Online gaming escaped Australia's social media ban - but critics say it's just as addictive

BY Katy Watson

Wednesday afternoons have become a ritual for 15-year-old Sadmir Perviz. It's a circuitous route from home in Perth to the Fiona Stanley Hospital - but it's worth it, he says, to sit down for a game of Dungeons & Dragons with people he may not know but with whom he shares a great deal in common.

Sadmir and his board game companions are just some of the 300 patients at the gaming disorder clinic, Australia's only publicly-run institution of its type, helping patients wean themselves off excessive online gaming habits.

The room where they meet is a simple space in a faceless hospital but in the corner, there's a pile of boardgames on a chair. Jenga, Uno and Sushi Go are also popular choices at the informal group which is attended by both patients and clinicians.

It's a bit of a departure for the 15-year-old who until a couple of months ago preferred to play games with friends online for 10 hours a day.

"It feels completely different," says Sadmir. "You get to roll the dice instead of clicking a button. You can interact with people, so you actually know who's there rather than just being on a call with random people."

Dr Daniela Vecchio, the psychiatrist who set up the clinic, says that while gaming isn't bad in itself, it can become a problem - an addiction even.

Gaming platforms and social media pose similar risks for children: excessive time spent online, and potential exposure to predators, harmful content or bullying.

So she wonders why gaming platforms have not been included in Australia's "world-first" social media ban for under-16s.

The ban, which came into force on Wednesday, is supposed to prevent teens from having accounts on 10 social media platforms including Instagram, Snapchat and X. Children will still be able to access platforms like YouTube and TikTok, but without accounts.

For Vecchio, the omission of gaming platforms is odd.

"It doesn't make much sense," she says.

"Gaming and social media are so interconnected, it's very difficult to separate.

"The individual who plays games for excessive amounts of time also spends excessive amounts of time on social media platforms where they can see other gamers or can live stream gaming, so it's a way to connect."

Sadmir, for example, spent much of his time on the gaming platform Steam, as well as YouTube. Dr Vecchio singles out the platforms Discord and Roblox as particular worries - a concern echoed by many experts and parents the BBC has spoken to in covering the ban and its impact.

Both Roblox and Discord have been dogged by claims that some children are being exposed to explicit or harmful content through them and are facing lawsuits relating to child safety in the US.

Roblox introduced new age assurance features in Australia and two other countries weeks before the social media ban kicked in, with the checks due to be rolled out to the rest of the world in January. The checks will "help us provide positive, age-appropriate experiences for all users on Roblox", the company said.

Discord also introduced age checks on some features earlier this year and on Wednesday said it was introducing a new "teen-by-default" setting for all Australian users.

Former gaming clinic patient Kevin Koo, 35, wonders whether a social media ban could have influenced the access he got at a younger age.

"I was growing up in the wild west of internet usage so, there weren't any restrictions," he says. "I got free rein on the internet basically. So I think that for me, the damage has already been done."

A former quantum finance intern interested in AI, Mr Koo lost his job just before the pandemic. Living in Sydney, he had no family nearby and no regular work. He says he lost confidence and ended up consumed by online gaming, likening his experience to substance abuse.

Dr Vecchio agrees with the comparison - if she had her way, she'd be tempted not just to expand the social media ban to gaming but to raise the age to 18.

Gaming disorder is also now recognised by the World Health Organisation as an official diagnosis and, according to a 2022 Macquarie University study, around 2.8% of Australian children are affected by it. Vecchio thinks the number at risk is higher.

The Australian government says its ban is about protecting kids from harmful content, cyberbullying, online grooming and "predatory algorithms" among other things – some or all of which could arguably be said to exist with gaming platforms.

The Australia Federal Police are among those who have warned chatrooms on these sites are hotbeds for radicalisation and child exploitation.

But, as the eSafety Commissioner said last month, the legislation enforcing the ban means platforms were not selected according to "safety, a harms or risk-based assessment".

Instead, platforms have been selected according to three criteria: whether the platform's sole or "significant purpose" is to enable online social interaction between two or more users; whether it allows users to interact with some or all other users; and whether it allows users to post.

Exceptions were made for gaming, for example, because its primary purpose is not social-media style interaction.

