IGF 2020 WS #53 Right to Play?---Online Gaming and Child Rights

Emerging and flourishing in the digital era, online gaming is characterized as the most profitable business in the information, communication and technology (ICT) industry, with a revenue of $120.1B worldwide (Superdata) and $32.6B in China (GPC) in 2019. Children and young adults are considered to be key consumers and participants in online games, with a reference to the fact that more than 90% children use digital equipment for games weekly and average accumulative time for play per day is reported more than one hour in China (CCA). The advancement of online gaming ecosystem has created unprecedented new opportunities to learn and play for digital natives, and meanwhile posed potential harm and risks in a more sophisticated and connected way that challenges children’s sustainable development. To best leverage the opportunities and mitigate the risks calls for the joint efforts from public and private sectors, parents, caregivers and children themselves. It’s essential to understand how to engage evidence-based practices from different stakeholders and adopt a holistic approach to achieve international governance for online gaming. Three dimensions of challenging issues are to be illustrated as following. Fragmented Policy and Regulation Firstly, in the context of policy and regulation, legislation from public sectors and self-regulative measures from the industry have presented a piecemeal and disconnected picture. Policymakers have attempted to draw out legislation in relation with online gaming from different perspectives and methodologies, which results in the difficulty in global compliance and coordination. For example, compulsory restriction of play time, real-name registration, or mandated in-game warnings, are rejected by some countries for the sake of violating human rights and democracy, while countries such as China has enforced real-name registration and identification policy in all domestically published online games in November 2019. Age rating system in online games is an area mostly relied on industry standards and good practices, without being legally binding. Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is not legally enforced by federal law, but widely applied in retailers market in US. Pan European Game Information (PEGI) system is used by more than 30 countries but also with no legal force. UK has incorporated PEGI into legislation to make it enforceable. While no official age rating system has been issued in China yet. With regards to the online gaming industry, voluntary technical efforts and self-regulative measures have been witnessed while consistency and effectiveness remains a headache. On the one hand, individual service provider has established codes of conduct, terms of service or age verification methods, these may differ. For example, age ratings of one game developer could differ from Google Play or Apple App stores, or from independent review bodies. On the other hand, it’s difficult for providers themselves to monitor compliance through the existing technical tools like flagging mechanism due to the anonymity, complexity and diversity of languages, vast amounts of communication, and even misuse of reporting as a tool of bullying or harassment. In addition, smaller and less competitive gaming companies may struggle for the costs of inserting a protective system as required by regulators, or attract relatively less consumers with stricter entry rules, thus rendering them less likely to survive in this fiercely competitive market. Academic Divergence Secondly, an academic divide exists on whether online games have a positive or negative, or even no influence on children. Despite high volume of research in place, no conclusive results could be reached, and few high-quality studies suggest that online gaming has a very marginal impact on children’s well-being irrespective of positive or negative. Moreover, World Health Organization’s inclusion of “Internet Gaming Disorder” in the latest International Classification of Disease also ignited discussions and debates among researchers for the potential risk of over-diagnosis and children being stigmatized by parents and schools. Thus, we may infer that the existing research evidence in this field lacks conclusiveness to contribute to a decisive policy making. Biased Media Coverage Thirdly, media coverage is perceived to over-emphasize the dark side of online games. Headlines of video games in association with violence, addiction and health problems are often easier to spur wider attention and worries among caregivers, and moreover to increase the possibility to be seriously viewed as a public “warning” to policy makers. Clickbait news reports as ‘teen’s death at Chinese internet addiction camp” and “a Chinese girl kills her mother after being sent to internet boot camp where she was abused” arose fierce public debates and prompted reflection especially among young people. The biased interplay of media tends to obstruct a balanced understanding and honest public discussions among all stakeholders, which is not conducive to formulate a functioning governance ecosystem of online gaming. Child Rights Perspective, A New Opportunity Examining online gaming from child rights perspective is perceived to be an opportunity to generate a holistic approach in international governance. First of all, it contributes to the global compliance and coordination among all stakeholders in online gaming. United Nations Convention of Rights of the Child (UNCRC), as the most ratified human rights treaty in the world, is a normative instrument for individual nations and cooperation between countries. To tackle online gaming issues from a child rights angle would encourage public bodies to realize their statutory duties and foster international cooperation. Secondly, as a fundamental baseline for all engagement with children, UNCRC assures child participation for better decision makings. Children have their valuable knowledge and experience about gaming and should be heard and involved in consultations in various forms. Moreover, agency and self-empowerment is considered to be the key for children in protecting themselves from online gaming risks and should always be highlighted. Last but not least, exploring online gaming vis-a-vis child rights creates a clearer reference to measure positive and negative impacts, which promotes a balanced consideration in risks and opportunities of online games. As when we consider which rights may be enhanced or undermined by a certain issue like gaming time, we have an objective measurement with reference on the list of rights, which guides us to best leverage our potential to amplify opportunities and mitigate risks for the best interests of children. In all, child right perspective could not only be served as a useful tool to prompt discussion on child protection concerns in online gaming, and also a valuable breakthrough point to further build a healthy and empowering internet environment for children.