Should Parents End 'Screen Time' For Children? (indianexpress.com) 178
The New York Times reports that in Silicon Valley, "a wariness that has been slowly brewing is turning into a regionwide consensus: The benefits of screens as a learning tool are overblown, and the risks for addiction and stunting development seem high." One Facebook engineer doesn't allow his own kids to have any screen time, according to this article shared by schwit1, and even Chris Anderson, the former editor of Wired, believes screen time is addictive for children.
"On the scale between candy and crack cocaine, it's closer to crack cocaine," Mr. Anderson said of screens. Technologists building these products and writers observing the tech revolution were naive, he said. "We thought we could control it. And this is beyond our power to control. This is going straight to the pleasure centers of the developing brain... I didn't know what we were doing to their brains until I started to observe the symptoms and the consequences... We glimpsed into the chasm of addiction, and there were some lost years, which we feel bad about...."
Tim Cook, the C.E.O. of Apple, said earlier this year that he would not let his nephew join social networks. Bill Gates banned cellphones until his children were teenagers, and Melinda Gates wrote that she wished they had waited even longer. Steve Jobs would not let his young children near iPads. But in the last year, a fleet of high-profile Silicon Valley defectors have been sounding alarms in increasingly dire terms about what these gadgets do to the human brain. Suddenly rank-and-file Silicon Valley workers are obsessed. No-tech homes are cropping up across the region. Nannies are being asked to sign no-phone contracts....
John Lilly, a Silicon Valley-based venture capitalist with Greylock Partners and the former C.E.O. of Mozilla, said he tries to help his 13-year-old son understand that he is being manipulated by those who built the technology. "I try to tell him somebody wrote code to make you feel this way-- I'm trying to help him understand how things are made, the values that are going into things and what people are doing to create that feeling," Mr. Lilly said. "And he's like, 'I just want to spend my 20 bucks to get my Fortnite skins.'"
What do Slashdot's reader think? Should parents end 'screen time' for children?
Tim Cook, the C.E.O. of Apple, said earlier this year that he would not let his nephew join social networks. Bill Gates banned cellphones until his children were teenagers, and Melinda Gates wrote that she wished they had waited even longer. Steve Jobs would not let his young children near iPads. But in the last year, a fleet of high-profile Silicon Valley defectors have been sounding alarms in increasingly dire terms about what these gadgets do to the human brain. Suddenly rank-and-file Silicon Valley workers are obsessed. No-tech homes are cropping up across the region. Nannies are being asked to sign no-phone contracts....
John Lilly, a Silicon Valley-based venture capitalist with Greylock Partners and the former C.E.O. of Mozilla, said he tries to help his 13-year-old son understand that he is being manipulated by those who built the technology. "I try to tell him somebody wrote code to make you feel this way-- I'm trying to help him understand how things are made, the values that are going into things and what people are doing to create that feeling," Mr. Lilly said. "And he's like, 'I just want to spend my 20 bucks to get my Fortnite skins.'"
What do Slashdot's reader think? Should parents end 'screen time' for children?
Yes but (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything in moderation.
Especially moderation.
Re:Yes but (Score:4, Insightful)
Parents should do what's best for their kids.
There is rarely "one cool thing" which is best for all individual parents to do for all of their individual kids, so questions phrased that way are either useless or an invitation for people to forcibly interfere where they ought not to.
Re:Yes but (Score:4, Insightful)
There is rarely "one cool thing" which is best for all individual parents to do for all of their individual kids
What about feeding, clothing, protecting, setting boundaries and educating?
Keeping track of what the kids are doing, online or IRL is something all parents should do. At the end of the day, the internet is a poor substitute for actual parenting.
Re:Yes but (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping track of what the kids are doing, online or IRL is something all parents should do.
Plenty of kids can make their own decisions without parents hovering over them. Not all kids need their parents to micromanage their social lives.
At the end of the day, the internet is a poor substitute for actual parenting.
The answer is not being a neurotic control freak and making all their decisions for them. Tim Cook sounds like a nightmare of an uncle. He is control freaking and they aren't even his kids.