The law, say some experts, makes no sense.

"It's incompetence, it's reactionary," says Marcus Carter, professor of human-computer interaction at the University of Sydney.

"Social interaction is not a bad thing… There are a bunch of probably legitimate concerns about these big tech platforms and what they are affording children and what they are exposing them to so as a result we've said we are banning social media.

"I just wish the government was trying to figure out how to help rather than put a band-aid on a bullet wound," he says.

Tama Leaver, professor of internet studies at Curtin University and chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, also says the ban on social media is too blunt a tool – instead a more nuanced approach is needed, including towards gaming platforms.

"There is such a wide spectrum of gaming from incredibly positive, nurturing, fun, creative, expressive spaces - something like Minecraft comes to mind where it's had so many positive uses." However, platforms like Roblox are at the other end of the spectrum, he says.

"Roblox isn't a game. It's a series of enabling tools for other people to make games. And we know that some of the games that have been made that clearly feel like they're meant for adults have been accessed by very young people."

On Professor Leaver's desk at the university are three plushies with inbuilt ChatGPT inside them. On the box, it says they are suitable for three and above. This, he says, has also gone too far.

"I do think there needs to be age-appropriate regulation," he says, referring to young people going online. "I do think we're at a moment, and it's not just Australia, you look across the EU, there is huge appetite for all sorts of regulation."

In Mr Koo's case, for example, his vice wasn't just gaming. It was AI chatbots, another feature of online life that has come under scrutiny for everything from making things up to allegedly encouraging children to kill themselves.

There is evidence they are designed to manipulate users into prolonging interactions and their use has even given rise to a new phenomenon called AI psychosis, in which people increasingly rely on AI chatbots and then become convinced that something imaginary has become real.

Mr Koo also started googling his mental health issues and relying on AI to help confirm his diagnoses.

"You're Googling stuff that you think you already know and then you kind of tick the box after that saying, oh, I've already done my work for today, my therapy work with ChatGPT," he says. Mr Koo suffered a psychotic episode and after extensive therapy with a professional, he now takes a different approach.

"I might Google or ChatGPT something and then I'll check it with my therapist in person," he says. "I do think being able to read human emotions and having that face-to-face conversation with someone is completely different."

The government has said it will continually review the list of banned platforms and at the end of November added Twitch, a streaming platform where people typically play video games while chatting to viewers.

Communications Minister Anika Wells also told the BBC last week that the eSafety Commissioner "definitely has her eye on Roblox". And, she said, the social media ban "isn't a cure, it's a treatment plan" that will "always evolve".

The demand for platforms to do better is growing. So too are the queues of families waiting to get help at the gaming disorder clinic, but Vecchio has to turn them away.

"[The legislation] is excluding platforms where children interact with many others and some of them can be people who harm them," says Vecchio. "Children need to be protected, they need to be safeguarded."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93w90kqgv9o

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

SEE ALSO:

https://michaelwest.com.au/billionaires-love-the-under-16-social-media-ban-the-west-report/

Governments say the under 16 social media ban is about protecting kids, but the biggest winners are the billionaires and media empires that have been campaigning for it. In this episode we break down what the ban really does, why the Murdoch machine pushed it, and how it quietly hands more control to corporate media while doing little to regulate the platforms causing the harm.

Why children should be kept off social media
The digital wild west is destroying childhood
By Anastasia Mironova

Rudeness, advertising, and pedophilia. That is the short list of reasons why children should not be on social media. The longer list barely fits into one column.

The wisest people on Earth, I have concluded, live where kangaroos, koalas, and wombats roam. Australia has banned children under 16 from registering on social media. Platforms are now required to delete children’s accounts, even those pretending to be adults, and to pay fines for harm caused to minors. From January, Malaysia will introduce a similar ban. The European Parliament is openly discussing following Australia’s example.

Well done.

The ideal parental world is one where children do not have access to social media. Or Roblox, for that matter. I would gladly cooperate with Australia. Bear and kangaroo, side by side.

