Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the exercise-is-contraindicated-in-heavy-smog dept.

Chinese state censors won't be permitting Pokémon Go and other augmented reality games anytime soon:

Nintendo's hit smartphone app, Pokemon Go, and other augmented reality games are unlikely to be rolled out in China any time soon, after the state censor said it would not license them until potential security risks had been evaluated.

[...] Prompted by "a high level of responsibility to national security and the safety of people's lives and property," the censor, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television, is coordinating with other government departments to evaluate the game's risks, an industry body said. These risks include the "threat to geographical information security and the threat to transport and the personal safety of consumers", a games panel of the China Audio-video and Digital Publishing Association, which is governed by the censor body, said in a posting on its website.

Some Chinese companies have been developing similar games based on augmented reality and location-based services, prompting the panel to seek advice from the top licensing body, it said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:40PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:40PM (#452650) Journal

    Like... even though I knew this reply was coming(Just look at that italicized preamble), my mind still can't help but boggle at the consistency with which people see a post about the explanatory power of moral relativism about human behavior and immediately conclude it automatically coincides with an implicit endorsement of every cultural norm of every culture. The only moral point it raises is to be aware of the biases you've got from your own culture, and put some effort into reflecting on how objective your own beliefs about morality actually are.

    Believe it or not, in spite of everything, I still have a very very western philosophy influenced rights-based mostly-consequentialist perspective on morality. But those personal beliefs regarding what I personally think is right and wrong has very little to do with my ability to empathize with the fact that others are taught different values, and they in turn affect what they think is okay.

    Or maybe you think that by recognizing that you'd be denied the right to morally condemn acts that you see as wrong, and push for changes in the societies that have those problems? I really don't know.

    Either way, I'm baffled by just how much it hurts some people to point out that, yes, cultures do affect what people see as right and wrong, and as a consequence, what they see as oppressive.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:54PM (#452660)

    As always, you've missed the point: I'm not looking for an explanation of their behavior.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:00PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:00PM (#452663) Journal

      Oh, so that's new. An ignorant ass who revels in ignorance.

      I was replying to someone who did show a modicum of interest in the subject. But congrats on your supplying your shitty, poorly considered opinion, while being disinterested in discussing it, I guess.

      We're all so interested in your utter lack of intellectual curiosity about the world around you. Thanks for sharing.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:12PM (#452669)

        No, you were responding to a rhetorical question; it wasn't a question at all.

        Check your reading comprehension, "ikanreed".

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:18PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:18PM (#452672)

          Your rhetorical question was still a point being made, you don't get to magically evade criticism that way.

          Your mutilation comment was an extreme response to something that wasn't even stated, check your own reading comprehension and stop drawing conclusions for other people.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:27PM (#452675)

            Extreme? irrelevant? Here, let me help you: How can anybody stand having these control-freak bureaucrats of religion cutting up little boys' and girls' sexual organs (let alone their own sexual organs)?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:06PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:06PM (#452691)

              When a girl's sexual organs are cut up, that oppression, and it's your fault you male. You implicitly endorse it every time it happens. You mind control the hands of the old woman who uses the knife.

              Now, when a boy's sexual organs are cut up, you just need to get used to the idea. You're a sexual object. Deal with it, faggot.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:42PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:42PM (#452715)

              Extreme? Yes. Your example is too extreme to have a conversation about relative morality since the overwhelming majority of people would be against sexual organ mutilation and would find it morally reprehensible. It polarizes and derails the conversation.

              Irrelevant? No, I never said that.

              The topic at hand is Chinese government censorship of augmented reality software, not sexual mutilation. Get back to the topic on hand and stop this stupid tangent.

              If it makes you feel any better I am against any physical mutilation regardless of gender. Is this a massive troll move to get someone to point out circumcision in the US?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:08PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:08PM (#452728)

                Do you even mathematics, bra? Taking a statement (e.g., a formula) to the [extreme] limit is one of the cornerstones of logical discourse.

                If you don't like the results of taking the limit, then maybe you ought to review your position.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:36PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:36PM (#452746)

                  Check your spectrum hun.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:04PM (#452667)

      immediately conclude it automatically coincides with an implicit endorsement of every cultural norm of every culture

      There was zero "explanation of their behavior", the explanation was of your narrow minded behavior.

      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:11PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:11PM (#452698) Journal

        uh... huh. Pretty ambiguous. Let me answer as many possible interpretations of your post as I can.

        If this is about how my post implied more universal acceptance of the cultural norms in question than actually exists and glosses over how many people struggling to change things in China there are: good point. I did oversimplify that.

        If this is about how my post glossed over that these unspoken rules are themselves far more complex and reasonable than I gave them credit for: sure. good point. I oversimplified that too.

        If this is about how "No. Putting up with a government over-regulating a game is NOT OK" then... yeah. I'm not a fan of doing that. But that wasn't the point of my post.

        Most other interpretations call for a "Fuck you too, AC"

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:44PM (#452749)

          Possible 4th interpretation (and as it turns out the correct one for I am wise and all knowing *in this matter*): The post was to the ACs replying to ikanreed in an attempt to point out that they were missing ikanreed's point about cultural diversity and moral relativism. The quick jump to sexual mutilation was a type of Godwin, shutting down the conversation before it even started, and that got me involved with this threadfest.

          I do like that your misinterpretation resulted in some good points!