Who’s to blame for ballooning credit card debt and student loans? The public education system, perhaps. American high school students can recite Shakespeare’s sonnets, derive advanced calculus theorems, and explain the Chinese spheres of influence. Yet these same students know little to nothing about economics and personal finance. They know of income tax only as the fifth square on the Monopoly board.

Currently, only five states — Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia — require personal finance courses for high school students. The results speak for themselves: four of these states rank in the top 20 of best average credit card debt. This is a logical correlation. Learning about debt will help someone stay out of it. Yet economists continually blame consumerism and tactics of credit card companies rather than addressing the cause: a fundamental void in our education system.

When students graduate high school, they are thrust into adulthood, whether they join the work force or pursue higher education. They assume immense financial responsibilities almost immediately. How can the government expect 19-year-olds to complete tax forms if they’ve never learned about them in school? Young adults who lack basic knowledge of economics and personal finance are vulnerable to fraud, debt, commercialism and worse.

In the 2012 New York Times article “Back to Classroom for Skills not Taught in High School,” Matthew R. Warren discusses a personal finance course in the Bronx where students learn vital information not taught in their high schools. Warren quotes 22-year-old student Regina Rice, “I can’t manage my money … Yesterday, I bought two pairs of headphones, and I don’t even know why.”

Ideally, parents with lifelong experience would teach their children about personal finance. But, 61 percent of parents only discuss money when prompted by their children. The average American parent lacks the knowledge necessary to teach this information, as many of them live in severe debt themselves, including the 32 percent of U.S. households that carry credit card debt.

The solution? A required course — Personal Finance and the Modern Economy — taught to second-semester high school seniors. It’s vital that students learn basic information about taxes, insurance, mortgages, credit, loans, personal banking, consumerism and the stock market before they are forced to learn it the hard way.

Financial literacy should not be a privilege reserved for children of the Wall Street elite. It is a skill that must be taught, just as vital in today’s economy as reading, writing and arithmetic. So why do we keep treating it like an elective?

Works Cited

“Average Credit Card Debt in America: 2017 Facts & Figures.” ValuePenguin, ValuePenguin, 21 March 2018.

Desjardins, Jeff. “Chart: Are Today’s Students Prepared to Make Financial Decisions?” Visual Capitalist, 29 Sept. 2017.

“T. Rowe Price: Parents Are Likely To Pass Down Good And Bad Financial Habits To Their Kids.” T.Rowe Price, 23 March 2017.

Warren, Mathew R. “Financial Literacy Class Offers Skills Not Taught in School.” The New York Times, 27 Jan. 2012.

For the first time in sixty years, the two Koreas stood undivided. The Pyeongchang Olympics will be marked in history as a symbolic breakthrough for supposedly all Koreans bursting in patriotism. We even glorified it to the extent of shifting South Korea’s policies toward imminent reunification. But did one unified women’s hockey team and flag really alleviate the tensions in the Korean Peninsula? The sporting event may just be a red herring for what is truly happening behind the scenes.

Even with the romanticization of the Olympics, we should not let our guard down about Kim Jong-un’s ulterior motives. “The North may use the Games as a political propaganda opportunity to show that while they may be a nuclear power, they also want to have peace with their neighbors,” said Shin Beom-chul, an expert at Korea National Diplomatic Academy. It is patently obvious that the Winter Games in Pyeongchang were used merely as a “public image makeover” to gain political leverage while the status quo remains greatly unchanged. North Korea is not interested in diplomatically giving up its nuclear program or reunifying unless the conditions are favorable to Kim Jong-un and his regime.

Not only that, the Olympics did not revive the deteriorating relationship between the two countries and the increasingly obsolete concept of reunification. Being a Korean youth myself, I share the majority opinion that there is “more for [our] country to lose than to gain if the two Koreas become united.” Having grown up in an era demonizing North Korea under the conservative Saenuri Dang party, intimidated by the everyday prospect of nuclear war, and challenged by soaring unemployment rates in our country, we are skeptical of a unified Korea, let alone our capacity to accommodate its prodigious cost of $3 trillion.

Though talks of reconciliation have increased as seen in the changing language of the 2007 and 2000 inter-Korean summits, South Korea’s official policy treated it as the first step toward the final political scheme of reunification. But rather than treating reconciliation as a means to an end, what would treating it as the end do for lasting peace?