This idea is not exotic or radical. France already requires parental consent for children under 15 to join social networks. Belgium bans social media for children under 13. Norway and Germany have introduced various forms of parental control. The trend is obvious. Within a year or two, children may largely disappear from social media. I am convinced that some countries will go further and restrict children’s access to the internet altogether.

Russia, however, is unlikely to follow this path. Our internet regulation remains extremely liberal. The infamous Yarovaya laws, channel registration, and server localization all arrived later than in the West. And there is another reason: money. We are a country of overdeveloped capitalism. Children represent billions in revenue. Who here would willingly shut off such a golden stream? The Australian scenario will not work in Russia.

Still, any parent who actually raises their child, rather than handing them a smartphone at six months and forgetting about them, understands why children should be kept off social media and why internet use must be strictly limited.

The problem has two sides.

The first is wasted time. A child glued to a phone is not developing. It does not matter whether they are gaming, chatting, or watching brainless bloggers who resemble them in every way. The result is the same: time is squandered. Years meant for learning and growth are spent on Roblox, TikTok, and endless chatter with strangers. We already see the consequences of growing up with phones. There is no need to list them again.

Parents who spend all day scrolling while 'raising' children should be ashamed.

Yet instead of admitting this, many boast: “I’m teaching my child technology early!” Or: “They used to chat in the yard, now they chat online. What’s the difference?” They accuse critics of being stuck in the past, while proudly presenting their laziness as progress.

There is a quote attributed to Steve Jobs. He allegedly said his children were not allowed to use computers, because it takes two weeks to become an advanced user, but a childhood spent staring at screens costs something far more valuable: time for real development.

The second argument, that online communication simply replaces yard games, is false. We did not sit in courtyards for ten hours straight. We did not chat endlessly. Even the worst hooligans knew how to occupy themselves. Today’s children spend hours every day messaging about nothing. These are often children who do not read, do not study well, and narrow each other’s intellectual horizons. It would be better to go to the swings or comb a cat than to spend evenings in digital chatter with the equally ignorant.

Unlimited communication is disastrous. Children degrade not because they fail to go outside, but because they now spend all their time among underdeveloped, tongue-tied interlocutors. I am speaking, of course, about children addicted to the internet.

The dangers are not theoretical.

Yes, there are paedophiles and scammers. Anyone who still doubts this is naïve. I hear such stories constantly. Recently, a subscriber told me that his daughter was asked by a “donor” on Roblox to photograph her sleeping father naked. She went straight to him. Another man mocked this story in the comments. The next morning, he wrote privately: his own son had been asked to send a photo in his underwear to gain access to a Telegram chat.

I remember a woman describing how a recruiter joined a children’s hockey team chat and invited ten-year-old boys to auditions. They were instructed to film full-body videos – in underwear. These stories are endless. Even a smart teenager can be confused. A greedy, weak, or frightened child may comply for a promised $60.

And yet, this is not even the biggest danger.

Far more common are rudeness, humiliation, and cruelty.

My daughter once secretly created a Telegram account. It was with her father’s knowledge, but not mine. I discovered it by accident. She had joined chats devoted to a husky named Bandit. Children aged seven to ten were arguing whether the dog in recent videos was the same one. My daughter expressed an opinion. In response, she was told: “You stupid creature, wash the pus out of your eyes!” This abuse continued relentlessly. Over a dog.

Another time, I discovered that my daughter had been posting videos on Likee for six months. I cried all night. The content was awful: messy hair, chaos in her grandmother’s house, dogs jumping around, everything upside down. She pretended to be an actress. Hundreds of subscribers appeared and some were adults. Others insulted her appearance daily. Her self-esteem collapsed.

Then there is consumption and distorted beauty standards. Eight-year-old girls in makeup and heels. Filters. Videos explaining that a girl should only date boys with sports cars and giant bouquets. I saw a child declare that she would never clean, because her future husband would pay for services. This is not innocence. This is marketing.

And marketing knows exactly how to find children.

Social media today is a wild frontier where even adults struggle to orient themselves. Why should children roam there? Why should they face pedophiles, scammers, malicious peers, aggressive advertising, and constant humiliation. Especially when they could be studying, playing, or simply growing up?

There is no convincing answer to that question.

https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/629941-why-children-should-be-kept-off-sm/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.