TFA has ZERO evidence that depriving kids of computers leads to better outcomes. I have worked in after school enrichment programs, and that is the exact opposite of what I have seen. The kids with computer skills read more, have broader knowledge of current events, and are WAY ahead on tech skills. They are even better at social skills and teamwork because they are friends on Facebook and all know each other. The kids without computers at home are at a big disadvantage.
As soon as fire was discovered, parents started complaining that kids were wasting time sitting around the campfire and socializing instead of building character by shivering in the dark. The world has been going to hell ever since.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let's see. They're not allowed to go outside after school, so no uncontrolled socializing there. In school they're constantly watched and mostly not allowed to socialize.
That leaves online or nothing for relating with their peers on their own terms. Are we sure it's the KIDS that don't show any moderation? They might not let screen time dominate their days if there were other options open to them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you simply look around you in public you'll see smartphone usage is now epidemic and next to the benefits there are plain addiction issues. It's weird to see all those people looking at their screens and ignoring the world around them. Including in their cars. With epidemic addiction like that you have to consider intervention/assistance of some form.I'm certainly in favor of parents limiting the screen time of their children.
There is an important distinction (Score:4, Interesting)
Between monitoring and controlling.
One does not imply the other. In either direction.
A rev limiter on a car does not control where you go and, if you're a good driver, places no meaningful limit on how long it takes to get there.
Real teaching doesn't tell people what to think, real teaching is about guiding people into thinking. It doesn't matter how they think or what they think, as long as they can show their working and the logic is sound.
Parenting isn't that different. Optimize, maximize real freedom and real will, minimize stupid harm and pessimization.
Mod parent comment to +10. (Score:2)
I agree with this, also: "The answer is not being a neurotic control freak and making all their decisions for them."
I see many parents who have little ability to relate to a child. Their children try to avoid their parents as much as possible, using all the methods available to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The kids without computers at home are at a big disadvantage.
Is that because they don't have computers or because they have parents that work two jobs trying to make ends meet and can't really get involved in their education? I love computers. I've been playing on a computer since I was 3. However, this computer mania in schools is ridiculous. Kids should not be doing everything on Chromebooks or iPads. They need to learn to read and write with a pencil and paper. Not because a pen and paper is better, but there is a correlation between writing by hand and memor
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping track of what the kids are doing, online or IRL is something all parents should do.
Plenty of kids can make their own decisions without parents hovering over them. Not all kids need their parents to micromanage their social lives.
Since when does "keeping track" the same as "micromanage"? At work I "keep track" of what my team is working on, checking in with them once or twice a week, even longer if the person has a good track record. If I were "micromanaging" I'd be check at least once an hour.
The kids with computer skills read more, have broader knowledge of current events, and are WAY ahead on tech skills. They are even better at social skills and teamwork because they are friends on Facebook and all know each other. The kids without computers at home are at a big disadvantage.
I agree, if reading the news and talking to friends on Facebook is what they're doing. But would you be fine with your 8-year old buying drugs and weapons on the Silk Road? Or chatting with a friendly Nigerian prince who really needs dad's ban
Re: (Score:2)
Optimism (n.)
– an inability to disentangle luck from good management, spread over every lens, to improve the soft focus
Furthermore, your micromanage is someone else's macromanage.
Setting up a clear boundary between my children (were I to have any) and addictive substances is definitely my idea of macromanagement.
There's plen
Re: Yes but (Score:1)
Some people have no clue what it means to be a steward, a guide, and a leader who teaches their kids how to behave and make the most of their opportunities.
And the guy above is one. He is the creator of monsters. He's better suited to having animal pets than human ones....And he's exactly why there should be a test for parenthood. It wouldn't surprise me if he was an anti-vaxxer as well....ffs
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of kids can make their own decisions without parents hovering over them. Not all kids need their parents to micromanage their social lives.
Indeed, but there are also kids that are not yet mature enough manage addictive stuff. In that cases, parent have a duty to take care of the problem for them.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your prior on nature vs. nurture? On environment/circumstance vs. genetics?
