Ratings seem to fit perfectly within everyone's denial sphere. They help mask objectionable content ("M" gives no indication of levels of sex, violence, or anti-social behaviour) and at the same time, allow parents proceed in the delusion that someone is monitoring what their child is playing for them.
The only rating that many parents seem to be interested in is "appropriate for kids" or not - and that seems to lump T, M or whatever else into the same category...and that's just the way the gaming industry wants it.
I mean what possible logic is there in having a 17 rating (M) and an 18 rating (AO) except to try and blur the line?
The rating is not and should not be used to determine a game's suitability for your child - especially given the disperate range of values people hold. As evidenced by GTA:SA, some parents get very worked up over sex, but are tolerant of violence and glamorizing anti-social behaviour. Other parents might be quite tolerant of sex, but hold a much harder line over violence. They should get informed about the game, but that's harder than checking a letter on the box, or expecting Wal-Mart to make these decisions for you.
As long as there's an uncommunicated desire on the part of consumers (parents AND teenagers) and game manufacturers to keep the ratings vague and generalised - they can't be expected to serve any useful purpose.
Those are two separate questions. Will civilisation accept things it rejected before? Absolutely, it's done all the time. Particularly in terms of culture; rock music, divorce, racial integration, etc. These are all things that were going to trigger society's collapse - and they didn't.
Prior to that, it was jazz music, extra-marital sex, alcohol, and so on.
Now it's rap, games, and homosexuality. It's the same story over and over and over again. Trust me, your kids and grandkids aren't likely to see what the big deal is.
That's not to say there's a unidirectional element here. Things can happen to turn a society more conservative (usually some calamity). The depression, Second World War, and Cold Wor accomplished an interesting trifecta of pushing back on the more liberal attitudes that had started to emerge about sex, women, alcohol/drugs, and culture in the 20s in North America. 9/11 effectively brought religion back into the field, reversing a rather secular trend.
In the early 70s you had women wearing jeans studying engineering in Afghanistan. The country became ravaged by war and poverty, and...well...you know how that turned out.
I'm using very recent examples here, you can study this stuff WAY back.
I think the overal direction is that when society feels threatened, less will be tolerated, and there will be more conservative pressures. When the society thrives and is prosperous, though, it becomes more liberal.
Your second question; will society accept things that are not beneficial because youth do? Part of that depends on what you consider "not beneficial" (ie. harmful). If you still hold that rock is harmful, then the answer is yes.
If you have (sorry to say it) less of an agenda to push, then the answer is no, not really. Drugs never became culturally acceptable just because the youth accepted them. Drugs can be harmful, and so were rejected. Some drugs that were not so obviously detrimental (ie. marijuana) are still the subject of debate.
You'd never know it to look at them, but people can be remarkably sane, given enough opportunity.
It makes so much sense on paper; we have an ID system, you have an ID system - why don't we just make them compatible?
The problem is the two systems are administred by two completely different bodies - namely the separate governments. What rules are placed on the UK system for privacy or due process reasons can be violated at will by the US agents, who are not bound by those laws -- and the same is true in reverse.
What recourse does a US citizen have when they have handed over (or have been compelled to hand over) their information to a US government agency, under certain rules, and then the UK does whatever they want with it? Will rules about privacy and proper use of the information even apply to non-citizens? Can the UK then share that information with the rest of the EU? Interpol? What about the ICC which the UK recognises and the US doesn't?
The cooperation of intelligence agencies when working cases on specific people of interest is one thing, but this ID system compatibility only makes sense if we're talking about large and frequent exchanges of information. The practicalities get out of control pretty fast.
All that being said, I'm not too concerned about this becoming reality. Intelligence agencies haven't proven to be the best sharers.
There's a sort of rule in business that if you're not going to make money at it, then you shouldn't do it. It makes a sort of sense.
The wheels really come off when some corporate busybody has such a bad case of Cranial-Rectal Insertion Syndrome, that he thinks the same rules apply everywhere else in the world.
Because companies won't innovate without a profit motive, that does not mean that *people* (or organisations) won't innovate without a profit motive. All you need are some intelligent, creative, and driven people.
What we don't need are money-grubbing blowhards who think that the world should revolve around money.
Corporate guys hate it when I say that, but it's true.
I can't help but wonder if there's a provocation behind this - I guess techdirt thinks so. A legal examination and decision (through a lawsuit) might be just what's needed to clear the air of all the *AA FUD that's tossed around...ala SCO v. Linux case....or it may add to it, I suppose - lots of histrionics and propoganda while the wheels of justice grind. Is Grokster settled yet?
