Slashdot Mirror
Tim Cook: 'I Don't Want My Nephew on a Social Network' (theguardian.com)
Tim Cook, speaking at Harlow college in Essex, shared his views on the limits on technology and social media he feels should be imposed on kids. He said: "I don't believe in overuse [of technology]. I'm not a person that says we've achieved success if you're using it all the time," he said. "I don't subscribe to that at all." Even in computer-aided courses, such as graphic design, technology should not dominate, he said. "There are are still concepts that you want to talk about and understand. In a course on literature, do I think you should use technology a lot? Probably not." The 57-year old chief executive, who took the reins at Apple after the death of Steve Jobs in 2011, said the company cared deeply about children outside the classroom. "I don't have a kid, but I have a nephew that I put some boundaries on. There are some things that I won't allow; I don't want them on a social network."
This sounds very unhealthy, why is he putting boundaries on a kid that is not even his?
He has no say in the matter.
I deleted facebook on my phone a week ago and dont think I'll ever reinstall it. those times of idle where i would scroll thru mindlessly are now spent observing the world around me and thinking about things that actually matter in my life.
I still log on via web on my laptop every 3 days or so as there are some professional groups on there that keep me in touch with some good people but outside of that I have little to no use for it - and I signed up in 2005 as a college student.
Tim is pretty wise in his advice to his nephew.
I admit I don't have kids because I'm single but I didn't grow up around the Internet until my University years and even then I would say that it's full of wonderful things and horrible things. I don't think giving your kids full access to everything is wise and possibility slightly irresponsible. Life shouldn't revolve around social media at least in the beginning.
I don't have a kid, but I have a nephew that I put some boundaries on. There are some things that I won't allow; I don't want them on a social network.
I bet he meant the major existing social networks, but there are at least some that should be fine. Besides, if most everyone can use a social network well, wouldn't that mean that there's space for some manner of 'social network' that operates within those boundaries?
Maybe you're just holding it wrong.
I can't believe I miss Steve Jobs. He did not pretend to give a crap.
to another city Social Networks helped a lot. It let her keep in touch with the friends from the old city and make ones in the new city. This was especially important because she was one of the poor kids in her school. The job I got that made us move paid better than my old one (which was probably on it's way to being offshored anyway), but it wasn't quite enough to live well anywhere near where I worked. It didn't help that there wasn't a lot of time to drive the kid around town to hang out (and I'm in America, so public transit is a no go, most of her friends weren't reachable by it).
Yeah, my entire situation was dysfunctional. I shoulda had more money and more time. But, well, here we are. Now, for a guy like Tim Cook with his kind of money none of this is every a thing he'd need to spare a thought to.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So this shows how much he is out of the loop. For a CEO of a major technology company to say that is actually disturbing.
Social Networks are tools. It's not that they exist that is the issue; it's how they are used, just like any tool. Kids/teenagers are social creatures, even more so (it seems to me) than a lot of adults, and kids can fall out of the loop, lose friends and suffer social consequences if they are simply *banned* from using social networks. That's like telling a kid in the 70s/80s that they can never use the telephone to call their friends because bad things happen over the phone.
If your uncle is Tim Cook, he has say. You just read it, and replied to it.
And if you want to make a point of ignoring what he says, I'm sure he'll be glad to cut you out of his will.
The technology isn't the problem; it's the people using it. Having widespread anonymity and an audience encourages people to loathsome behavior but you will find that IRL too if you meet enough people.
It's a jungle out there. Parents, stop trying to PROTECT your kids from the world, and instead PREPARE them to deal with it.
Umm, riiiiight. (Backs away slowly)
"I don't believe in overuse [of technology]..."
...says the guy whose entire fortune and claim to fame are built upon the overuse of technology by very large numbers of people. Now that's what I'd call an iHypocrite.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
..thoughts are thoughts. I don't want to see bad things come to people, either, but I don't know what's good or bad for them; I know only from my perspective.
Here's why I'm bothering to post a comment...