By eradicating the remnants of our symbolic dream of reunification, we can officially recognize North Korea as an autonomous country and diminish the necessity of its nuclear proliferation used as a deterrent for foreign invasion. Our adamant refusal to legitimize North Korea’s regime exacerbated its political insecurity to the brink of nuclear warfare.

South Korea should stop being fooled by the symbolic role the Olympics played and redirect its focus solely to reconciliation with a sovereign North Korea instead of clinging onto the abandoned dream of reunification.

Works Cited

Kim, Max. “The Korean Unification Flag Isn’t as Unifying as It Seems” The Atlantic, 9 Feb. 2018.

Lee, Cheoleon. “Gallup World Poll: Implications of Reunification of Two Koreas.” Gallup, 12 Oct. 2006.

Qin, Amy.“Protecting an Olympics Held in North Korea’s Nuclear Shadow.” The New York Times, 1 Feb. 2018.

Phillips, Tom. “Costly and Complicated – Why Many Koreans Can’t Face Reunification.” 9 Oct. 2015.

Revesz, Rachael. “North Korea Crisis: Re-unification Alone ‘Would Cost $3 trillion’ After War, Professor Says.” The Independent, 30 April 2017.

Sang-Hun, Choe. “North Korea to Send Olympic Athletes to South Korea, in Breakthrough” The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2018.

Real life acts of violence have long been masqueraded before the public eye, in modes ranging from crime pamphlets to investigative documentaries, but the true crime genre has only recently risen in prestige. Delving deeper into real tragedies and revealing them to the public has its benefits, such as re-evaluating botched or unjust criminal trials and allowing viewers to think critically. Unfortunately, these advantages are outweighed by the genre’s tendency to exploit suffering, lean toward a preconceived narrative, prioritize ratings over morality and manipulate public opinion.

Aside from the initial use of actual crimes as entertainment, victims and their families have no real way to opt out of media coverage, as public footage can be used without their consent. For the sake of the perfect murder story, tragedy is ruthlessly dissected in the limelight without considering those actually affected. Although the coverage of crimes often converts them to tales for public consumption, the prolonged suffering of these victims is gut-wrenchingly real, yet often forgotten by engrossed viewers.

Additionally, the true crime genre is inescapably prone to subjectivity. “If you start out with a presumption of [an individual’s] guilt, you read the documents one way, and another way if you presume his innocence,” according to Janet Malcolm, an acclaimed author. Producers often have their own theories prior to investigation, and thus consciously or unconsciously shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right. To support these preconceived notions, creators can even manipulate evidence by omitting, under analyzing or changing inconvenient yet crucial facts.

Furthermore, producers often sideline ethics in order to sensationalize the coverage of heinous crimes. To captivate viewers, the true crime genre sacrifices reality for dramatic flourishes. For example, the creators of “The Jinx” withheld their prime suspect’s confession from the authorities until the bombshell finale aired, thus suspending justice for theatrics. Apparently, the producers’ slavish commitment to ratings exceeded their moral obligation to condemn the man they are convinced is a serial killer.

Finally, despite its subjective and under-regulated nature, true crime media has a disproportionate influence over public opinion. Investigative documentaries, especially those that heavily imply a person’s guilt or innocence, can easily convince viewers of their conclusions. This inadequately informed consensus can have disastrous consequences, such as waves of hate mail directed at unfortunate individuals linked to a crime investigation.

The true crime genre has the potential to open minds and act as a public judicial review, but in order for it to successfully do so, it must abandon the sensationalisation of tragedy for entertainment’s sake. Otherwise, its inherent flaws overshadow any possible benefits. Additionally, viewers must remain conscious of what they consume and never accept subjective interpretations as indisputable fact.

Works Cited

Davey, Monica. “‘Making a Murderer’ Town’s Answer to Netflix Series: You Don’t Know.” The New York Times. 28 Jan. 2016. Accessed 18 March 2018.

Leszkiewicz, Anna. “From Serial to Making a Murderer: Can True Crime as Entertainment Ever Be Ethical?” New Statesman. 15 Jan. 2016. Accessed 18 March 2018.

Mahler, Jonathan. “Irresistible TV, but Durst Film Tests Ethics, Too.” The New York Times. 16 Mar. 2015. Accessed 18 March 2018.

