The Shutdown System is a policy that restricts late-night gaming access for South Korean teens, but its effectiveness is questionable, and it may have negative side effects.
What is the Shutdown System?
The Shutdown System is a technical measure implemented by South Korea’s Ministry of Gender Equality and Family that restricts internet gaming access for youth under the age of 16 from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. KST. The shutdown system is enforced in two ways. The first is an indirect method that rewards players for not gaming for a certain amount of time with a benefit on their next reconnection. The second is a direct method that blocks the user from playing games for a certain amount of time or at a certain time of day. In October 2004, the “Forum on Measures to Secure the Right of Youth to Sleep” called for its introduction, and the current shutdown system was passed at the plenary session of the National Diet on April 29, 2011, and officially implemented on November 20, 2011.
South Korea was not the first country to introduce a shutdown system. Thailand was the first country to introduce a gaming shutdown, blocking teenagers from accessing online games from 10pm to 6am. Even adults were strictly regulated, requiring them to get a gaming account after 10pm, but Thailand’s shutdown failed. The original intention of preventing teenagers from gaming was not realized, and the system was abandoned as ineffective due to the increased access to fraudulent accounts. In addition to Thailand, the program has also been tried in Vietnam and parts of the United States, but it has not been successful and has faded into obscurity. Currently, South Korea is the only country with an online gaming shutdown law on the books. Other countries have failed to restrict online gaming because they failed to prevent illegal access. South Korea seems to be trying to replicate this failure without making any methodological changes to address the contradictions of the shutdown system. Therefore, I oppose the implementation of the shutdown system in South Korea and will give my reasons.
First, the evidence on the harm of online gaming to youth is unclear!
One of the arguments against the harmfulness of online games is the “copycat criminality theory”. The idea is that young people who are exposed to the violence of online games are more likely to imitate them and commit crimes. However, it’s a leap to say that the violence of games alone increases the likelihood of criminal behavior in young people. There have been many studies that have looked at the relationship between gaming and crime rates, but the idea that gaming contributes to increased crime rates has not been supported by significant research. An April 2011 study led by researchers from the European Center for Economic Research and the University of Texas concluded that crime rates have decreased as more people play video games at home. Furthermore, the copycat crime theory of online gaming is flawed because there are many other factors that stimulate violence, including sports such as martial arts and explicit movies, not just online games.
Next, there is the “social loss theory,” which argues that young people are becoming socially isolated and fragmented by excessive gaming and immersing themselves in virtual worlds. But this too is open to debate. Studies have shown that online games, especially those that require interaction with others, can actually help improve socialization and collaboration. In some cases, online games have been developed and used as programs to improve collaboration. Some people mistakenly attribute online gaming as a cause of social isolation, when socially isolated teens become obsessed with online games as an escape.
Second, there’s something wrong with the way the shutdown system works!
Rather than protecting teens from gaming addiction as it was intended to do, the shutdown system is likely to have other negative effects. The only verification required to create an online gaming account is a name, social security number, and cell phone number. This won’t do much to stop teens from gaming. Name and social security number are already insecure as personal identifiers. According to the “Youth Internet Game Healthy Use System Survey” conducted by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family to evaluate the implementation of the shutdown system, late-night online game use by youth decreased by only 0.3% after the shutdown system was implemented.
So, can requiring more information for personal verification be a good way to limit gaming? The results are not positive. For non-sanctioned users, it would create a number of problems, ranging from hassle to access to potential privacy issues due to the distribution of sensitive information. For young people, it will likely lead to the creation of illegal game servers that allow access without authentication in exchange for monetary compensation. In fact, even now, for paid games that require licenses, there are free servers that allow players to play without paying. This means that the failure to restrict youth access will result in a revenue structure that favors illegal server operators, rather than the game companies who should be getting paid for their services. Attempting to force teens to stay away from late-night gaming is a futile endeavor that is likely to have negative consequences.
The intentions of the shutdown are not beyond criticism!
The intention of the shutdowns to protect young people from potential harm is a good one. The reality is that many young people are addicted to online gaming, and their healthy emotional development is often stunted. However, to improve this situation, we need a system that goes beyond the short-sighted shutdowns. Research has shown that parental communication, parental academic expectations, and parental love for their children are significantly and negatively correlated with computer game addiction among adolescents, suggesting that rather than banning online gaming, life guidance at home or at school based on ongoing parental and teacher love and attention may be a more fundamental countermeasure against the harms of online gaming.
Instead of the current primary system of preventing online gaming, we need to build youth centers aimed at preventing and treating gaming addiction, and expand mandatory emotional education for parents as well as youth. Rather than imposing mandatory restrictions, online game companies should be taxed a percentage of their profits to fulfill their social responsibility for their online game business targeting Korean youth. To promote a healthy online gaming culture, online game companies should be encouraged to engage in image projects, such as including advisory statements in their games. In particular, efforts should be made to improve the environment of centers by investing capital to provide compulsory education to socially marginalized groups who are vulnerable to online gaming addiction, such as youths whose family environment, including relationships with their parents, is not intact.