Re: Yes but (Score:2)
The usual rule is 55% nature, 45% nurture, +/- 10%, where most of that 10% is decided by the last trimester through to age 24.
In other words, 10% is three standard deviations from the mean.
Re: (Score:2)
One is applied to the other, it is not nature versus nurture, it is the impact that nurture has on nature. So a child born without a autonomic empathic response, lacking a critical social learning tool (the ability to feel the emotions you recognise as a social interaction reinforcement genetic thought structure), will be a clinical narcissist, will treat others badly and manipulate them, this harm can be reduced if they are provided special education methods to take into account their social disability. F
Re: (Score:1)
feeding: I have a friend, feed some peanuts to him and see what happens (really cool experiment)
clothing: I have a son, try putting normal clothes on him and see how that goes
protecting: Protecting from what? Protect someone too little and the person will die, protect someone else with the same amount and that person won't learn to protect him/her self
setting boundaries: I had no boundaries and I turned out pretty well, do the same for someone else and the person will likely end up in jail
education: I could
Re: (Score:2)
Modern life is partly to blame here. Babies and toddlers need constant attention, and it's very difficult for people to provide that when both parents have to work and get stuff done. Screens are an easy and cheap way to distract children for a few minutes while you put the shopping away or whatever, so the addiction starts early.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet is a poor substitute for parenting like the TV: It's a bit worse only becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Parents should do what's best for their kids.
Not always as easy as it seems. We stopped our kids from bringing their phones to school which worked out well, until we found out there was a teacher who was having the students do research on their phones in class... the same teacher who was complaining that none of the kids could put their phone down.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is you figured that out and made adjustments based on your kids unique circumstances and needs.
What are the odds that a one-size-fits-all rule decided politically or via cultural shaming is going to happen to fit everyone's kids unique needs? Pretty slim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to have a lack of reading comprehension in this thread, not understanding the words you're replying to, which makes it amusing that you'd call someone else daft. For example, I never made any statements to the effect that all nor even any kids need cell phones at school.
Apparently you're looking for a fight with someone, rather than a discussion. If not, try and read better next time, perhaps, rather than just randomly insulting people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No (Score:2, Informative)
No.
Yes (Score:2, Informative)
Yes.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Funny)
You both make persuasive arguments.
Re: (Score:1)
SchrÃdinger (Score:2)
Both are true until observed. I
Re: (Score:1)
That may be a bit much but I have considered that things like the nand game could be extremely beneficial to young children. Working with the basic logic itself in a simulator seems like a great way to build fundamental and sound abstract and universal logic and solution patterns in a developing brain.
Desktop computer... (Score:2)
Some parents limit screen time too tightly (Score:2)
In my online experience, I've read about parents who enforce screen time limits that are so tight that a student would struggle even to complete homework for an AP Computer Science class or any other homework that the teacher requires to be typed. This leaves inadequate time for a child interested in learning to program to do so.
Re: Some parents limit screen time too tightly (Score:1)
The kid learning to hack on a PC are gone. Computers no longer provide opportunities to tinker, they are designed to be polished little balls of crack cocaine. Why would a kid spend 2 hours tinkering when a massive hit of Fortnite dopamine is 3 seconds away?
Re: Some parents limit screen time too tightly (Score:4, Interesting)
The kid learning to hack on a PC are gone. Computers no longer provide opportunities to tinker
Absolute nonsense. The opportunities today are vastly better than when I was a kid. There are tons of programming tools to download, and more than can run in a browser. A kid can buy a Raspberry Pi Zero, with a full Linux stack, including dev tools, for $5.
Re: Some parents limit screen time too tightly (Score:2, Interesting)
While I'll completely agree with the availability of tools has generally increased; as has the access to information to tinker and create more. It just doesn't translate to more tinkering or even exploring.
