Choosing Change
Laws are a choice between freedom and social benefit. Nobody has the freedom to commit murder, theft or tax evasion. However, the weight that is assigned to freedom makes the decision to implement new laws—new restrictions—difficult. In these cases, implementing small scale reforms would provide necessary evidence that could help in deciding these choices and refining future reforms.
Laws like the 2021 gaming restrictions imposed in China1, which only allowed three hours of gaming a week for those under 18, would never have been approved in the US at a federal level given the conflict between damaging the gaming industry and preserving the health of minors—not to mention that a consensus would likely never be reached regarding the best time limit to set. (Letzing 2021)
As this policy was implemented, stocks in Tencent, China’s largest company and owner of large shares in companies such as Riot Games, Ubisoft and Blizzard, dropped 11%, hurting all their investors significantly. Furthermore, there is no evidence that heavy gaming was reduced by this restriction, as age verification can be simple to circumvent. Growing up in China, most of my friends and I dodged the restrictions by using a relative’s ID card for identity verification. As such, true gaming “addicts” could circumvent the restrictions with little effort while gaming was no longer available for students merely looking to destress on weekdays.
Considering its failure to achieve its purpose of reducing gaming addiction in minors and the negative economic impact, this regulation clearly should not have been implemented. These are the same concerns people have regarding many proposed laws in the US, and the reason why policies like gun control cannot and should not be immediately written into law.
Often overlooked, however, is the positive side of this regulation—that lessons were learned. When the Chinese government attempted to further regulate in-game content in December of 2023, they received public backlash as stocks tanked yet again and problems in previous policies remained unaddressed, suggesting that this was yet another futile attempt at regulating the gaming sector. One month later, the plan was repealed. The outcome of the 2021 restriction united the public in criticizing the new policy, a clear contrast to the issues’ divisiveness two years ago where the majority of parents supported the restriction.
When faced with issues more significant than game restrictions, such as policies regarding immigration, healthcare, gun control, or any other polarizing issue, the need for clear and relevant evidence grows even further. Any number of theoretical projections and examples from other countries will not be sufficient to convince Americans to restrict their firearms: the exigence needs to come from within. Australia’s implementation of stricter gun control decreased total suicide and homicide rates at a significantly faster rate than before. However, rebuttals such as “restrictions are too difficult to enforce due to the amount of guns available in the US” or “restrictions only apply to law-abiding citizens, not criminals” give Americans the excuse they need to avoid policy change. Implementing reforms and testing their effectiveness is the only way to gauge if they will work in an American context. Child access prevention laws have had a significant impact on suicide and violent crime according to multiple studies reviewed by the RAND think tank, yet only 35 of the 50 states in the US have implemented them. The fact that they have proven effective in these states should be enough to encourage other states to follow their example. If a lenient bill for a child safety prevention law is proposed, supporting it is better than not, especially if you don’t agree with it. This may sound counterintuitive, but the success of related legislation in other states and the limited scope of this bill would minimize the consequences of a possible failure. Meanwhile, repealing such a law in the case of failure would grant significant credibility to opposing voices, thus strengthening the cause against gun control. In the case of success, there would be no complaints to be had. Either way, a limited concession has resulted in a clear course of action instead of inconclusive debate.
Disagreeing is simple, but finding a solution is hard—debates about how “limited” is enough, whether risks are truly mitigated, or whether data and laws can be applied uniformly across states will always exist. What remains constant is the fact that risk is inherent to change, and implementation of reforms, successful or not, are the fastest route to finding a correct solution. Instead of voting for stagnation and debate, vote for action and change.