Debate: We need data infrastructure as well as data sharing - conflicts of interest in video game research

No evidence that Chinese playtime mandates reduced heavy gaming in one segment of the video games industry

Governments around the world are considering regulatory measures to reduce young people's time spent on digital devices, particularly video games. This raises the question of whether proposed regulatory measures would be effective. Since the early 2000s, the Chinese government has been enacting regulations to directly restrict young people's playtime. In November 2019, it limited players aged under 18 to 1.5 hours of daily playtime and 3 hours on public holidays. Using telemetry data on over seven billion hours of playtime provided by a stakeholder from the video games industry, we found no credible evidence for overall reduction in the prevalence of heavy playtime following the implementation of regulations: individual accounts became 1.14 times more likely to play heavily in any given week (95% confidence interval 1.139-1.141). This falls below our preregistered smallest effect size of interest (2.0) and thus is not interpreted as a practically meaningful increase. Results remain robust across a variety of sensitivity analyses, including an analysis of more recent (2021) adjustments to playtime regulation. This casts doubt on the effectiveness of such state-controlled playtime mandates.

Debate: Academics should collaborate with the technology industry, but not in lieu of noncollaborative research

Academic research collaborations with the technology industry should be complementary to and, importantly, must not replace noncollaborative research that is independent from the industry (and, in particular, 'adversarial research' whose negative findings will likely operate against industry interests). Reflecting on the author's own research projects concerning companies' compliance with video game loot box regulation, he agrees with Livingstone et al.'s proposition (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2022, 28, 150) that research seeking to identify problems (and thereby work against the industry's interests) should be conducted independently (p. 151), at least initially. He also echoes the sentiment expressed by Zendle and Wardle (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2022, 28, 155) that 'a moratorium' (p. 156) or a ban on industry collaborations is not a proportional response to legitimate concerns about conflict of interest stemming from the video game industry's discretionary provision of data access. A combined approach that conducts both noncollaborative and collaborative research, but with the latter being conducted only after the former's unbiased results are known, might prove fruitful. Academics must bear in mind that industry involvement at any particular stage of the research, or at all, is not always appropriate. Some research questions should not and cannot be answered objectively with industry involvement. Funding bodies and other stakeholders should also recognise this and not render industry collaboration compulsory.

Editorial: Control alt delete - technology and children's mental health

With international contributions from Denmark, Peru, Italy, Turkey, Estonia, Russia, Canada, the USA, Australia and the UK, this special issue offers insights and evidence about the technology's ability to act as a force of good and a source of harm for young people's mental health. As we better understand the complex and bidirectional relationship between technology and mental health, we need to move beyond dichotomous narratives about it being good or bad; it is both, depending on how it is used. Collective responsibility across technology companies, researchers, public services and community organisations, parents and the young people themselves can make a difference in the way technology is used to protect and improve mental health.