Form of words:
TeaThe Legislative Assembly of Karnataka Passed The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Bill 2021, dated September 23, bans all forms of online games involving monetary bets. It is one of several prohibitory laws enacted by southern states including Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 of Tamil Nadu, which is in essence similar to the law of Karnataka, was Strike It was dismissed by the Madras High Court a few months back for being “unreasonable” and “irrational”. Such laws have been made in the name of protecting people from the “evils of online gaming”. It is worth examining this pattern of digital paternalism from a broader international lens.
In August, China introduced New rules that limit the total amount of time minors can spend on video games to three specific hours a week — between 8 and 9 p.m. on Fridays, weekends and public holidays. As a country with a notorious Internet firewall, China makes a good case study for digital patriarchy. However, it is not the only country that has imposed such sweeping restrictions on gaming. In 2011, South Koreashutdown law”, which banned children under the age of 16 from playing video games for a period of six hours beginning at midnight. In March 2020, in the Kansai region Japan Passed a similar law limiting playing time for minors to one hour a day.
Heavy technology regulation is a recipe for economic disaster and social rebellion. Soon after Beijing announced its new sanctions, shares of Tencent and Netease — two of China’s biggest gaming companies — jumped off 8.5 and 11 percent respectively. It did $. erased60 billion in combined market value. India is already one of the largest gaming markets in the world in terms of user participation. Hence, a sunrise zone, which is estimated to reach Rs. 155 billion By 2023, a flurry of sanctions threatens to stun.
Moreover, experience shows that rules with moral overtones do not serve their social purposes as well. for example, studies show that South Korean law failed to limit the time spent on gaming activity by minors. In fact, the South Korean government recently announced The decision to abolish the shutdown law. Similarly, China’s previous attempt to curb video game addiction was unsuccessful. In 2019, the country introduced a regulation that enforced gaming injunction Between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., game time for minors has been limited to 90 minutes per day, and an in-game purchase limit of $57. However, gamers were quick to find ways to circumvent the rules. Last year, Chinese state media informed of That some e-commerce platforms allowed the rental and sale of verified gaming accounts, which could be used to circumvent the rules. children also become more proficient welt Restrictions using virtual private networks. Not only do morally motivated regulations fail to achieve the intended results, but they also run the risk of pushing the demographic they seek to protect into unregulated places.
Read also: Online gaming or gambling? Why fantasy sports, rummy and poker are embroiled in controversy
Patriarchy and its dangers
State interference with individual liberty is particularly prevalent in digital markets. However, technological progress far outweighs the ability of countries to ensure that regulations remain fit for purpose. Furthermore, policy makers do not Understand The technologies they want to regulate. This issue is not unique to India. In 2018, when Mark Zuckerberg appeared before the United States Congress testifying, he was asked how Facebook profitable If his app is free to use. Such examples show a lack of basic understanding of technology platforms and their business models.
The current wave of prohibitive laws that pertain to online games shows a similar lack of rule-making mastery. Consider the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021. The law, in its statement of objects and reasons, suggests that it was enacted to “protect innocent people from the evils of online gaming”. Other reasons include cases of people being cheated while playing rummy and poker online, as well as related suicides. To address these issues, the state government imposed a complete ban on all online games played for monetary bets. Similarly, the Telangana Gaming (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 identified online rummy as a ‘regulatory trigger’ but banned all forms of online games played for betting, even if judicially upheld. or otherwise.
Thankfully, Indian courts often take steps to uphold constitutional rights. In Junglee Games v State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court exposed the erroneous sense of morality while quashing the applicable Online Gaming Act. court commented That the lack of empirical studies around the effects of laws often lumped good and bad together because there was no informed choice to choose from. Such comments from the higher judiciary, especially in the case of technology regulations, are not new. In 2018, the Reserve Bank of India issued a circular barring financial institutions from transacting in virtual currencies (or digital assets) such as bitcoin. circular was Strike The Supreme Court rejected, which highlighted that the central bank had failed to produce any evidence of damage caused by trading in virtual currencies.
While the judiciary continues to try to counteract state patriarchy – as is visible in the Madras HC judgments – the passage of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Bill highlights the fact that law makers are less likely to see the pitfalls of patriarchal laws. Deny and pay little attention to the past judicial. Order.
Read also: Online poker, a refuge for the bored, lonely and thrill-seeking Indian in lockdown
Remedy for gaming ‘addiction’
An ideal regulatory approach requires a shift from rigid paternalism to liberal paternalism. The first justifies the restriction of personal liberty to the individual’s own good, while the latter adopts a non coercive Arrive. According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Professor Richard H. Thaler, liberal patriarchalism seeks to convert people’s choices into welfare-promoting directions without taking away the freedom of choice. Thus, instead of limiting the scope of personal choice, it prompts people to make more informed decisions.
For this, regulators should consider alternative solutions. For example, South Korea a . heading towards ‘Choice Permit’ System, which allows children, their parents or their legal guardians to request a per game permit and set hours to play these titles. Similarly, regulations should leverage technical measures to achieve policy objectives. Examples of such measures include the fatigue system, which discourages users from gaming for long periods of time by deducting in-game rewards. Another example might be in-game warnings, informing users about the risks of excessive gaming, which are analogous to health warning messages appearing on tobacco and alcohol packaging.
It is important to mention that many online gaming services are already leveraging technology to ensure fairness in their gameplay. These include user identity verification solutions such as advanced KYC, verification of user location based on GPS/IP address to prevent collusion and to prevent fraudulent users from using scripts and bots to manipulate the game. Anti-bot solutions for The use of such measures protects gamers from fraud and consequent financial loss, thus achieving some of the policy objectives that patriarchal laws seek to achieve.
Mandates supporting greater business responsibility are another powerful alternative to the digital patriarchy. This, too, is a solution favored by courts. For example, the Rajasthan High Court Held That online fantasy sports, which operates in accordance with the self-regulatory charter of the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports, a self-regulatory body for the clause, is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Against this background, states can legitimize existing self-regulatory efforts through statutory recognition. Doing so will address outstanding regulatory concerns without using minimum state capacity and infringing on individual autonomy.
The author works at Con Advisory Group, a technology policy consulting firm. Thoughts are personal.
This article is part of ThePrint-Coan advisory series that analyzes emerging policies, laws and regulations in India’s technology sector. read all articles Here.
(Edited by Srinjoy Dey)
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs free, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism are shrinking, yielding to raw prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay a price to maintain this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here.