And it’s written in pretty much the same way as the UK anti-porn thing, where age ratings alone won’t cut it, so if you want to make smut games in Brazil you need to have some sort of “effective” age gating on top of parental controls to allow parents to close it off to their kids.
Art. 12. Os provedores de lojas de aplicações de internet e de sistemas operacionais de terminais deverão:
I – tomar medidas proporcionais, auditáveis e tecnicamente seguras para aferir a idade ou a faixa etária dos usuários, observados os princípios previstos no art. 6º da Lei nº 13.709, de 14 de agosto de 2018 (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais);
II – permitir que os pais ou responsáveis legais configurem mecanismos de supervisão parental voluntários e supervisionem, de forma ativa, o acesso de crianças e de adolescentes a aplicativos e conteúdos; e
III – possibilitar, por meio de Interface de Programação de Aplicações (Application Programming Interface – API) segura e pautada pela proteção da privacidade desde o padrão, o fornecimento de sinal de idade aos provedores de aplicações de internet, exclusivamente para o cumprimento das finalidades desta Lei e com salvaguardas técnicas adequadas.
So where are we on this one? We gonna be the “fuck free speech, I hate loot boxes” or “fuck thinking of the children, we like our smutty stuff”?
Are you saying loot boxes are a freedom of speech issue?
Stop mixing 2 different issues. Gambling is highly addictive and is designed to extract as much money out of people as possible. Porn is something totally different. Both should be age gated in my opinion but they are still 2 very different issues.
How are they different? They’re both activities we allow for adults but not for children. For, arguably, good reasons.
I mean, you can be into one more than into another, and you can argue whether or not loot boxes should qualify as gambling, but for practical purposes when it comes to regulation they are fairly interchangeable.
Not that it matters, because regardless of what you and I think, they are listed together in the law. I’m not mixing diffferent issues, the law is specifically, explicitly applying the exact same regulation to porn and loot boxes. Doesn’t matter how you feel about it, the Brazilian regulators think they’re the same here.
First, children. Porn games (and videos) have never been marketed at children. Lootboxes have. It’s not an age-gating issue, it’s an issue of actively promoting gambling for children. Games with gambling elements should be illegal to sell or market to children, and platforms can back this up with parental controls tools, without the need for any privacy-invading ID or facial recognition.
The second is relevant to adults. General things around lootboxes being exploitative bad game design, regardless of the audience. You don’t have to support banning it to be able to say it’s really shitty. Personally, I would advocate very strict reporting on odds of success, and mandate the implementation of self-exclusion features, the same as the law requires (at least here in Australia) for casinos.
Well, I’m less black and white than you are on this, but I could agree with most of that.
That’s not what’s in the law, though.
The law outright bans any and all loot boxes in games aimed at kids or teenagers (meaning anything with any loot boxes is automatically 18+ rated) and sets an obligation for all stores to verify people’s age on top of having parental controls. I guess you could go to court and find out, but the way I read it, age checks are mandated additionally to parental controls and both are set as obligations.
So it’s great for you that you have this whole mental framework of why porn is cool but loot boxes are not, but that’s not what the law says, so I’m going to guess I can chalk you up as disagreeing with this whole situation.
Also, the idea that NSFW content in general, regardless of where you place the bar for “porn” has “never been marketed at children” is hilarious.
They are the same in the law. They will be treated the same way.
Also, what is your point anyway? That porn should be accessible to children but loot boxes shouldn’t? Are you not OK with porn being for adults? The question here isn’t whether the content is adults-only, we probably should all agree that’s the case. The question is how that’s enforced.
I mean, if you want to tell me what you actually think about that I’m happy to listen, but going “these two things feel different to me” doesn’t bring anything to this conversation.
My point was pointing out your logical mistake. These two things are separate things which should be discussed separately. Just because they are grouped together in one piece of official document, doesn’t make it the UNIVERSAL truth.
or are you telling me the Braziling government doesn’t discriminate between gambling and porn in other settings?
(Also maybe I missed it: Where did I cast any judgement about it being accessible to children?)
No, see, there is no logical mistake because at no point was there an argument about universal truths anywhere. There was a note that, despite the headline and article not flagging it, the same regulation covers porn and has some of the issues that anti-porn age verification has had in the past.
You’re just doing the thing where you read something on the Internet and it made you angry by not immediately reinforcing your preferences so you nitpicked a random bit you thought didn’t check out regardless of whether it was part of the argument or not.
The point is that, despite being in the same bill, they shouldn’t be. One is already covered in existing law, related to adult exclusive activities recognized as such the world over (porn for clarity). The other is defining a new phenomenon that has yet to be defined as being exclusive to adults and currently exists within spaces for children to the point of predation and is akin to existing child targeted products (loot boxes again for clarity).
Lumping even seemingly similar things is a bad practice that is more meant to poison pill bills (among other things) than actually execute legislative duties.
Whose point is that? Because I don’t think it’s the previous guy’s point, and it certainly isn’t mine.
I mean, the law (not a bill, this isn’t the US and it has been approved, as per the text) outright bans loot boxes in games “targeted at children or teenagers”. No qualifiers. Doesn’t even say “paid loot boxes”, so technically all videogames are now illegal if they have a loot table anywhere. I’m going to assume cooler heads will prevail and a categorization will come from courts or specific regulatory development, but it’s certainly not in the law.
So if you don’t like this for doing both at once… well, that’s weird, that’s why laws have multiple articles. If you’re worried that the inclusion is meant to stall the bill that’s irrelevant, this has been published and comes in force in six months. If you think they’re overreaching by outright banning loot boxes… well, I agree, but I don’t think that’s the point as the rest of the thread is defining it.
