Shutdowns were introduced to prevent youth gaming addiction, but they have been criticized as ineffective due to their lack of practical enforcement and violation of personal freedoms. Educational approaches and the provision of other leisure activities are needed to solve the problem at a more fundamental level.

Controversy and unfairness of shutdowns

Recently, there has been a controversy about the shutdown system on the internet. According to a newspaper article published on October 14, a South Korean professional gamer who competed in a tournament in France for the game StarCraft 2 claimed that he was forced to lose due to his country’s “shutdown system”. The pro gamer was 15 years old this year, so he was subject to the shutdown system, which allegedly forced him to withdraw from the tournament despite representing Korea. The news of this case has reignited the debate over the legitimacy of the shutdown system.

Definition and background

The ‘shutdown system’ is a system designed to prevent young people from becoming addicted to online games. It is a new provision (Article 23(3)) under the amendment to the Juvenile Protection Act introduced on May 19, 2011, and came into effect on November 20, 2011. It has been enforced since 2012 after a transition period, and the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family is in charge. The core of the system is to “restrict the provision of internet games to youths under the age of 16 during the six-hour late-night period from 0:00 am to 6:00 am. Internet gaming services will be forced to verify age and identity during these hours to block youth from playing games. The system will first apply to PC online games using the Internet and PC packaged games accessed via CD. Mobile games played on smartphones or tablet PCs will be deferred for two years, reflecting the view that not enough young people own mobile devices yet to pose a serious addiction risk. All games that require personal information will be subject to the shutdown system, and games that do not require personal information will be subject to the shutdown system even if they require additional fees. However, games that do not require personal information, such as StarCraft 1 and Diablo, do not require additional fees, and console games that do not require online access, such as PlayStation and Nintendo Wii, can be used freely.

Unfairness and ineffectiveness of shutdowns

I disagree with the need for a “shutdown” for two main reasons. The first is that it has little practical effect on achieving the stated goals of the system, and the second is that it is an excessive restriction of personal freedom. For these reasons, we argue that it should be abolished.

Shutdowns are notoriously ineffective

The impracticality of the shutdown system is perhaps the first argument in support of its unfairness. As mentioned above, if the game itself doesn’t ask for personal information, it’s impossible to enforce the system. Even Starcraft, which has been the most popular game for more than 15 years since the late 90s, does not qualify for the shutdown system. This means that the goal of protecting young people from gaming addiction cannot be realized by the system alone. In other words, shutdowns are not the solution.
What’s more, even if a game is covered by the shutdown system, it can still be circumvented through authorization. It’s not uncommon for game users under the age of 16 to “steal” their parents’ real names and personal information, and this system won’t stop them from doing so. Given how easy it is to use other people’s personal information, the effectiveness of this system is highly questionable.
In fact, the anecdote about the under-16 professional gamer mentioned above shows that this system is notoriously ineffective. The same newspaper article reported that the professional gamer, who was forced to quit the game due to the shutdown system, returned to the game a short time later with a different account. It is clear from this example that the shutdown system is unable to block game users under the age of 16 for a specific period of time. Not only is it unknown where the professional gamer got an account that would not be caught by the shutdown system, but the ministry in charge of the shutdown system cannot reveal how many such accounts it knows. Therefore, the current system is unable to realize the policy of blocking access, making it difficult to prevent young people from becoming addicted to games.
The ineffectiveness of the shutdown system can also be seen from the examples of other countries. China and Thailand have implemented the ‘shutdown system’, but none of them have maintained a forced blocking system like Korea’s current legislation. In the case of China, the current system, which was similar to Korea’s shutdown system, was abolished in March 2012 and a law was enacted to ensure more user autonomy. Thailand also had a shutdown system in place for two years starting in 2006, but eventually the government repealed the law after it became a popular and ineffective law.

Infringing on teen freedom

The anti-democratic nature of the shutdown system is also an important argument for its abolition. In my opinion, the shutdown system is designed to interfere with the right of youth to pursue happiness rather than to protect them. The Constitution of Korea provides in Article 10 of the Act as follows. “All citizens have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness. The state has the duty to affirm and guarantee the inviolable and fundamental human rights of individuals.” The Constitution is the fundamental norm that guarantees the basic principles of the governance organization and operation of the state and the fundamental rights of the people, and all laws in South Korea must not violate the Constitution. However, a closer look at the ‘shutdown system’ shows that it is an administrative law that violates Article 10 of the Constitution. One could argue that protecting young people from gaming addiction is a more meaningful interpretation of the right to pursue happiness. However, in a democratic society where individual freedom and equality are among the most fundamental values, a shutdown system that completely prevents gaming at certain times of the day is too much of a violation of individual freedom to be rationalized by the above argument.
The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family responded to the issue of violation of the right to pursuit of happiness by saying, “The restriction on late-night gaming is intended to ensure the right to sleep of young people as recommended by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.” However, the right to sleep is also limited to students studying late or watching TV and radio. This means that the right to sleep is a matter of personal decision. Protecting this right by blocking games can only be construed as a violation of freedom.
Furthermore, when considering the leisure environment of young people in Korea, it can be seen that this system significantly infringes on their freedom. In terms of time, the leisure activities available to youths in Korea are very limited due to the excessive educational fever, and the infrastructure for youths’ leisure is quite poor due to the development-oriented economic policy. In such an environment, gaming is one of the few leisure activities allowed for young people. However, if even these leisure activities are partially blocked by law, it is a significant violation of their right to pursue happiness.

The reason behind the shutdown and the need for an educational approach

The idea behind the shutdown system is to address the problem of gaming addiction among young people. Gaming addiction is clearly recognized as a serious social problem, and it can have a negative impact on young people’s health and academic performance. However, an educational approach may be more effective than legal sanctions to address this problem. Educational programs are needed to make young people fully aware of the dangers of gaming addiction and help them form healthy gaming habits. It’s also important to involve parents and teachers to help manage and guide young people’s gaming behavior.

Conclusion

As we have argued above, the ineffectiveness of the system and the violation of young people’s human rights should not be allowed to continue. If we want to protect young people from gaming addiction, we need to address the problem in a more fundamental way. The perceived illegality of gaming is different from that of drugs, and it would be superficial to completely ban the use of gaming like drugs.
In order to prevent gaming addiction, we need to activate both educational measures to make young people fully aware of the dangers of gaming addiction and provide them with leisure activities that they can enjoy outside of gaming. In addition, various programs and policies should be put in place to help young people develop healthy gaming habits. This will allow them to play games autonomously and maintain a healthy lifestyle.