Schulz, Kathryn. “Dead Certainty.” The New Yorker. 25 Jan. 2016. Accessed 18 March 2018.

Some tap pencils relentlessly against desks. Some remain completely unaware of their rapidly bouncing knees or shaking feet. Some stare into space, lost in whatever daydream that is playing out on the board in front of them, unable to see the math problems on it. Some turn to their phones for a source of interaction — a teacher’s worst nightmare.

Students are restless. And what do schools require them to do? Sit.

The recent implementation of block scheduling in about 30 percent of American high schools is intended to allow students more time to process information and be productive in class. However, productivity is difficult to measure when, throughout 90 minutes of sitting still, students become restless and disengage, hindering their opportunities to learn and wasting their teachers’ time. There could be a simple solution to this problem with multiple benefits: increased movement in the classroom.

Exercise enhances concentration, especially when repeated throughout the day. For many students, walking from one class to another is the only opportunity to move during the school day, and with a block schedule that varies from day to day, physical education class is not the answer.

A high school teacher found after following students for two days that sitting all day left her feeling lethargic and “desperate to move or stretch.” She also experienced difficulty paying attention due to prolonged inactivity, claiming she struggled to keep her “mind and body from slipping into oblivion after so many hours of sitting passively.” Similar results were found by the Institute of Medicine; children who are regularly active “show greater attention, have faster cognitive processing speed and perform better on standardized academic tests than children who are less active.”

The detriments of sitting for long hours of time extend beyond concentration problems; a lack of frequent activity can cause lifelong issues. A study by Stanford University found that long periods of inactivity, specifically sitting, can contribute toward the development of type-2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

School requires students to sit for nearly seven hours every day. This disturbs students’ education and puts their health at risk. Simply incorporating movement into classroom activities, stretching during class and offering alternatives to sitting still will improve students’ grades and health.

School’s purpose is to educate students, but the current structure of our schools is an obstacle to students’ education. When will school be designed for the students?

Works Cited

Cruz, Donna De La. “Why Kids Shouldn’t Sit Still in Class.” The New York Times, 21 March 2017.

James, Julia. “High School Students Sit for Too Long, New Health Research Suggests.” Peninsula Press, 10 April 2011.

Strauss, Valerie. “Teacher Spends Two Days as a Student and Is Shocked at What She Learns.” The Washington Post, 24 Oct. 2014.

The Thanksgiving table is a war zone. The soldiers? The conservative aunt who drove all the way from Alabama. The ultra-progressive sibling who makes passive-aggressive comments while passing the potatoes. And, of course the grandparents, who stubbornly reference the good ol’ days when political incorrectness roamed free. Throughout America, families hunker down for the holidays with reluctance and trepidation. Civil conversation concerning the issues facing our country is becoming rarer by the day. But if we can’t talk about the issues, how can we fix them? The Thanksgiving table is a microcosm of the real world discussions in local and state governments, in Washington, in the White House itself. Americans must learn how to talk to each other about politics, from the dinner table to the Oval Office.

I’ve had my fair share of political discourse with friends and family. These conversations escalate quickly and infuriate easily, but haven’t destroyed my relationships. I listen, disagree and discuss. However, when faced with opposing viewpoints, many Americans polarize further. Instead of talking to those with whom they disagree, Americans find like-minded individuals who cater to their political tastes. In fact, according to The New York Times, “Liberals and Conservatives prefer to associate and live near their fellow partisans,” and “would be unhappy if their children married someone with a different political viewpoint.” This is troubling. We develop empathy when we talk with people from different backgrounds who challenge our beliefs.

Our lack of conversation has turned us into our rigid, stubborn grandparents unwilling to consider alternative views. According to Pew Research, 38 percent of Democrats have consistently liberal views, a dramatic increase from 1994 when only 8 percent remained consistently liberal. America’s lack of political plasticity is growing rapidly, creating a chasm between the things we support and the things we don’t. We see this divide every year at the Thanksgiving table. If we can’t set aside what we think we know and talk to our stubborn grandparents, we become our stubborn grandparents. We remain entrenched and the gravy gets cold.

Talking to people we disagree with is hard. But it should be easier to disagree with the people we love. Talking to family is a starting point to bridge that political chasm. Ask your aunt why she feels that way. Ask your grandparents what shapes their beliefs. Ask your siblings to suggest solutions. If we can empathize with our family at the Thanksgiving table, we can empathize with our neighbors, friends and political representatives. Don’t let your dinner table become a war zone. Talk to your fellow Americans. Ask them questions. Invite them to dinner. And most importantly, show up and speak your mind. You might start a new tradition.