I tried the very route you speak of with a Kano raspberry pi kit, my kids have hardly touched it. We use the little orange keyboard on the living room pc the most. The main go-to is YouTube in a browser, and Minecraft. My son, who is 9 at the end of this year, only coded one house with my help so he could
Re: (Score:1)
There are tons of programming tools to download, and more than can run in a browser. A kid can buy a Raspberry Pi Zero, with a full Linux stack, including dev tools, for $5.
All those are less accessible than the C64 basic that you were simply thrown into at power on.
Neither of them are "default" options that are just there for you to use.
You have to actively decide that you want to learn how to program and make a choice about the method before you know the first thing about it before you start.
It is a lot harder than when you get a tool put in your hands and you just need to learn how to use it.
Above that, we are only talking about the possibilities to learn programming, but w
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the issue is the systems themselves. The modern GUI is the antithesis of the C64 where you could type 2 lines of code and be rewarded with a minimal but existent reward. Meanwhile, the "IDE" was instant on and very simple.
These days, you need what seems like a thousand lines of boiler plate just to get a blank window to display. A typical IDE is more complex than some cockpits. Even when you produce something, it feels like the tool did it, not the user.
Re: (Score:2)
A kid can buy a Raspberry Pi Zero, with a full Linux stack, including dev tools, for $5.
And send the $5 to the online store how? And use said $5 Raspberry Pi Zero through what display, when the parent allows three hours of screen time per week?
Re: (Score:3)
And send the $5 to the online store how?
My kids have three options:
1. Paypal
2. Debit card
3. WePay
My daughter has had a debit card since she was 8 (3rd grade). Giving a kid a bank account and a debit card is a great way to teach them responsibility and money management. When she was 10, I helped her connect her account to Paypal so she could make online purchases. She has a WePay account in RMB on her cellphone, so her grandparents can give her hong bao [wikipedia.org].
And use said $5 Raspberry Pi Zero through what display, when the parent allows three hours of screen time per week?
I don't limit my kids screen time. I believe in "positive" parenting ("You have to do A, B,
Re: (Score:2)
" This leaves inadequate time for a child interested in learning to program to do so." Oh, so they'd have time to learn science then.
Re: (Score:2)
I, on the other hand, spent hours in front of a compute
Tim Cook's Nephew (Score:1)
Why does Tim Cook have any say what his nephew does?
Re: (Score:1)
From personal experience, Rich Aunts and Uncles have a great influence on how a kid is brought up. Poor ones, not so much. This is particularly true of those like Cook, who has no children, and is unlikely to have any.
FWIW, it was an Aunt who got me into Electronics; before there was the World Trade Center, there was Radio Row. When I was eight, she once gave me a large cardboard box stuffed with whatever could be gotten, for a quarter or less, from the piles of gear out on the Radio Row sidewalks.
Yes, ACME
Screen time isn't the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was a child in school, the schools were in the process of upgrading from aging Apple II systems to newer Macintosh systems. We had decked out Apple II labs in the elementary school and the middle school, alongside the newer Mac lab in the middle school. The Apple II systems booted off the floppy disks that contained the programs we were using them for. When in use these systems were effectively dedicated to a singular task. There was a wide array of edutainment software (RIP MECC) that turned learning into simple games that were *fun*. Education was not solely provided through these instruments, but they were an additional tool to provide more framework for learning. There was no world wide web connection on the Apple II. We weren't introduced to that nonsense until middle school, after we had experienced focused task usage on the earlier machines.
I believe this progression to be incredibly important and totally lost on the people who design modern educational tools using technology.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid the most compelling thing about computers to me was that it was unmoderated with no overarching purpose.
There were no *limits* placed upon me, no tedious curriculum and nobody who didn't-seem-to-quite-know-what-they-were-talking-about giving me emotional feedback on what I was doing. "yeah, but that's not the assignment/ you'll learn that stuff when you're older/ wow you understand that? you're so smart!"
Computers simply did not work if you used them incorrectly. There was no emotion in
Re: (Score:1)
I tend to agree with this. My daughter is 18 months old so there are limited opportunities for screen time at the moment. But there are definitely some ways, as education tools for types of brain development I intend to utilize screens for. These include things like intelligent flash cards, go (if I can find a way to automate the game setup sooner rather than later), concentration games, visual (aka speed) reading, kindle use, and so forth. None of that will include anything with notifications and especiall
Re: Screen time isn't the problem. (Score:2)
My nieces and nephews and second grade reading and writing in kindergarten. Why?
