[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Who's saying anything about banning anything? Neither the author of the article, nor I, am making a case for that. I merely think the idea that the media we engage with has some effect on us is not one we should dismiss out of hand just because we all have bad memories of Jack Thompson's crusade.

[simion314]

Sure media has an effect, sometimes is used for propaganda like the patriotic movies.

So now we both agree that media has an effect. What is the next step, we either find a scientific way to measure the effects and then create laws if the effects are bad. The alternative is to use media to propagate some outrage that the media we don't like maybe has some effects that we don't like.

So do you have a proposal on how to measure the effects and who decides what should be allowed and what should not be allowed?

I propose we look at the last decades, see that the number of gamers increased but there is no correlation with crime , but if you are soem student or scientist I invite you to find such correlation and prove there is some effect.

I am not sure about this game but there could exist there in the world some games that are very immoral or unethical . but if there is no actual real life measurable bad effect we should focus on stuff that we can see the effects like lootboxes or social media/

[mcguire]

"What is the next step, we either find a scientific way to measure the effects and then create laws if the effects are bad."

There are two problems.

1. No (interesting :-)) questions have simple clear answers. Sometimes, propaganda is good. Context matters, as do a lot of variables that are either prohibitively difficult to address scientifically or to legally control for effectively. (Let's say that X (a form of media, say) is perfectly harmless unless you have a certain set of genetic values. Requiring a whole-genome assay before you could interact with X would be theoretically unlike banning X, but practically?) Further, there are plenty of things that I don't like[TM], but which I wouldn't care to make laws about.

2. The environment changes continuously. How do you decide what your personal take on X is, in the absence of concrete and final scientific data on the effects of X? Knowing the future is hard, by the way.

The area of inquire of the article, and of asking those questions, is moral philosophy, and it's goal is to provide an individual with the tools to make decisions[1] in the absence of hard data and with the knowledge that other decisions are completely legitimate.

There's no one here other than you talking about banning things. And, honestly, "do what thou wilt until there is concrete proof of physical harm" is a valid ethical approach, although I don't know of anyone who subscribes to it and it has some poor consequences. (Are lootboxes and social media unequivocally bad? Good? Are the consequences such that legal action is required?)

[1] To any philosophers who wish to disagree: Fight me! I'll immanentize your escutcheon, you cheese-headed babbadook!

[simion314]

Sorry i went directly to banning things, but remember rock music and video games were not banned but the media outrage had a lot of bad effects. So my concern is that is easy to create hypothesis that are not backed by science that can cause bad effects.

Edit: I am not against discussing this topic, we need to make sure what is fact and what is just some hypothesis/fantasy. If we discuss it then we should have some goal, can we measure something, can we look at the past and conclude something or we are just either wasting our time or try to spread some ideology that is not backed by evidence.