[feocco]

By this logic, we better start regulating sports and exercise too! After all, it's an addiction!!! * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_addiction

I would equate trying to regulate against "sustained gameplay" to trying to regulate/force timeouts in all basketball games, tennis games, etc. It's absurd.

I think vice laws aim to accomplish good but needlessly limit freedom. More importantly, I think comparing gaming to addictive substances seems very naive.

[anyfoo]

If people were all reasonable all the time we wouldn’t need laws that prohibit them from driving under influence, stealing or plain murdering people.

If excessive sports and exercise were a problem on any large scale, I would advocate for regulation, too. My feeling however is that people rather tend to need incentives for exercising at all, so I’m not holding my breath on that one.

Freedom is not absolute if you are living as part of a society.

[feocco]

Regulation of media consumption is not a path I'd care to go down.

[anyfoo]

I don't think anyone proposed imposing regulation on the consumer, only on the provider. There is a lot of regulation on that side already, and some of it is actually rather welcomed.

For example, if I compare the amount of advertisement that TV channels are allowed to show in Germany vs. in the US, I am certainly for regulation... (back when I still cared about television)

[zaarn]

I agree on that comparison. Since I regularly consume an american TV show as part of a community, I get to see the ads too. For the 20 minute episode, there is 10 minutes of ads, just over 1 minute each 2 or 3 minutes, roughly.

The same episode on german TV has three ad interruptions. One 5 minute one in the middle, a overlay ad about 5 minutes before the end and a zoom out during the credits showing ads to the side (the later two circumvent the normal limit of ads per hour and spacing requirements.)

[feocco]

I think it's a poor comparison. Equating ads to playtime? Sure you can tangentially involve DLC as an "ad" but it's a big stretch.

Regulating length of ads is silly too. You can just purchase the show and watch it with no ads. Or don't watch the channel. Or watch different content.

Seems the above comments are generalizing to justify controlling media consumption. Regardless of which side regulation comes down on. I see a very slippery slope.

[anyfoo]

I don't see why regulating the length of ads is silly at all. Several countries have been doing it for many decades. It works really well and has not led to any slippery slope, and made television much better overall. I have direct comparisons available from living in several countries during my lifetime--do you?

The slippery slope has been going down the opposite hill, actually, in America: It's amazing how much less rights a consumer has in the US compared to, again for example, in Germany.

The "well just don't do/consume/choose X then" argument is extremely shortsighted. If X is provided by commercial entities, then those commercial entities will, together, converge towards maximum profits with no regards for the consumer at all. Regulation is necessary as a counteractive force. A prime piece of evidence actually comes from your own post: "Don't watch the channel". Ok, I switched the channel on my cable box, now what? Ah, still the same.

[zaarn]

>Regulating length of ads is silly too.

It's not really. The limited amount of adspace, about 10 minutes full screen and 4 or 5 minutes side, some banners, have greatly increased the value of ads on TV.

More expensive ads also means the ads are of much higher quality and less annoying than the US ads.

Buying the content is of course always an option but this is largely form an era before buying content was even an option or required extremely expensive VHS players.