Moderated screen time. Not just showing videos, but typing learning letters and games. Both on a screen and with cards, puzzles and physical games.
Kids can learn a lot, but since the 70's and cable TV babby sitters we have had to limit e posure.
Yes you can
Lay that today but tomorrow no you can't
The Makers Rule (Score:5, Funny)
Children should not be allowed to use computers of any sort until they are able to build their own.
Re: (Score:3)
By "build their own" do you mean out of individual logic gates, like Kevin Horton's NANDputer [hackaday.com]? Or did you mean build a desktop computer out of motherboard, case, PSU, CPU, RAM, HDD, GPU, and whatever else is needed? Or somewhere in between?
Re: (Score:2)
Children should not be allowed to use computers until they are able to design and fab a microprocessor.
Re:The Makers Rule (Score:5, Funny)
Children should not be allowed to use computers until they are able to design and fab a microprocessor.
This is why VHDL should be taught in preschool.
Re: (Score:2)
By "build their own" do you mean out of individual logic gates, like Kevin Horton's NANDputer [hackaday.com]?
Hell, no.
There is a firm rule in my household: The children must build their computers using only NOR gates.
Re: (Score:2)
No fucking way (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you ban your children from going into the forrest to collect berries and mushrooms during agricultural age or working in factories during industrial revolution? Well then, banning them from online opportunities does not serve them any better during information age. Sure there are downsides, but Internet has benefited humanity just like all innovations throughout history. Keeping out children from benefitting as well doesn't do any good.
Re: (Score:1)
Would you ban your children from going into the forrest to collect berries and mushrooms during agricultural age
When a big bad wolf is about, of course you would.
or working in factories during industrial revolution?
Child labor laws have since done a good job of that.
Re: (Score:1)
Would you ban your children from going into the forrest to collect berries and mushrooms...
That depends on whether there are amanita phalloides mushrooms growing in the forest.
There is a lot of content on the Internet that is as poisonous to the mind as amanita phalloides is to the liver.
Re: (Score:2)
FML "working in factories during industrial revolution"
Are you saying that was a good thing!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, but _I_ don't have a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I hear, here, is that the kids should have their screen time limited, but the parents have that shit under control.
Once I went on a trip with a boy-scout crew where we spent a week on an island with no services. When we got back, the kids spent the rest of that day playing pick-up games of soccer, some weird simon-says thing, etc. The parents/chaperones all set in ordered ranks with their heads in their phones.
I'm not saying that kids should be allowed free reign, but this is not a problem with our youth, this is a problem with our society. If you want your kids to spend less time on their screens, put your own damn screens away and spend time with your kids.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the Slashdot equivalent of the first line of a Letter to Penthouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Once I went on a trip with a boy-scout crew where we spent a week on an island with no services.
Yes, yes, we’re all familiar with Lord of the Flies.
Re: (Score:2)
I once saw a boy-scout troop on campus during the summer. I presumed it was some educational camp. I was struck by how fat and out of shape 10-12 year old boys could be. I imagine that their parents were no different given the boy-scout leaders I saw.
So I agree, parents need to turn off the boob tubes (of whatever form) and spend time with their kids. Yet, if they do not adopt healthier life styles, they are dooming those kids to a lifetime of health misery.
Screens are not evil (Score:2)
A computer or device screen is no more evil than a window in your home or car.
However, things can be seen via those windows that may be detrimental to a child. In the Age of Television, we could choose between cowboys and indians killing each other or Mr. Rogers. Sesame Street seemed a good choice for many parents.
We could make similar choices today. Unfortunately, given an internet connection and no supervision, we can assume many children will make challenging choices. Social media is extremely compelling
End screen time for adults (Score:2)
Looking around me, it seems it's not just the kids glued to their screens. Perhaps it's a good example for parents to set to also stop using it like crack cocaine.