It's a bold statement in principle, even if it hedges a little in practice...
I still say they're deserving of some kudos from the Linux and OSS crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
Ratings seem to fit perfectly within everyone's denial sphere. They help mask objectionable content ("M" gives no indication of levels of sex, violence, or anti-social behaviour) and at the same time, allow parents proceed in the delusion that someone is monitoring what their child is playing for them.
The only rating that many parents seem to be interested in is "appropriate for kids" or not - and that seems to lump T, M or whatever else into the same category...and that's just the way the gaming industry wants it.
I mean what possible logic is there in having a 17 rating (M) and an 18 rating (AO) except to try and blur the line?
The rating is not and should not be used to determine a game's suitability for your child - especially given the disperate range of values people hold. As evidenced by GTA:SA, some parents get very worked up over sex, but are tolerant of violence and glamorizing anti-social behaviour. Other parents might be quite tolerant of sex, but hold a much harder line over violence. They should get informed about the game, but that's harder than checking a letter on the box, or expecting Wal-Mart to make these decisions for you.
As long as there's an uncommunicated desire on the part of consumers (parents AND teenagers) and game manufacturers to keep the ratings vague and generalised - they can't be expected to serve any useful purpose.
After all, 300GB should be enough for everybody.
Right?
Prior to that, it was jazz music, extra-marital sex, alcohol, and so on.
Now it's rap, games, and homosexuality. It's the same story over and over and over again. Trust me, your kids and grandkids aren't likely to see what the big deal is.
That's not to say there's a unidirectional element here. Things can happen to turn a society more conservative (usually some calamity). The depression, Second World War, and Cold Wor accomplished an interesting trifecta of pushing back on the more liberal attitudes that had started to emerge about sex, women, alcohol/drugs, and culture in the 20s in North America. 9/11 effectively brought religion back into the field, reversing a rather secular trend.
In the early 70s you had women wearing jeans studying engineering in Afghanistan. The country became ravaged by war and poverty, and...well...you know how that turned out.
I'm using very recent examples here, you can study this stuff WAY back.
I think the overal direction is that when society feels threatened, less will be tolerated, and there will be more conservative pressures. When the society thrives and is prosperous, though, it becomes more liberal.
Your second question; will society accept things that are not beneficial because youth do? Part of that depends on what you consider "not beneficial" (ie. harmful). If you still hold that rock is harmful, then the answer is yes.
If you have (sorry to say it) less of an agenda to push, then the answer is no, not really. Drugs never became culturally acceptable just because the youth accepted them. Drugs can be harmful, and so were rejected. Some drugs that were not so obviously detrimental (ie. marijuana) are still the subject of debate.
You'd never know it to look at them, but people can be remarkably sane, given enough opportunity.
The problem is the two systems are administred by two completely different bodies - namely the separate governments. What rules are placed on the UK system for privacy or due process reasons can be violated at will by the US agents, who are not bound by those laws -- and the same is true in reverse.
What recourse does a US citizen have when they have handed over (or have been compelled to hand over) their information to a US government agency, under certain rules, and then the UK does whatever they want with it? Will rules about privacy and proper use of the information even apply to non-citizens? Can the UK then share that information with the rest of the EU? Interpol? What about the ICC which the UK recognises and the US doesn't?
The cooperation of intelligence agencies when working cases on specific people of interest is one thing, but this ID system compatibility only makes sense if we're talking about large and frequent exchanges of information. The practicalities get out of control pretty fast.
All that being said, I'm not too concerned about this becoming reality. Intelligence agencies haven't proven to be the best sharers.
The wheels really come off when some corporate busybody has such a bad case of Cranial-Rectal Insertion Syndrome, that he thinks the same rules apply everywhere else in the world.
Because companies won't innovate without a profit motive, that does not mean that *people* (or organisations) won't innovate without a profit motive. All you need are some intelligent, creative, and driven people.
What we don't need are money-grubbing blowhards who think that the world should revolve around money.
Corporate guys hate it when I say that, but it's true.
I can't help but wonder if there's a provocation behind this - I guess techdirt thinks so. A legal examination and decision (through a lawsuit) might be just what's needed to clear the air of all the *AA FUD that's tossed around...ala SCO v. Linux case. ...or it may add to it, I suppose - lots of histrionics and propoganda while the wheels of justice grind. Is Grokster settled yet?
It's a bold statement in principle, even if it hedges a little in practice... I still say they're deserving of some kudos from the Linux and OSS crowd.