EDIT: Someone in a different thread pointed out that despite referencing slightly differently there IS a definition of lootbox in the law and it does include a requirement for them to be paid, so I’m correcting the record here:
IV – caixa de recompensa: funcionalidade disponível em certos jogos eletrônicos que permite a aquisição, mediante pagamento, pelo jogador, de itens virtuais consumíveis ou de vantagens aleatórias, resgatáveis pelo jogador ou usuário, sem conhecimento prévio de seu conteúdo ou garantia de sua efetiva utilidade;
Also porn.
And it’s written in pretty much the same way as the UK anti-porn thing, where age ratings alone won’t cut it, so if you want to make smut games in Brazil you need to have some sort of “effective” age gating on top of parental controls to allow parents to close it off to their kids.
So where are we on this one? We gonna be the “fuck free speech, I hate loot boxes” or “fuck thinking of the children, we like our smutty stuff”?
Crap, and here I thought they were doing a good thing
Are you saying loot boxes are a freedom of speech issue?
Stop mixing 2 different issues. Gambling is highly addictive and is designed to extract as much money out of people as possible. Porn is something totally different. Both should be age gated in my opinion but they are still 2 very different issues.
Also, you’re an idiot.
How are they different? They’re both activities we allow for adults but not for children. For, arguably, good reasons.
I mean, you can be into one more than into another, and you can argue whether or not loot boxes should qualify as gambling, but for practical purposes when it comes to regulation they are fairly interchangeable.
Not that it matters, because regardless of what you and I think, they are listed together in the law. I’m not mixing diffferent issues, the law is specifically, explicitly applying the exact same regulation to porn and loot boxes. Doesn’t matter how you feel about it, the Brazilian regulators think they’re the same here.
There are two separate issues with lootboxes.
First, children. Porn games (and videos) have never been marketed at children. Lootboxes have. It’s not an age-gating issue, it’s an issue of actively promoting gambling for children. Games with gambling elements should be illegal to sell or market to children, and platforms can back this up with parental controls tools, without the need for any privacy-invading ID or facial recognition.
The second is relevant to adults. General things around lootboxes being exploitative bad game design, regardless of the audience. You don’t have to support banning it to be able to say it’s really shitty. Personally, I would advocate very strict reporting on odds of success, and mandate the implementation of self-exclusion features, the same as the law requires (at least here in Australia) for casinos.
Well, I’m less black and white than you are on this, but I could agree with most of that.
That’s not what’s in the law, though.
The law outright bans any and all loot boxes in games aimed at kids or teenagers (meaning anything with any loot boxes is automatically 18+ rated) and sets an obligation for all stores to verify people’s age on top of having parental controls. I guess you could go to court and find out, but the way I read it, age checks are mandated additionally to parental controls and both are set as obligations.
So it’s great for you that you have this whole mental framework of why porn is cool but loot boxes are not, but that’s not what the law says, so I’m going to guess I can chalk you up as disagreeing with this whole situation.
Also, the idea that NSFW content in general, regardless of where you place the bar for “porn” has “never been marketed at children” is hilarious.
Do you get aroused when you look at probability? Do you have sex with PDFs? Are histograms your jam?
If no, porn is not the same thing as gambling.
Once again, you don’t get a say.
They are the same in the law. They will be treated the same way.
Also, what is your point anyway? That porn should be accessible to children but loot boxes shouldn’t? Are you not OK with porn being for adults? The question here isn’t whether the content is adults-only, we probably should all agree that’s the case. The question is how that’s enforced.
I mean, if you want to tell me what you actually think about that I’m happy to listen, but going “these two things feel different to me” doesn’t bring anything to this conversation.
My point was pointing out your logical mistake. These two things are separate things which should be discussed separately. Just because they are grouped together in one piece of official document, doesn’t make it the UNIVERSAL truth.
or are you telling me the Braziling government doesn’t discriminate between gambling and porn in other settings?
(Also maybe I missed it: Where did I cast any judgement about it being accessible to children?)
No, see, there is no logical mistake because at no point was there an argument about universal truths anywhere. There was a note that, despite the headline and article not flagging it, the same regulation covers porn and has some of the issues that anti-porn age verification has had in the past.
You’re just doing the thing where you read something on the Internet and it made you angry by not immediately reinforcing your preferences so you nitpicked a random bit you thought didn’t check out regardless of whether it was part of the argument or not.
I would much prefer to talk like adults, instead.
The point is that, despite being in the same bill, they shouldn’t be. One is already covered in existing law, related to adult exclusive activities recognized as such the world over (porn for clarity). The other is defining a new phenomenon that has yet to be defined as being exclusive to adults and currently exists within spaces for children to the point of predation and is akin to existing child targeted products (loot boxes again for clarity).
Lumping even seemingly similar things is a bad practice that is more meant to poison pill bills (among other things) than actually execute legislative duties.
Whose point is that? Because I don’t think it’s the previous guy’s point, and it certainly isn’t mine.
I mean, the law (not a bill, this isn’t the US and it has been approved, as per the text) outright bans loot boxes in games “targeted at children or teenagers”. No qualifiers. Doesn’t even say “paid loot boxes”, so technically all videogames are now illegal if they have a loot table anywhere. I’m going to assume cooler heads will prevail and a categorization will come from courts or specific regulatory development, but it’s certainly not in the law.So if you don’t like this for doing both at once… well, that’s weird, that’s why laws have multiple articles. If you’re worried that the inclusion is meant to stall the bill that’s irrelevant, this has been published and comes in force in six months. If you think they’re overreaching by outright banning loot boxes… well, I agree, but I don’t think that’s the point as the rest of the thread is defining it.
EDIT: Someone in a different thread pointed out that despite referencing slightly differently there IS a definition of lootbox in the law and it does include a requirement for them to be paid, so I’m correcting the record here:
Better an idiot than an asshole or, in your case, both.