Only with real parenting (Score:3)
This issue is less about kids than it is about their parents.
Forbidding something for most children simply creates a black market that they will find a way to fulfill, so no, ending or forbidding screen time alone would be some weird form of parental fascism.
That said, the role of being a parent is to do what is necessary and beneficial, which isn't always popular. Not being popular is fine, but parenting must be done in a way to earn and maintain respect, and harsh rules and fear ain't it.
What I discovered was that video games increased aggression in my son, especially after the age of 12. Your son may kill zombies in harmony with the universe while floating in the lotus position, so your mileage may vary. The more aggressive, the poorer his performance in everything, especially school. Screen time always seemed to turn into some form of video game or time-suck social media black hole resulting in an alarming level of anger and frustration. So I gave my son a hypothesis, that humans and domesticated red foxes [wikipedia.org] would behave in a similar fashion - increased adrenaline levels from any source, including video games would decrease social interaction and increase aggression, and reducing external adrenaline-causing sources like video games would have the opposite effect - more social behavior, increased curiosity, and easier learning.
If he agreed to abandon video games and significantly reduce social media, I would agree to work with him to keep him engaged in extra-curricular activities. The long story short - after about a year of this, with me spending far more of my time than I had originally anticipated in helping him with projects and pursuing his other interests, he told me that he thought my hypothesis was sound, and that reducing video games and social media had made him a calmer, happier person. At first he was angry and upset and he though I was full of shit, and he told me so. After a year, he thanked me. He's now living on his own, pays his own rent, and has a very active social life.
His younger brother saw all this shit going down from a much younger age and simply elected to avoid video games and social media all on his own, which saved me a lot of ass-pain, except I spent just as much time working to keep son 2 engaged in extracurricular activities.
If you can man-up and be a good parent then yes, less screen time will likely be very beneficial. If you simply cut off screen time and don't give them an alternative, expect something awful to grow in the shadows that might be far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
And that son's name? Baralbert Obamastein!
Re: (Score:2)
So I gave my son a hypothesis, that humans and domesticated red foxes [wikipedia.org] would behave in a similar fashion - increased adrenaline levels from any source
The domestication of the red foxes had nothing to do with "adrenaline levels", it was done through selectively breeding the least aggressive foxes of each generation. Unless you chose your wife for her low levels of aggression the red fox experiment has no bearing on your son's aggression. I don't think your hypothesis is necessarily wrong in humans (spend less time doing aggressive things and you'll become a less aggressive person seems logical) but it doesn't have anything to do with foxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you completely. My post was too brief and unclear. I used the examples of the red foxes becoming more social when their selective breading inadvertently reduced the size of their adrenal glands, resulting in less adrenaline, because my son loves animals. At the time we had a fox den under a porch in our back yard and got to watch foxes and their kits develop and mature for several seasons. As they matured, they stopped playing and became more solitary.
The intent isn't to selectively breed a
No, just direct them (Score:1)
We never had screen time (Score:1)
We have never limited the screen time for our kids, except when it is time to go to bed or as a punishment. We also play the games with them and sometimes watch youtube with them.
I have also let them play with fire.
When there are no limits, I have observed:
- If they are bored, they will spend the whole day on computer
- If there are any kids outside playing, they will leave the computer and go outside to play with them
- Both have learned English (not their mother tongue), the younger one about 200 words bef
No (Score:2)
"Old man yells at clouds"
I have two kids, 6 and 3. They've had their own tablets since they were on year old. We put no limit on the amount of time they spend on them.
The future is not the same as your own youth.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you're right.
However, my wife, a child psychologist, doesn't agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's different from TV commercials in what way now?
Stupid way to solve the problem (Score:3)
There are several underlying problems, and preventing kids from using technological devices probably won't solve them. We can't on one hand say 'we need more STEM' (which typically means nothing of the sort, but rather that we need more programmers) and on the other hand keep our kids off technological devices.
