The challenge of developing policy in emerging areas is that the old frameworks do not work in regulation while new frameworks take time to evolve. One example is that of the policy of online gaming, the new regulations of which were unveiled on 6 April 2023. The policy makers have followed an outdated playbook for a global phenomenon that threatens to hollow out the minds of a generation. The policy fails to address the biggest problem — the loss of attention and the subsequent mental disorders that these games might cause in a whole generation of citizens. It is of little use, as the draft does, to distinguish between games of chance and games of skill.
This distinction, an artificial one, between gambling and non-gambling might be a cover-up of the basic premise of gaming which is to build addiction. Even if a game does not involve money it can still be addictive and harm the players. The premise of any gaming platform is to capture the attention of the players for the longest time. In a sense, all online games are infinite and do not have an end — the longer the player plays the game the more the brain will crave dopamine kicks in a perpetual loop. This perpetual loop combined with a never-ending game is what caused the most damage to human brains.
It is remarkable that the regulations do not even mention dopamine addiction caused by these games, when not only is there enough research to prove that online gaming is addictive but also the confirmation by the WHO in 2019 of its detrimental effects in 2019. Psychiatrists too have been calling out for more than a decade now the detrimental effects of online gaming on mental health. The American Psychiatrists Association classified Internet gaming as a disorder way back in 2013. Individuals suffering from Internet Gaming disorder have behavioural similarities with patients struggling with substance abuse. They exhibit the same psychological triggers, cravings, and addiction-seeking behaviours.
A decade later in India, the discussion or debate on online gaming does not even mention the issue of mental health disorders caused by online gaming. Our regulators are always late to the latest but our think tanks are also complicit in hiding this downside.
Researchers have shown that these platforms provide novelty and constant hyperstimulation, emotional and/or sensory, which can rewire brain circuits and increase the users’ dependence on the sense of reward they provide. Young people are more vulnerable because full brain development is not complete until around twenty-five years of age. The research in online gaming or video gaming is three decades old, but even now there is very little recognition of this research.
Now, due to the development of neuroimaging techniques, several studies have shown that, much like substance use, online games can lead to changes in areas of the brain leading to impaired impulse control, decision-making, behavioural inhibition, emotional regulation, learning, and memory, and reward processing. This is a list of research papers on this subject for those interested in reading more about the damage that online gaming causes to mental health (Dong et al. 2012; Dong and Potenza 2014; Fauth-Bühler and Mann 2017; X. Lin, Dong, et al. 2015; X. Lin, Jia, et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2016; Palaus et al. 2017; Pontes, Kuss, and Griffiths 2017; Weinstein, Livny, and Weizman 2017; Weinstein 2017).
China has already limited the time to 3 hours per week for minors playing these online games (Pruitt-Young 2021). China even restricts these games to public holidays. While China is not a great example of regulatory controls, it does tell you how seriously they are taking this issue. In the US, a bill, called the Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act of 2019, was proposed with the suggestion to ban some of the features of social media that drive prolonged engagement.
In a 2021 report “Protecting Youth Mental Health,” the US surgeon general called on the role of technology companies, expressing that “when not deployed responsibly and safely, these tools [technology platforms] can pit us against each other, reinforce negative behaviours like bullying and exclusion, and undermine the safe and supportive environments young people need and deserve.”
Bogey of self-regulation
When the policy makers do not want to spend too much effort on regulating a sector or is so unsure of itself to regulate, it falls to the tried and tested model of self-regulation. Hence the amendment, which was approved by the government 6 April 2023, devotes almost seven pages to the SROs (Self Regulating Organisation) for the online gaming industry.
The SRO model does not work for tech platforms whose business model is based on capturing and monetising the attention of users. It would be naive to expect from the online gaming world to change their business model without any incentives or penalties to do so.
Let’s look at other addictions — cocaine. Does the government allow cocaine makers to self-regulate themselves? Let’s take another example of cigarettes; for decades the cigarette industry buried research about addiction, and carcinogenic elements and the government also ignored academic research in this space. But did any government anywhere in the world agree to the self-regulation of cigarettes? Even though the sector has one of the most powerful lobbies in the world and spends as much $28 million dollars or more every year on lobbyists.
Online gaming has also hired top lobbyists in the country, ex-Apco officials, and even industry associations in the Internet space have been co-opted by the players to bend the rule in their favour. The policy makers on the other hand is not even recognising that the impact of this sector is not just an economic one but a long-term mental health epidemic on a whole generation of netizens. There was a time that Pakistan wanted to destroy the economy of rural Punjab and it introduced drugs into the state. Now the biggest scourge for progress in the state of Punjab is the drug problem that ails its younger generation. Online gaming can also be a tool to subjugate the population level and get them addicted to an extent that they are not able to function properly, reducing their productivity and destroying a country’s future.
This is why China insists that all foreign games have to be registered with its online gaming regulators and they need to have Chinese partners to operate in the country. We must understand that online gaming platforms can also be weaponised by a rival country wanting to create social discontent in India.
Taxing the time spent
The only way to control the addiction of these gaming platforms is to introduce a tax that is based on the time spent by the individual user on the platform.
Taxing the technology companies that own the online platforms for every user who spends an excessive amount of time on the platform. The tax should be imposed on companies, not users.:
The tax might be calculated by setting a time limit below which engagement with the platform is not considered as harmful behaviour, say 30 minutes a day or 3 hours per week.
The policy should provide incentives for companies to use their behavioural strategies and the data they collect to promote engagement but discourage compulsive use.
K Yatish Rajawat is a public policy researcher and works at the Gurgaon-based think and do tank Centre for Innovation in Public Policy (CIPP). Views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest Opinions here
Comments
0 comment