Works Cited

Cohn, Nate. “Polarization Is Dividing American Society, Not Just Politics.” The New York Times, 12 June 2014.

“Political Polarization in the American Public.” Pew Research, 12 June 2014.

When I was five, I needed someone to hold my hand as I entered school. When I was twelve, I needed someone to point to the entrance, but I could walk in alone. Now, at sixteen, I don’t need anyone — I’m a different person: independent and mature. Yet, I am treated as if I’m still a child.

After the horrific Florida shooting, students walked out of their classes in honor of the 17 lives lost. As noted in “How Young is Too Young for Protest? A National Gun Violence Protest Tests Schools,” even Utah’s Wood Cross Elementary School staged a protest in the school gym to allow the students to experience “a little civil disobedience.”

Like Wood Cross, the administration at my school staged our protest. The day before the walkout, a minute-by-minute schedule and list of guidelines — including the only two doors we could exit from — were uploaded onto Facebook. The next day, our obedient student body shuffled into the fenced area between our school buildings only to witness teachers’ comments about how “cute” we were and their apologies for being 60 seconds behind schedule. By 10:05, the end of the designated “shouting time,” my friends and I lowered our posters in defeat.

Although I am thankful that my school supports the walkout, nobody needed to be hand-held through this protest. Protesting is fighting and risking consequences, risking falling. Protesting is true civil disobedience. Yet Henry David Thoreau is rolling in his grave thinking about our “protest.” In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau does not “lend [himself] to the wrong which [he condemns].” Instead, he fights against it, because he has the right “to do at any time what [he thinks is] right.” We have the same right. Why prevent us from using it?

Maybe the elementary schoolers play along, but I cannot. We already have mock organizations: mock trial, model U.N., and now this walkout. The school coddles us. Highlighted in a New York Times article, the students who excelled after high school were the ones who fell and got up afterward. But if schools are going to cushion each one of our falls, how will we grow up?

I understand schools’ concern: safety first. Parents may be uncomfortable with their children protesting. But the goal of civil disobedience is to make others uncomfortable. Discomfort brings change. Change from our parents’ generation to ours.

We need adults to accept the discomfort of us taking the reins of the gun violence movement and us growing up. Otherwise, if fearful adults keep holding us back, how can we grow up to become fearless leaders?

Works Cited

Saul, Stephanie, and Anemona Hartocollis. “How Young Is Too Young for Protest? A National Gun-Violence Walkout Tests Schools.” The New York Times, 13 March 2018.

Thoreau, Henry David, 1817-1862. Civil Disobedience: Complete Texts With Introduction, Historical Contexts, Critical Essays. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Print.

Tough, Paul. “What If the Secret to Success Is Failure?” The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2011.

In 2015, eleven teachers were convicted of racketeering and other crimes in the infamous Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal, in which “inordinate pressure” from top administrators to meet standardized test score targets or face severe consequences led the teachers to cheat on state standardized tests. Sadly, such cases of coordinated, large-scale cheating are surprisingly pervasive, underscoring the undue importance attached to standardized test results. These test results are used in an admirable effort at accountability, but the process of accountability via standardized testing is now deeply flawed. Testing has evolved into an industry, a game for test companies and policymakers; everyone benefits — except the students and educators, who are just cogs in the machine.

For instance, as part of the process, teachers are forced to spend more and more time “teaching to the test,” wasting valuable instruction time. This wouldn’t be such an issue if the tests are high-quality or instructive, but they aren’t, for a variety of reasons. First, they’re unfair. Research has shown that the tests nontrivially discriminate against different races and socioeconomic backgrounds. Consequently, since standardized tests compare schools and districts of all different backgrounds, affluent schools are rewarded and struggling schools are punished.

Second, they’re inaccurate. Standardized tests often involve multiple errors or ridiculous content; for instance, the test company Pearson has occasionally misprinted tests, misplaced or misgraded answer sheets, and faced major technical issues. In 2012, an absurd story involving an anthropomorphic pineapple in a contrived remake of “The Tortoise and the Hare” graced the desks of middle schoolers across several states, with senseless questions that stumped even teachers. Clearly, these tests are managed not by educational experts, but by profit-seeking companies.