If games or other content is geared to cause addiction, just ban that and jail content creators. I mean that semi-seriously. Just like governments are banning loot boxes now there's need to look more deeply into how content is affecting people, and try to stop it at a global level, not leave it up to individuals.
It's also rather hard when a lot of people are expected to work 50 hour weeks + commute, when both parents are expected to work, deal with all the bureaucracies of life on top of that (including stuff like their kids' school and extracurricular activities), spend time with their kids on top of that and then also try to stay sane. Some people can do it, but it's rather hard.
What I'd say is:
- If research proves something is definitely bad for kids, laws should prohibit it.
- Reduce work hours to allow parents to actually raise their kids.
- Educate parents on raising kids and the various stuff in their life. Offer free counseling.
- Direct parents to content that's good for kids. Help create such content. There's good stuff out there, it's just hard to find.
- I'm sure I had some more ideas.
The short of it is, if things are bad, think seriously about making them better and considering what you're working towards.
On the flip side, I'm convinced that our society is moving towards a society of content creators and consumers. This isn't bad. Many jobs will eventually be taken by robots and AI. Which is where considering what we're working towards comes in. Trying to simply move back in time to when technology didn't shape our free time won't work.
Are the authors and viewers the same person (Score:2)
On the flip side, I'm convinced that our society is moving towards a society of content creators and consumers. This isn't bad.
Two questions:
1. Why use those words, which FSF considers loaded [gnu.org], instead of "authors" and "viewers"?
2. In the scenario that you imagine "isn't bad", are the authors and viewers the same person? Or are there measurable advantages of an entry barrier for viewers to join a small set of people allowed to be authors?
I welcome this (Score:2)
I encourage all other parents to do this, as it will give my own children an immeasurable advantage once they join the workforce.
But totally accepted in the real world (Score:2)
And he's like, 'I just want to spend my 20 bucks to get my Fortnite skins.'
In the real world we call this "fashion", where people - particularly girls/women but not only - spend lots of money on clothes, shoes, makeup, hair, accessories etc. that serve no functional purpose. If a boy wants to spend $20 on Fortnite skins it's useless, worthless virtual trinkets. Go figure. I'm a gamer and I'm perfectly aware that gaming is a "waste" of time and money but so are most hobbies and interests and if they have a useful aspect that's not what decides whether it's fun or not. I'm against t
No (Score:2)
No screen time for children is basically the same as "no pencil and paper time" 100 years ago.
Or "no reading time" back then.
Eliminating computers from a child's education is essentially the same as requiring a child to learn to read and write with a stone tablet and a chisel....
By all means teach your kids enough critical thought to understand that just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true (just as you were (presumably) taught that just because it's printed in a book doesn't make it true).
No, they shouldn't (Score:2)
As someone born in 1967... (Score:2)
...this smells to me a lot like the hypocritical fucks of the 1960s.
"We had free drugs, free sex, and demanded the world be nothing but peace love and happiness...but then once we started to grow up we realized 'oh shit there might be consequences to those shitty life choices' so we'll forbid them to our kids..."
Re: (Score:2)
In the eternal words of the grand master George Carlin: And they switched cocaine for Rogaine.
This isn't a new question (Score:2)
The same thing was asked about TV in the 80's, and computers in the 90's. Ultimately it comes down to if it is impeding on higher priority things in life like school then yes it needs to be restrained. If they are doing well then there is nothing wrong with it.
I am that kid. Happy I was left alone. (Score:1)
Born 1987. Grew up with a single mom who had Atari when I was born. Later got the first Nintendo.
I played it every day for hours. Took it to houses where I was babysat. Great Grandpa would buy me cheat magazines when filling up his water jugs at the supermarket. I called the 900 line for cheats and got told not to.
Got into computers in 1995 and was hooked. Learned basic, qbasic, visual basic, python, and later java in high school. Started slackware linux around 1999. Played with ssh, webservers, mosix clust
Re: (Score:2)
Similar career here. Got a computer when I was 10 (that was before you were born) and spent the next couple years finding out how to make these things do what I want them to. Not exactly being rich meant that certain limitations had to be worked around, especially when wanting to be playing games on that computer, which led to me becoming quite good at figuring out how to get games to play even if the maker wasn't too fond of the way I wanted to play them.
