The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in “Scientific” Media Ratings & Labels: What Exactly Does That Mean?

Re: “Scientific” Media Ratings & Labels: What Exactly Does That Mean?

bobbrill — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:52:45 -0000

Thank you for your post. A number of the recent posts resound how technology is woven into the fabric of our households. Certainly analogies are imperfect as already commented, but thinking back decades how Consumer Reports has guided purchases, your embrace of experts standing in commerce or as helpful institutions rather than legal regulators is attractive from business, as well as our family perspectives. Looking forward to your further posts, with broadened expectations of impact spanning my work, thoughts, and our home. Regards, Bob

Re: “Scientific” Media Ratings & Labels: What Exactly Does That Mean?

Thinking Too Much — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:50:18 -0000

Architecture as a whole has more obvious dangers than video games wherein I mean to say that I've yet to see people debating the maybes regarding structure and foundation safety. By the logic presented about engineers/cars & buildings/architecture then it would only make sense for video games to be reviewed by developers and publishers. I honestly think that all those analogies are flawed being how they can't be compared to a piece of media like video games. Movies aren't rated by movie makers and paintings aren't rated by artists.

By saying that FPS games might have some effect on our mental state are you implying that all games are played in the first person perspective? I think it should be noted that the list of top selling games shown in the video, none of them falls in the FPS genre. Granted the Grand Theft Auto series does contain guns, as noted on the ESRB rating stamped on the back of the box.

By lumping "smoking" and "video game" together is one of the main problems with this debate. These are two completely different objects. Both of those things mentioned has without a shadow of a doubt been targeted to a young audience, but that's because video games cover content ranging from Sesame Street to Grand Theft Auto unlike tobacco. I've yet to see any complains with GTA ads being shown on kids networks. I've seen complaints about GTA ads on trains while the ads for SAW 3 stand pat right next to them though. Tobacco is a proven killer, they have the blood of millions on their hands. Opponents of video games have yet to prove without a doubt that they have directly resulted in the death of another individual. All this has done is just polarize the debate even more. Comparisons between two completely different items just don't help. I won't compare the dangers of firearms to the dangers of a cell phone because they just don't match beyond the fact that they are commercial items.

Re: “Scientific” Media Ratings & Labels: What Exactly Does That Mean?

eee_eff — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:47:38 -0000

SAP:

Absolutely right! But why are child pyschologists not PART of the rating system. Dr, Rich's point was that they don't play ANY role.

Taking your analogy about Architecture a bit further, it's not Architects (only) who have to sign off on a building I design: those who have to review it include:

1. Firemen
2. Public Health Authorities (in the case of a Hospital)
3. Zoning Authorities
4. Sewer district Authorities
5. Structural engineers
& now quite frequently:
6. Sustainability certifying authority (e.g.: United States Green Building Council)

ALL of these specialists have to the projects I design, because of the COMPLEX effects that a work of Architecture has on all of society.

Why should video games be any different?

Also, it has been shown that first person shooters DO make many (but not all) children more violent. Society pays the price.

In exactly they same way that society was correct in restricting advertising and conducting public health caimpaigns against tobacco, society should take the public health effects of violent video games into account, and not censor them, but restrict advertising and regulate their distribution.

I would wonder if Adam believes regulating tobacco was correct?

Re: “Scientific” Media Ratings & Labels: What Exactly Does That Mean?

Self Appointed Genius — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:11:01 -0000

There's something fundamentally wrong here.

When we seek to evaluate the safety and quality of a car, we look to engineers, because engineers have the expertise to make such an evaluation. The people who build cars, oddly enough, are also engineers.

When we seek to evaluate the safety quality of a drug, we look to biologists and doctors, because biologists and doctors have the expertise to make such an evaluation. The people who develop new drugs, oddly enough, have very similar backgrounds to doctors.

Likewise for architecture. Likewise for software. Likewise for writing (editors tend to be writers).

But when we want to create an objective rating system for media, we turn to... social scientists?