But most importantly, they test for the wrong things. With their pervasive focus on multiple choice and shallow thinking, standardized tests ignore creativity, grit and depth of understanding, thus turning students into robots. The real world requires deep, innovative thinkers, but tests encourage students to automatize themselves.

Another oft-cited reason for testing is that their objective results allow instructors to better address their students’ needs. However, these teachers have been trained professionally, usually have known the students in a much more personal, holistic and genuine context for several months, and often don’t even get the results back before the end of the year, and so this argument doesn’t hold much water.

Accountability-based testing can still be salvaged. Placing more control in the hands of educators would allow them to rework tests to be more pedagogically meaningful, and results should only be interpreted with the whole context in mind. Otherwise schools will just turn into factories for producing high test scores.

Works Cited

Chapman, Ben, and Rachel Monahan. “Talking Pineapple Question on State Exam Stumps ... Everyone!” New York Daily News, 20 April 2012.

“How Useful Are Standardized Tests?” The New York Times, 17 Feb. 2015.

“Racial Bias Built into Tests.” FairTest.

Strauss, Valerie. “How and Why Convicted Atlanta Teachers Cheated on Standardized Tests.” The Washington Post, 1 April 2015.

Strauss, Valerie. “Pearson’s History of Testing Problems - a List.” The Washington Post, 21 April 2016.

Adults seem to think the internet is nothing more than a breeding ground for unproductivity and detachment from the “real world,” that social media offers only a platform for cyberbullies and child predators. They mock us for our so-called “addiction,” calling us a self-involved, attention-starved generation. But if you ask any intelligent young person — two adjectives that are not mutually exclusive — they’ll tell you all about what the information superhighway really means to us.

Today’s youth have come of age in an atmosphere where encroaching problems of climate change, global terrorism, economic crises and mass shootings — to name a few — have opened our eyes to the reality we’re living in, the weight of fixing it all resting on our shoulders. But we’ve also grown up in a world where we can type into Google anything we want to learn more about; we can engage with millions of people from all walks of life, come to understand perspectives at every angle. Knowledge is powerful, and we have all that we could want available at our fingertips.

The reality is I follow news pages on my Instagram. I can’t go a day on Twitter without seeing profound statements concerning the political climate. I have discussions with people over gun control and women’s rights based on what I’ve posted on my Snapchat story. Like it or not, social media has given us a way not only to speak out, but to educate ourselves and expand our minds in a way that is unprecedented.

We’ve become the most tolerant and conscious generation to date, with 76 percent of Gen Zers concerned about humanity’s influence on the Earth and 60 percent hoping the job they choose impacts the world. Race, religion, sexuality, gender identity and anything differing from what has so long been deemed normal are all topics we don’t write off, with a revolutionary 37 percent and 21 percent not identifying as 100 percent straight or 100 percent one gender, respectively. We get to experience the world from everyone’s point of view; we’re not limited by the danger of the single story, aren’t held back by our own ignorance.

So, I urge adults to back off, to encourage young people to use the internet to their advantage. Because while it’s easy to understand the mental and emotional drawbacks that can be associated with the cyberworld, this connection to a diverse plethora of information has given us the opportunity to reach our own conclusions about the world, to make our beliefs known, to mobilize in efforts and take a stand — from protests and marches planned by students, to educating others on registering to vote — and it has created a socially and politically aware, opinionated and unafraid youth, who are wholly prepared to change the world.

Works Cited

Abramovich, Giselle. “15 Mind-Blowing Stats About Generation Z.” CMO.com by Adobe: Digital Marketing Insights, Expertise and Inspiration – for and by Marketing Leaders, 12 June 2015.

Barr, Caelainn. “Who Are Generation Z? The Latest Data on Today's Teens.” The Guardian, 10 Dec. 2016.

Kemper, Nychele. “The March For Our Lives Was Influenced by Literature and Social Media.” The Odyssey Online, 3 Apr. 2018.

Potarazu, Sreedhar. “Is Social Media Ruining Our Kids?” CNN, 22 Oct. 2015.

Williams, Alex. “Move Over, Millennials, Here Comes Generation Z.” The New York Times, 18 Sept. 2015.