My girlfriend has severe social anxiety (so do I, so pot-kettle). Anyhow, I gave up Facebook years ago because I noticed how people that were former high school friends (good friends) would come back into town from a far-away place they now live. In the case of the one I'm thinking about, they fly all over the world rather randomly because of their career, so visits back "home" aren't frequent. When they would come back into town to visit parents/holiday/etc, they would post about how much they would love to hang with me and catch up on stuff (and can't wait to do it!) I would wonder, then, why that person would be leaving town because vacation time was over, and they didn't bother to make an effort to see me for even 5 minutes. I would look on Facebook and see this long stream of posts about their drinking and hanging with hot girls (pictures included of the drunken embraces and "fun").
Repeat this, like, around 10 times (vacations where they were back in town and expressed great interest in hanging with me, same outcome). I got the picture (no pun intended at all). I noticed that others were maybe interested in seeing me or talking with me, but it was mostly posts about their horrible days at work, stupid prices on things, random thoughts about their relationship that swayed from great to horrible to great to horrible to, cross-links to "funny" things or "statements that warrant a movement"... yeah. I got to seeing before long that I was basically looking at peoples' personal self-imagery they wished to express to the world. Others were calling for sympathy, etc. None of them wanted to leave the screen or phone they were posting from, though, unless it was getting them something to immediately satisfy their wants.
After a while, I deleted the Facebook account and don't miss it in the slightest.
Back to girlfriend. She is socially anxious and doesn't like being in crowds of people. Also doesn't like trying to join in on conversations where she hasn't quite heard 80% of it, so there's not much to say to get involved. She doesn't get welcomed in for conversations because she's not a drama enthusiast (playing into others' drama). However, she is a socially-minded person and wants to be part of groups or admired. She also expresses admiration toward others on Facebook to feel indirectly reverse-rewarded. Here's the kicker; we don't really do much. She spends most of her time off of work on Facebook, scrolling through posts and laughing at the simplest humor that a 5th grader laughs at, and having eyes glaze over as she's looking at others having "fun". This "fun", of course isn't anything but public-facing imagery, but she's living vicariously through these people and mentally becoming part of their lives and activities because she gets to see their forward-facing info and pictures. A friend posting a 100,000th-removed forward/cross post of something that's scary or "bad for you" becomes a huge deal like it's the one person them self warning her of these things and she needs to research them and try to alter her lifestyle to shape around the thing that's ultimately nothing but someone's boredom post of randomly collected information compiled into some big warning or statement about how bad things are *gasp for air*.
I look at myself not giving a damn about other peoples' Facebook lives, but really caring about them when I see them face-to-face or have nice conversations on the phone with them. The conversations we have don't even touch on the crap that's posted on their Facebook account. It's almost like two different people, or like I'm talking to the debugging code or the work going into the code; Facebook gets to see the constantly-changing alpha releases, respectively.
I love life without Facebook. What I don't like is seeing people so caught up in it
I don't have a kid
Not qualified to speak about what's good for them or not. I would debate having just one isn't enough to qualify someone.
Bottom line, tough shit. Too many people with 'good intentions' fucking shit up for the people raising children.
B.b..b...b.... but think of the childr- *SLAP*
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
He "believes there should be limits to the use of technology in schools".
Why because Chromebook ate apples lunch in the schools?
and dump down and learn noting early on.
So that's OK with us.
What you want for your nephew is your personal business and i have no problem with that at all. But when people wish to expand their beliefs in such a way the effects others that goes way too far. For example there are all kinds of people who would like to apply extensive control over porn as well as many other things. Condos are perhaps the worst at trying to force controls onto people. Trailer parks might be next in line.
Does Tim Cook's nephew care what his uncle says about social media?
Ken
I think it is morally wrong to put such restrictions in place on your kids. Kids should be taught, not have violence used against them (any act of punishment where force will ultimately be used should the person refuse to obey is violence or coercion of which both are immoral) for trivial reasons that no adult would ever be punished for simply because you disagree with something as a parent. Kids need to learn and grow and they will make mistakes. They will ignore your warnings. They will take risks. This is actually a good thing. Respect is earned and sometimes the best way to teach is simply by example. Don't tell them not to do X. Advise them not to do X and lead by example. Ultimately you can't control them forever and ultimately they will find means of getting around your ban anyway unless you plan to keep them locked in a cage in your basement until they are 18. Pretty sure if your caught doing that you'll get charged as I've regularly read about parents doing this kind of thing over the years. It doesn't end well for the parents to say the least. And any ban is just more incitement for a kid to hide what they are doing (which in some respects may also be a valuable skill) and do what you don't want them do behind your back!
