China bans black market for online gaming accounts • The Register
The National Internet Information Office of China has reviewed some of the government’s recent Internet crackdowns to put an end to workarounds such as renting or selling online game accounts to minors in order to bypass the playing time of three hours per week imposed by Beijing.
Chinese lawmakers introduced game time limits in August, restricting games to between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday – with an extra hour allowed as a gift on public holidays.
Beiing’s position is that it is a necessary precaution to prevent gambling addiction. He believes that gambling does not reflect Chinese values, that it is unproductive and anti-social.
The rules quickly sparked a black market for online gaming accounts – a black market Beijing is seeking to eliminate.
According to the Central Commission for Cyberspace Affairs (CAC), the Internet Information Office has also reviewed recent decisions on instant messaging, news information, forums and communities, live webcasts, questions – answers on knowledge, life services, e-commerce and online videos.
Specifically, they target the “reincarnation” of illegal accounts, meaning that those that have been closed must remain inactive and cannot be re-registered – at least for a fixed period of time.
Accounts with fake names designed to resemble those of agencies or organizations, or falsely claiming to be managed by members of certain professions, will also attract attention. Fake fans of celebrity accounts will also be banned, addressing a space known for its aggressive behavior in which online gangs, largely made up of teenage girls, fight to assert their zeal for the celebrity of their choice.
Finally, click traps (called by the commission “malicious marketing of internet users’ accounts”) come under scrutiny as Beijing seeks to reduce the prevalence and impact of articles that make internet users move. or disseminate vulgar or provocative content.
âStories that distort and interpret national policies in the name of dissemination of knowledge and interfere with public perceptionâ are also reported. Who exactly decides whether an account correctly interprets national policies has not been detailed. Just asking is probably doing the wrong thing. Â®