for underage players. I’ve heard too many stories where kids get addicted to gambling via these as a starting point; and soon cannot stop when they become adults. At the very least regulate them worldwide under the same term as gambling.
Other than that, not really.
I don’t really understand why people are downvoting this post. I think this might be a symptom of the, imo, rather nebulous interpretation of the use of upvotes and downvotes.
Because lemmy is a bunch of teenagers screaming, “NOOOO!”, through clenched teeth, like my 9-yo.
Ah, who am I kidding? Vote up for likes, down for hates! This way we can have civil, adult conversations.
[…] lemmy is a bunch of teenagers […]
The average age of lemmings has actually been found to be around late 30s [1][2].
References
- “RESULTS - 2023 Instance Census for lemmy.ca”. “Otter” (@[email protected]). “Lemmy.ca’s Main Community” ([email protected]). Lemmy.ca. Published: 2024-02-11T02:16:45Z. Accessed: 2024-12-01T09:09Z. https://lemmy.ca/post/15125231.
- §“Section 2: Who are you?”. §“Question 2.1: What age range do you fall into?”
[…]
We can see a nice curve, with a peak around 30-39. So the average age on Lemmy is likely a bit older than other social media platforms, but there’s a good spread nonetheless.
- §“Section 2: Who are you?”. §“Question 2.1: What age range do you fall into?”
- “RESULTS - 2024 Instance Census for lemmy.nz”. “Dave” (@[email protected]). “Aotearoa / New Zealand” ([email protected]). Lemmy.nz. Published: 2024-08-02T06:53:04Z. Accessed: 2024-12-01T09:15Z. https://lemmy.nz/post/12001861.
- §“Where are we?”. §“What age range do you fall into?”.
[…]
- §“Where are we?”. §“What age range do you fall into?”.
- “RESULTS - 2023 Instance Census for lemmy.ca”. “Otter” (@[email protected]). “Lemmy.ca’s Main Community” ([email protected]). Lemmy.ca. Published: 2024-02-11T02:16:45Z. Accessed: 2024-12-01T09:09Z. https://lemmy.ca/post/15125231.
No.
Kids are playful, video games are yet another way to play, possibly with friends even while at home.
Moderation is something for the parents to take care of.I mean there are kids just waste their time on video games and not do any of their school assignments.
It’s just funny to me, “school” is the argument I always hear is something kids should be doing more, almost during all of their free time. It’s not like you can just sleep, study, eat, sleep, study, eat, study, eat, (yes, I purposely left that out).
And anyway, they already spend like 6 - 8 hours a day at school. Sounds like an average work day already.No.
No. Games are valuable for the development.
Not.
They’re human, too. And allowed to have hobbies.
No: Imo, this is up to the discretion and responsibility of the parents.
Kids need fundamental human rights. The authoritarian world of today is a shithole. Companies and parents should exist in a culture of ethics. This feudalism nonsense needs a guillotine revolution.
No. We already have ESRB ratings. Just penalize companies for marketing directly to kids.