I've always made it clear to my kids what *my* values are and while I may not support an action the only thing they *SHOULD* hide from me are actions or details that I can't condone due to legal consequences (ie if my kids are going to throw a party and have friends over and drink underage I don't want to know about it- but rather I'd want them to be safe and alert me to any thing that they need to ensure things remain safe- ie I'd rather they tell me that they are going to have some friends over and to please be back home at 11pm- the key thing here is I don't know my kids are drinking but I know if I come back at 11pm and find out that there are drunk kids that I can arrange to take people home rather than see people drink and drive...). In other words just because I don't support X (lets says underage drinking) doesn't mean I'll punish them for it even if I don't agree. Kids should not live in fear. The only time I would discipline is where an action was demonstrated that involved a victim and violence/theft of another. There are consequences for actions, but I would never punish them merely because I don't agree/like something/etc. Morals are something one develops and I would never thrust my morals down anothers throat including my kids even if I know it'll be self-destructive to them in some way (ie lets take smoking as an example).
And no I don't have/didn't have little monsters...
Well, the income tax on the other hand is the price we pay for having a central bank (Federal Reserve) that's not state owned, prints money out of nothing and loans it to the government against interest to be paid. That's where the income tax goes, which was created at the same time that the Federal Reserve Act was passed.
We would be better off with a government owned bank that would create its own money, lending it out to others at interest being earned by the government, not the banks.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
He can't use his own kids as an example because he has none so he's usually a relative as an example. You're just ranting the usual SJW nonsense that you can't comment on something outside of your own identity. You're not a woman! You wouldn't understand! You're not black you wouldn't understand!
He's just saying this because of Apple is not longer dominate to creative people. Linux (industrial proprietary software) and even Windows and Microsoft's hardware is growing impressive. Even wacom is still going strong. Apple pencil is targeted to consumers; Apple is a consumer company. They're not innovating so of course he's taking the hipster marketing route. Steve Jobs chose a good successor that can make you believe what is coming out of his mouth isn't marketing.
stop punching yourself in the balls to pretend at co-workers that you and your Illuminati Tranny wife are still in mad love.
I see people reading some agenda into what Cook is saying. But Cook is 100% honest and I totally agree with hin. Tech experts always have put technology into perspective, and rightfully so. Especially in education. ... Look at how difficult a job we have at getting it to the Ords that voting machines are a bad idea.
Steve Jobs did the same, as do Clifford Stoll and many others.
My daughter knows her way around the Linux Netbook she got in her teens and we use Google Docs for me to help her write her english applications to universities. I have however also taught her to be paranoid about her online presence and gave her a set of ready-made spoof accounts along with it. Which she uses. She also creates her own when the need arises.
That her dad is *the* computer expert in her closer and wider vincinity has the consequence that she is not half as addicted to social media and whatscrap than her friends are. She left high school in the summer and now travelling in south america for half a year or so. We occasionaly do chat on hangouts every odd day, but at times wifi coverage is a tad flaky in the rainforrest ... especially on your way to this place, apparently. She blogs to keep all her friends and family updated at once, but other than that has way better things to do than online-binge. She uses computers very efficiently, as a tool. But not obscessively. She is way more data safety/backup aware than her mom or any of her friends. And for computers/tablets/whatnot she looks at specs more like I would rather than an Ord (weight, ruggedness, battery time, data exchange & rescue possibilites, etc).
Bottom line: Tech like anything else is like medicine: Good fundamental knowlege and lean doseage is everything. Forget that and you raise dweeps adicted to the screen, not enabled grown-ups.
My two cents and two thumbs up on Cook on this one.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca