Available reporting from 2021–2025 shows that China’s 2021 crackdown on minors’ online gaming time (limiting under‑18s to one hour from 8–9 p.m. on Fridays, weekends, and holidays) was implemented and remains in force, with periodic reinforcement and additional draft rules, but it did not trigger notable large-scale protests or social unrest.

• The National Press and Publication Administration’s August 30, 2021 notice formally imposed the “three hours per week” limit for minors starting September 1, 2021, framed as an effort to curb youth gaming addiction and tighten control over the tech sector.(china.org.cn)
• Subsequent coverage and official summaries describe criticism, online complaints, and practical problems (e.g., game server overload during the allowed hour, minors seeking workarounds, and some being scammed while trying to evade the anti‑addiction system). These are documented as controversies and inconveniences, not as organized street demonstrations or broader unrest.(zh.wikipedia.org)
• Official and industry reports in 2022–2024 present the policy as largely successful in reducing minor gaming time, with authorities and state media emphasizing that minors’ game addiction has been “basically solved” and that coverage of minors by anti‑addiction systems exceeds 90%. Again, no mention is made of significant protests connected to these rules.(globaltimes.cn)
• Over the same period, when large‑scale protests did occur in China, they centered on other issues—zero‑COVID policies (the “white paper” protests), the Ürümqi fire, labor disputes at Foxconn, bank deposit freezes in Henan, and healthcare reform affecting pensioners—not on video‑game regulations.(en.wikipedia.org)

Given more than four years since the policy took effect and the absence of any widely reported, regime‑salient protests or unrest attributable to the minors’ gaming limits, the specific outcome Jason was worried about—those limits contributing to significant social unrest or protest in China in the ensuing years—did not materialize. While his statement was explicitly probabilistic (5–10% chance), if we evaluate it on the binary question “did the forecasted type of event occur?”, the answer is no, so the prediction is best scored as wrong for this single realized outcome.