Manila has declared war on pixels. The Philippine government, in a move of breathtakingly misplaced priorities, has banned a video game because, allegedly, a bloke who shot up a room once played it. Yes, you heard that right. The logic is so circular it would make a Möbius strip weep with envy. Meanwhile, over in Blighty, cybersecurity experts have donned their finest worried faces to flag this as a 'global risk'. Let me pour myself a gin and dissect this pantomime.
First, the Philippines. They've banned a game. Which game? Who cares. It's the one the shooter 'linked' in a YouTube video or tweet or whatever digital detritus we now use to blame inanimate objects for human failure. I've seen this before. It's the same energy as blaming spoons for making people fat. The sheer cowardice of banning a game instead of asking why a bloke felt the need to acquire weapons and commit violence is, frankly, breathtaking. It's political theatre for the easily distracted. A government that can't fix its roads bans a video game. Bravo.
But wait. The UK cybersecurity experts have now weighed in. They've 'flagged a global risk'. What risk? That someone might play the game and get ideas? That the code is laced with digital rabies? No, no, my dear reader: the risk is that the game's servers might be used as a backdoor for hackers. Because if there's one thing we need on top of a moral panic, it's a technological one. These experts, likely wearing ties that clash with their beards, have solemnly declared that this game could be a 'trojan horse' for cyberattacks. Because nothing says 'global threat' like a game that's basically just a series of polygons shooting other polygons.
Let me tell you the real risk. The real risk is that we keep outsourcing our moral compasses to anyone with a Twitter account and a penchant for panic. The real risk is that governments think banning a game solves anything. The real risk is that we're all so bloody terrified of the digital bogeyman that we forget to look at the actual, tangible, boring-as-hell causes of violence. But no, it's easier to ban a game and have a press conference. Saves on thinking.
Now, I'm no fan of video games myself. I'd rather spend my time getting blotto on gin and writing scathing letters to the editor. But I'll defend your right to shoot digital aliens until the cows come home. Because once we let governments dictate what we can and can't play, it's a slippery slope to them banning my gin because it 'linked' to a bender in 1997.
So here's my hot take: The Philippines is a joke. The UK experts are clowns. And the real story is that we're all being played for fools. The shooter didn't need a video game. He needed a society that gave a damn. But that doesn't get clicks, does it? Banning a game gets clicks. Flagging a risk gets funding. And me? I'm just here to pour scorn on the whole sorry shambles.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a date with a bottle of Gordon's and a typewriter. The world can go to hell in a handcart, but at least I'll be properly lubricated when it does.
