Parental controls (or just not inputting card details into a phone the child has access to) is a fairly effective way to prevent the child spending the parent's money without then knowing. Micromanagement is not typically considered good parenting; however showing interest in, and having some knowledge of, what your child spends significant time doing is.

Okay. So is requiring under-13s to ask their parents. I don't see what the issue is.

the issue is forcing everyone for giving up sensitive personal information.

Okay. So argue about that then. What does bad parenting have to do with it?

"Which method will they use" is a valid question.

In statesia? Who made it?

> Not everyone buys a separate device for their children or knows how to/can set up a user account. This comment is a parenting related issue, the technicality illiterate might forget to take the proper precautions when letting their child use their phone and blame the game instead of taking responsibility for their actions.

Do you have children and have you had to use parental controls for some games? The controls largely suck so much and just end up being a source of endless frustration. They are not what I would call effective.

No, you're making it one to sidestep an issue. If this bad parenting happens often enough to be a real problem, then whining into the wind that "no one has any common sense anymore," or whatever you're doing, isn't a solution. I do blame the game a little because it's a game that really, really, really wants you to spend money on diamond gem funbucks. Let me ask you this question, hm? You don't want to show your ID even though we all do that for alcohol—fine. Why not: $80 up front, all banners are periodic DLCs, some of them free, there is more than enough korok seeds in game to get all of them, and they never expire—infinite time to twiddle your thumbs before completing them. Would this not solve your ID problem? That is, unless you would like to spearhead this global movement to teach underprivileged parents how to configure their phones?

Preventing purchases should (as far as I am aware, is) be an app store level setting on mobile devices. Parental controls should be better than they currently are, but ID requirements (or other PII) are not the solution.

It's an analogy bro

“Most 30 year olds” aka “20somethings” is elderly now?

this law is the result of bad parenting. if parents would parent, nothing like this would be needed

> If this bad parenting happens often enough to be a real problem, then whining into the wind that "no one has any common sense anymore," or whatever you're doing, isn't a solution. of course thats not a solution. but what can you do? lawmakers wont make laws that make the parents responsible for their negligence. sometimes it's not even intentional negligence, but that they don't even know what should they do, and how can that be done > I do blame the game a little because it's a game that really, really, really wants you to spend money on diamond gem funbucks. that's fair, I do too. I also blame all the commercial social networks, if I can call them that way > You don't want to show your ID even though we all do that for alcohol—fine. just let me remind you that that happens offline, and it is provable if copies are not preserved. normally you just show it and that's it. > That is, unless you would like to spearhead this global movement to teach underprivileged parents how to configure their phones? if someone cannot properly configure their phones, then they need to be made liable for the consequences their negligence causes.

I have a note on my phone for keeping track of what my birthday is on different platforms

I get websites as little personally identifiable information as I possibly can. It takes [33 bits of personal info to narrow you down to one individual,](https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-16975) and I'm already open about the fact that I'm a white guy in my late twenties living in the north side of Wichita Kansas. That already narrows me down to one of like 50,000 people

You should know better than to assume that the average Lemmy user understands analogies

The reading comprehension situation is crazy LaLuzDelSol does not think cosmetic loot boxes are comparable to porn. They were making an analogy, not an equation. "A is like B in that C" does not imply that A is just as good or bad as B, it means that they share *a* similarity. In this case, "putting 5 minutes of hardcore sex in an otherwise g-rated film" is like "incorporating gambling into an otherwise child friendly game," in that "even if the majority of the work is child friendly, the not-child-friendly aspects make the work as a whole not child-friendly."

The analogy _**only works if you believe gambling does the same relative harm**_ as porn. That is the problem I have with their terrible attempt at an analogy. Not only does it imply it's comparable, it has to be for the analogy to work as intended.

Incorrect Two things that cause harm can both be bad even if they don't cause the *same amount* of harm. Evidence: we should restrict the sale of both cigarettes and vapes to children. Vapes unequivocally cause less harm than cigarettes, and despite that, they should face the same legal age restrictions.