总共有10，509篇论文，42名评委，五轮评审 - 总共讲述了大约4，700，000个学生写的单词。

这些是今年春天的比赛统计数据，自2014年开始以来，比赛每年都在增长。下面，我们将向 70 名青少年致敬——11 名获奖者、27 名亚军和 32 名荣誉奖——他们的文章一轮又一轮地闪耀着最耀眼的光芒。我们还喊出了另外50名几乎进入获胜者圈子的人，这在竞争如此激烈的比赛中可不是一件小事。您可以从 6 月 3 日开始在本专栏中阅读获奖者和亚军的作品，届时我们将在每个上学日发布三篇新作品。

这项挑战最好的一点是，它突出了青少年对影响他们生活的最现实问题的看法，从大学招生丑闻到气候变化，从社交媒体到性教育，从枪支到平均绩点，从投票到电子烟。

但我们也喜欢它向我们介绍新鲜想法的方式，包括今年需要吃更多的虫子，结束游戏中的有毒垃圾谈话，警惕“自我保健”趋势，并给予菠萝披萨至少一个学生认为应得的尊重。

在他们出版时，我们希望像我们一样，你会发现这些作品能吸引你的注意力，并坚持到最后。我们希望您会欣赏他们如何在短短 450 字内提出坚实而令人信服的论点，并且不是作为利弊的枯燥总结，而是用真实的声音。但大多数情况下，我们希望像我们每年所做的那样，你会学到新的东西。

无论您是学生、老师、家长还是仅仅是读者，请通过写信给我们 LNFeedback@nytimes.com 告诉我们您的想法。再次感谢你们的参与，使这次比赛年复一年地取得成功。

学生社论比赛获奖者

按作者姓氏的字母顺序排列。

Confronting Toxicity in Gaming: Going Beyond “Mute”

The recent spate of white nationalist violence has raised concerns about the role online platforms play in the radicalization of attackers. Analysts have noted the disturbing tendency of YouTube algorithms to lead users to extreme content. Others have bemoaned social media’s role in the viral propagation of racially charged fake news. While internet companies are finally starting to respond (Facebook recently announced a ban on white nationalist content), there remains one lesser-mentioned vehicle for racial desensitization: online gaming.

I don’t mean the violent content of online games. Violent content is a boogeyman over-hyped by pundits. I’m referring to the racist, anti-Semitic way gamers are indoctrinated to speak to each other in the depersonalized realm of online competition. The ritual, similar to fraternity hazing, happens something like this:

A new gamer, let’s call him “Joe,” joins a game of Minecraft, a pixelated world-building game with 100 million active players. Joe tells his teammates he’s new to the game. When he drags his team down, his teammates begin to trash-talk him, firing racist, sexist and homophobic insults his way. After this bout of shaming, Joe builds his skill level. Months later, Joe queues up for a game, and sees a novice assigned to his team. After finally losing because of his teammate’s poor skills, he insults the player using the same script he had been abused by months earlier. Joe is now a part of the toxic cycle.

Prominent gaming companies like Blizzard and Riot have started creating systems to combat the hate speech rampant in gaming communities. Certain platforms temporarily mute players after instances of racist profanity. But in most cases, these measures are perfunctory, amounting to a slap on the wrist. Players evade censors easily by omitting letters or adding numerals to ethnic slurs written in game chats.

Gaming companies need to step up their efforts by punishing abusive players with meaningful competitive penalties. E-sports can look to an obvious model: real-world sports. Violence on the hockey rink takes a player off the ice for critical game time. Tennis players can be docked points, games or even matches for verbal abuse. In the world of e-sports, a similar dynamic might include lower maximum health, longer skill cool-down periods, or other handicaps. Unless penalties come down in a manner meaningful to players, hate speech will continue to flourish.

Players should self-monitor and realize that the racially-charged insults they hurl have real-world consequences. But, knowing the culture as it exists now, perhaps that ship has sailed. Such a deeply rooted problem calls for an strong, top-down approach. It’s time the gaming industry understood that it has a responsibility to stem the spread of hate on its platforms.

Works Cited

Moore, Bo. “Major Game Companies Are Teaming Up to Combat Toxicity in Gaming.” PC Gamer, 22 March 2018.

Schiesel, Seth. “The Real Problem With Video Games.” The New York Times, 13 March 2018.

Weill, Kelly. “How YouTube Built a Radicalization Machine for the Far-Right.” The Daily Beast, 17 Dec. 2018.