China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week

Re:China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more... by sillysaurusx on Monday August 30, 2021 @02:45PM (#28359353)

I'm surprised to see you getting hammered for this sentiment. I agree with you and with the parent comment.

Both things can be simultaneously true.

I think you've implicitly agreed that the pandemic countermeasures were authoritarian, and this thread is saying "authoritarian bad." But we all saw what happened to places that delayed or denied countermeasures. If authoritarian bad, then that questions whether non-authoritarian is actually good in this case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more... by nickff on Monday August 30, 2021 @03:06PM (#28359603)

The parent made a specific claim:

>"Temporary and mild authoritarian measures during a once-in-a-century pandemic make complete sense, even to very libertarian people. "

I have not seen any (even centrist) libertarians supporting these measures; having checked the most mainstream libertarian publication (Reason). Additionally, 'very libertarian people' are minarchists, who definitely don't support these measures.

Have you actually seen/heard 'very libertarian people' endorsing these measures? Is it possible that the parent is projecting their beliefs onto others?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:China has forbidden under-18s from playing games for more... by sillysaurusx on Monday August 30, 2021 @03:27PM (#28359843)

Libertarians? Sure, a few from my Twitter circle. Also pg comes to mind.

Very-libertarians? That’s a good point; I’m not sure I’ve seen any. But it’s hard to know who among us is very-libertarian except those who say so, which may be a small subset.

[ Parent | on HN ]