EU Tells Videogame Industry To Protect Children; Doesn't Explain From What
from the disconnect dept
Just as even more research is coming out showing the lack of any evidence that playing violent video games leads to violent activities, it appears that EU politicians have decided that they don't care about the facts, but will simply go with the false fears that the video games are dangerous. The EU has now warned the industry that it needs to come up with a way to keep the games out of the hands of kids, within the next two years. At least that's better than just coming out with a new law, but it does seem misguided (especially given the evidence). Besides, what's wrong with parents determining what's okay for their kids to play?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eu, europe, protect the children, violent video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
geh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most games have a two week self life before being relegated to "one box on display" at most. Someone compared this to a book store at one point, you can find 10 year old books in a bookstore but you can't find a year old game in an game store. So, this sort of "vague" thing is going to become nothing more than a marketting item for some folks in terms that they are "controvisial" and the Streisand effect will kick in to generate more interrest than is really deserved.
I guarantee my current game will be less than a stellar fit for "protect the children", the content is based on an IP which is really dark and not "currently socially allowed". But that is how the story has been told to millions of fans over many years via books and role playing systems so I want to cater to those folks. In order to cater to the people who know/follow the given storyline am I now supposed to water everything down to "protect the children"?
As with the past, this is the sort of law/suggestion/whatever which governments make which simply open everyone up to lawsuits. Your story is not nice, I think I'll sue you because I thought it was offensive. We'll turn that into a class action because character A was kinda redish and that is offensive to XYZ group.
Any type of "generalized" item such as this simply opens up yet another industry to lawyers with no morals who will chase ambulences. Oh, damn, guess Jack Thomson isn't all that bad..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Facts?"
You can call this nitpicking, but I consider it a pretty amateur move to try to call these results "facts" and try to prove your point with it.
You make too many great points to let yourself fall to this. You may want to say "studies" or "experiments", but they are far from "facts".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Facts?"
So, let me get this straight. You hold that if one kid at one time plays video games and then acts violently, it's a fact that video games cause violent behavior -- but it's not a fact that they don't despite hundreds of thousands of kids playing video games and NOT becoming violent constantly? Is something only a fact if it agrees with your point of view?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Facts?"
It's just silly to call it a fact.
"JFK was assassinated Nov. 22, 1963." Is anybody going to not call this a fact?
"Video games do not cause any violence whatsoever in any child ever, as has been proven by studies on several thousand (out of hundreds of millions) of kids." haha, you want to call this a fact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Facts?"
So, here's the thing. One said says, Video Games Cause Violence! The other side says, the research doesn't show that: there's no link. YOU say that if some violent kid plays video games, that OBVIOUSLY refutes all that research. And what's more, the EU isn't even saying that, they're just holding to the fact that video games are dangerous.
There's no evidence that playing violent video games leads to violent behavior: THAT I will call a fact, and it will remain so until refuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Facts?" and empiricism
As for your use of English... "As much as you usually make incredibly valid,"...that "as much as" should probably be an "although".
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not the gaming industry's problem.
Personally, I'd much rather have the kids with little supervision in their homes playing GTA or Manhunt 2 than out with their friends bored and looking for something to break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video game violence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video game violence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #12 AC
That was my favorite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BARF
If you want to protect the children keep them at home in a locked box and leave the rest of us the F*** alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BARF
What you and the governments fail to realize is that this will not protect the children, because children will eventually become adults and will have significant issues when they find that the world is not, in fact, just their locked box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
,,and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
politicians and "facts"
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video or Games
This is not about banning the games, it is about clearly classifying them and publicizing the standards used.
There seems to be no arguments about legal classification systems for DVD's so why not for games?
-- peter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]