Is Neopets guilty of fascism?

When I was 14, Neopets was the coolest thing in the world to me. I played the games, I collected Usukis, I saved up neopoints and even got myself a Lost Desert Shoyru (to use Neopets jargon). Neopets has changed a lot since I was 14, and not for the better. Controversies, from the presence of gambling games on the site to CEO Doug Dohring's Scientologist beliefs, rage about the game. In particular Neo has received flack for its tactic of "immersive advertising" which blends advertisements with gameplay and especially targets the young children who are the majority of Neopets players. Ralph Nader's Commercial Alert even has a few words to say about the practice.

The big stink about Neopets now is fascism. Yes, the term has actually been applied to Neopets by online critics of the site, though not always so eloquently. There is a small anti-Neopets movement, not well-organized by any means but there nonetheless. These critics call into question Neo's chat boards restrictions and freezing policy, arguably quite draconian. When communicating with other users on the site, players are very restricted in what they can talk about and certain words are banned (usually those of a sexual or racist nature). When 80% of players are under 18, it is important to keep boards free of certain content and provide a safe environment that parents can rely on.

In recent years however, the rules have become more and more strict. Users complain that they have had their accounts permanently frozen for minor or accidental infractions, and sometimes for no reason at all. Apparently criticism of the site itself or its policies can also be grounds for banning, effectively stifling dissent. I was surprised to find that some users intentionally post critical statements they know will get them frozen to get dissenting ideas to their fellow players. When they're frozen, they just create a new account and do it again. The Anti-Neopian forums contained many plans to cause a ruckus within the game and show resistance to the neo-dictators.

Another unsavory aspect of Neopets is the addictive factor. Neo brags about the site's stickiness and the addictiveness. I recall that I spent more time than I probably should have earning "neopoints", the game's currency, to buy virtual items. I was not the only one. Many players are extremely invested in the game, spending hours a day earning neopoints, trading rare items, and socializing with other players.

Neopets shares many characteristics with other notoriously addictive games such as World of Warcraft. For example, both contain rewards for spending more time in the game and the opportunity to build friendships with other players. Despite this, virtual pet games such as Neopets have not been examined as critically as games like WoW. In fact many users play multiple pet games. When Neo is offline, they surf over to Subeta or Marapets, just examples of the many games inspired by Neopets. The game goes on.

Considering that a majority of Neopets players are so young, in fact 39% are under the age of 13, it's no wonder they haven't made a concerted effort to make the game less oppressive. Many get sucked in, invest hours in the game, get frozen, and sign up again only to waste more of their precious time playing a game that doesn't benefit them with a staff that doesn't even seem to care about them. Those smart enough to realize what the game does to its players just leave. The anti-Neopians try to make their unenlightened counterparts quit, but it's hard when those with administrative power are so dead-set against it.

So where do we draw the line? What responsibilities does the now Viacom-owned site have to its child players? And what are the rights of said players in a virtual world owned by a corporation?