Introduction

Our topic comes from a recent news report about a suggestion made during the "Two Sessions" political meetings in China. A national deputy named Zheng Peikun, who is also a village official and a graduate student, put forward a proposal that has started a big conversation online. He suggested that game platforms should be required to shut down their servers every day from 1:00 AM to 5:00 AM. His main concern is about the health and education of young people. He noticed that many teenagers stay up late playing games, which leads to problems like being too tired to focus in class, losing sleep, and experiencing anxiety. As someone who believes education changed his own life, he worries that too much gaming is a waste of valuable time. 

This proposal quickly went viral on the internet, with millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes from netizens who supported the idea. While many parents agreed that such a rule would protect children, the proposal also raises important questions for us to think about. 

Today, we are not just talking about gaming itself, but about the role of rules and policies in our digital lives.

Subquestions

1.      What is the main goal of this proposal? Do you think shutting down game servers at night is a fair way to achieve it?

2.      The deputy said the policy is not about limiting freedom but about protecting young people. Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?

3.      What responsibilities should game companies have in protecting young users? Should the government step in to enforce those responsibilities?

4.      How might teenagers react to this policy? Would it reduce their late-night screen time, or could it lead to other problems?

5.      How would this policy affect different groups, such as adult gamers, parents, and the gaming industry? Should a policy aimed at teenagers apply to everyone?

6.      Do you think the problem described in the news—teenagers staying up late playing games—is a serious problem that needs a policy like this? Why or why not?

Expression Bag: https://zh.purasbar.com/post.php?t=36374

1. What is the main goal of this proposal? Do you think shutting down game servers at night is a fair way to achieve it?

To shift young people's focus and time spending on video games to study, as well as make them sleep earlier . 

Despite it seems a direct way to settle the addiction, I don't think it will work.  First,  it's hard to carry out because players will have multiple unexpected ways to break in if they are banned.  Second,  there are lots of ways beyond games,  like short videos and novels.  

Third,  it doesn't touch the core of problems. 

2. The deputy said the policy is not about limiting freedom but about protecting young people. Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?

In my opinion it will drive them crazy at the beginning.  Later things are hard to predict. 

3. What responsibilities should game companies have in protecting young users? Should the government step in to enforce those responsibilities?

It's true that there are many youths addicted to games,  but I think it's hard to let game companies take measures, as limiting using time or making the game less appealing is impossible. As for the government,  I think an proper intervention should be taken,  but in a clever and mild way. 

4. How might teenagers react to this policy? Would it reduce their late-night screen time, or could it lead to other problems?

They,  or we will complain and damn the deputy putting it forward,  and then desperately figure out methods to break in; if they fail,  they'll turn to other entertainment like social media.  Anyway they wouldn't shift the focus to study,  even becoming hating it. 

From my perspective, a proper way is to make youths return to the reality.  Should they find happiness and sense of belonging offline, they wouldn't immerse themselves online.  They may still play games but wouldn't be addicted to it,  treating it an extra fun and a chance to find new friends. 

2. The deputy said the policy is not about limiting freedom but about protecting young people. Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?

I tend to regard it as an excuse.