[xgbi]

What are you talking about ?

It says that the parental settings (when enabled!) are just letting children do whatever they want by default:

- buying overpriced objects - chat without any restriction online - play without interruption for long time

I think the first one is probably the most poignant: piping children into disguised gambling addiction by default seems like a major fault. Borderline illegal, if you ask me.

It looks a lot like a phony feature "let's add a parental control, it will make people feel like we're trustworthy and bring back more revenue. And please don't disable ingame purchases by default, this is our cash cow".

[jajuuka]

I'm talking about the above comments argument that this kind of overreach is a healthy government regulatory framework. I am not talking about the argument from the person above them.

You seem to be forgetting a crucial part of this. The parent. If a parent is buying their child a gambling game then that's on them. Not on the government to force everyone to submit their IDs and face scans to play a game for adults.

Parental controls are not a phony feature at all. That's like saying accessibility options are phony features. It's an option for people who need it. Just because it isn't default in every scenario doesn't mean it's disingenuous.

[justinclift]

> I'm talking about the above comments argument that this kind of overreach is a healthy government regulatory framework.

Which government's way of doing things would you suggest is "healthy"?

Hopefully you're not serious saying the US [appears to be healthy]?