Fast forward and modems and BBSs made it into my lif
Kids Need To Play Outside, Too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But they could skin their knees! And in this time and age, an abuse accusation isn't far away if some teacher happens to find a bruise on your kid, if you don't keep your kids under the cheese cover 'til they're 18 you're asking for trouble!
This decade has its Rock and Roll (Score:3)
Remember the good old days? When your parents were afraid that this rock and roll music would fuck up your brain and make you a useless idiot? Maybe you're older and TV is the culprit. Or younger and game consoles and D&D would turn you into a drooling moron? Or even younger and your mom would routinely raid your room to find some "killer games"?
Every single generation had its demon that destroys our kids, turn them into raging maniacs or listless vegetables or some other reason why they would turn out to be a lost generation. There was even a time when Tom Sawyer was threatening to destroy our youth. But the youth that grew up with that stuff grew up and guess what, the world didn't end. And those now grown ups knew that this isn't a threat to development because, well, they grew up with it. But they also saw that their spawn wasn't the way they wanted, so some new demon had to be found. One that wasn't around when they grew up, something new that's strange to them but beloved by their kids, and since they don't understand just what their kids would like about it, it has to be evil. Addictive. Because it sure has to be addiction if they can't figure out the appeal while their kids can't get enough of it.
So the torch of being the scorch of civilization was passed on to radio, later TV, then rock and roll, D&D, computer games and now we're at tablets and phone games. Did you notice something lately? Namely that the "killer computer games" narrative kinda died out? That's because the kids that grew up with those "killer computer games" grew up now and are the new parents, while the number of parents that never played games but have "unruly" teenagers at home gets smaller and smaller. Be prepared to not hear anything about the dangers of computer games anymore in a decade. Maybe by then we also can get rid of those ridiculous censorship of games in a couple countries.
But don't worry. By then we will have a new demon we can stick our fault with raising our kids to. Because seeking the cause for your kids' being assholes and idiots with yourself is complete unfathomable.
No (Score:2)
No, stop using fake science to tell me what to do (Score:3)
"Screen time" has done nothing but good in terms of my children's early development, in terms of every academic assessment (and I don't give a shit about the fluffy stuff). Don't browbeat me with anecdotal complaints, anecdotes in this case are all that matter to me. Sample size=2, it is fine and I have only two samples to worry about.
Social networks? Absolutely I forbid them for at least a hundred reasons, but I won't be able to forever and I am not sure I should try.
The type of screen (Score:3)
Thats bad for learning. Give them a screen that is rooted or is just a PC. Tell them to go nuts, break shit and then learn how to fix it. The problem is not the screen, its the walled garden of being always told they're winning with terrible input controls and no opportunity to fail.
inattention or fear? (Score:2)
Each generation has its complaints about the prior one. You see it in the posts here, with current parents comparing what we do today with the self centered hypocrisy of the boomers, and the occasional boomer complaining about the short sighted intolerance of the greatest generation.
Our kids are going to hate how we raise them.
Will they feel we allowed tech to raise them, that we were too focused on our world, our own issues and technology? (This is similar to our complaint about the boomers.) Or will the c
My Choices (Score:2)
Yes.. among other things. (Score:2)
However I think it goes deeper than that. Some people seem to have children without actually thinking far enough and deep enough to fully grasp the awesome responsibility it represents; you're creating an entire new human being, and what that new human is exposed to as they grow will sha
(Let Them) Grow Up Already (Score:1)
So these things are really pacifiers... for all ages.
How about growing up and letting them grow up too? No? Too busy looking at a screen yourself, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Start them on 1970s to 1980s tech... (Score:2)
Start modern kids on a TRS80 or a PET3032 and weaning them won't be a problem.
Start them on an Altair or UK101 and police will be investigating a mysterious homicide in which the parent was killed by force-feeding of microchips.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're religious they're already used to "do as I say not as I do", so it should be ok.