No.

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.

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.

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.

Highly dependent on the game and features in it. I most certainly wouldn’t want a 3 year old playing a game like Gears of War but wouldn’t want them to be outright banned when they could be playing edutainment games specifically designed around kids their age.

I also wouldn’t want kids near almost any online games with voice or text chat since even with the best moderation you’ll probably still find the most toxic and exploitative messages sneaking through.

Same goes for games with the legalized gambling feature called loot boxes (or whatever cute and quirky name they decide to give them to disguise the fact it’s teaching kids to gamble). Ironic thing about the gambling thing is I grew up with some sort of casino game on PC, but there was never any incentive to keep gambling.

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.

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.

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?

I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the state to tell us what recreational activities we can participate in, honestly. Making sure the content is appropriate and time spent is appropriate is the parent/guardian’s responsibility.

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.

Not.

They’re human, too. And allowed to have hobbies.

No. Games are valuable for the development.

No: Imo, this is up to the discretion and responsibility of the parents.

No.