Should Parents End 'Screen Time' For Children? (indianexpress.com)

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?

Comments

Yes but

[spaceman375]

Everything in moderation.
Especially moderation.

Re:Yes but

[_Sharp'r_]

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

[djinn6]

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

[ShanghaiBill]

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:Yes but

[sjames]

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:Yes but

[_Sharp'r_]

What's your prior on nature vs. nurture? On environment/circumstance vs. genetics?

Re:Yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

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 have pretty easily done first 9 years of Math on my own, a lot faster that the average class speed was. Try that with someone else and they end up learning nothing.

I personally always knew that people are different, mostly because I was different.

Re:Yes but

[AmiMoJo]

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:Yes but

[tinkerton]

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.

Re: Yes but

[jd]

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:Yes but

[fluffernutter]

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:Yes but

[jittles]

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 memory retention. By all means have them write book reports on the computer. But math and science ought to be done by hand. There's no need for a computer most of the time. Newer is not always better.

Re:Yes but

[djinn6]

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 bank account? Or even just getting addicted to some video game and stop doing homework?

There's a million different ways to hurt yourself on the internet, and it's not possible to warn kids about all of them beforehand. Even if you tried, there's no guarantee that kids will understand and take it to heart. The only way to stop them from doing really dumb things is knowing what they're doing.

Re:Yes but

[epine]

Plenty of kids can make their own decisions without parents hovering over them. Not all kids need their parents to micromanage their social lives.{{citation needed}}

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 plenty of ways to screw up one's life, without handing the solution to your children on a platter. There's way more value if your children earn their fuck-ups, instead of falling into the common trough. My view is that children are way smarter than adults (a slam dunk on any measure of unstructured learning), but less complete, and not terribly good at assessing what lurks in the gaps.

Laszlo Bock at Google makes a big deal out of how the highest performers in life exist on a Pareto distribution. But so does fuckupitude, at the other end.

Thou shall not expose one's children—no matter how clever—to Pareto distributions, unsupervised.

Re: Yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Yes but

[manu0601]

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:Yes but

[rtb61]

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. For those who also lack a full range of human emotions in conjunction with that lack of autonomic empathic response, reaching them becomes problematic and minimising the harm they will cause, very difficult, keeping in mind their playing out, often results in the death of others.

Then you have capitalism, where nurture is for profit and those with poor natures will not get the nurturing they require and will act out extremely poorly, fill society with victims and once finally caught, fill prisons. Kind of interesting, nature versus nurture in capitalism when appropriate nurturing is extremely unlikely to occur because no profit in it and other people's children and other people's problems and they should suffer and starve should they choose to be born to bad parents. Nurture in capitalism, bwa ha ha, where one person's capital is worth more than all other people's lives.

Re:Yes but

[_Sharp'r_]

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:Yes but

[havana9]

THe same thing was in the '80 for the television. The fact the most interaction people and youngstes have with computer and internet is going in advertising delivery platform that give hour ov audiovisual content for free is because, especiaaly with locked-down appliance like smartphones and tablet is that the internet is now a big crappy tv substitute, but instead of three channels you have millions of channels to watch.
Internet is a poor substitute for parenting like the TV: It's a bit worse only because When I was a kid, adter Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry and Hukleberry thre was the weather info and the news....

Re:Yes but

[fluffernutter]

Holy shit you're daft. Kids went to school just fine without cellphones since school was invented. Has humanity really lost its way that far that they may have 'needs' that prevent them from using pay phone or going to the office to use the phone? They need them so badly that they can't even be banned in classes? Wow.

Re:Yes but

[bobmagicii]

the only reason i don't want kids to not have phones when they are 5 is because i did not have a phone when i was 5. >_>

Re:Yes but

[_Sharp'r_]

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:Yes but

[fluffernutter]

I told you that the school had made it impossible for me to make an adjustment, and then you counter that with 'the point is you figured that out and made adjustments'. It's confusing, and perhaps I took it the wrong way.

No

[io333]

No.

Re: No

[Troed]

I'm sure you're right.

However, my wife, a child psychologist, doesn't agree with you.

Re: No

[Opportunist]

And that's different from TV commercials in what way now?

Desktop computer...

[b0s0z0ku]

Used for schoolwork a certain number of hours a day. Dumb/flip phone, no need for appitty apps when you're 10 years old.

Re:Desktop computer...

[fermion]

It is a truly a matter of what a kid is doing. For instance, there is great evidence that the 24 hour social app cycle is damaging to kids and teens. They do not sleep, they are constantly stressed because they have to perform for their friends, or are constantly getting attacked by their friends, and do not have the coping skills to self soothe. Enforced curfew times, research indicates, are a must as the kids do have the ability to self regulate.

I, on the other hand, spent hours in front of a computer in high school and college writing papers, designing, and writing code. It was a mainframe world, so I was occupying the phone a lot. I don't know if limiting screen time would have been beneficial to me. I see teens on their iPads constantly drawing. I don't know it limiting screen time for them would be beneficial.

On the other hand, I see kids at restaurants playing video games on their phones, or in cars watching videos. While I certainly watched an inordinate amount of TV, and in fact thank all the TVs that raised me, I was also taught a great deal by my parents in the car and forced to learn to carry on an adult conversation at the dinner table. I was taken to free plays at the outdoor theater and forced to learn to sit as an adult would. It was beneficial, and if we are talking about the hour or two a day that parents are expected to teach their kids being substituted for screen time, then that is an issue.

Tim Cook's Nephew

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Tim Cook have any say what his nephew does?

Re:Tim Cook's Nephew

[Anonymous Coward]

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 was a real company, and I still have my WWII Surplus ACME 2000 Ohm headphones...
Later, she put me through University.

Yes

[XArtur0]

Yes.

Re:Yes

[93 Escort Wagon]

You both make persuasive arguments.

Re:Yes

[Shaitan]

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.

Re: Yes

[Do You Smell That]

100%

Some parents limit screen time too tightly

[tepples]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[ShanghaiBill]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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 instantly produce a built house on the fly. I tried to get him to do more but he shows no interest. Same with my daughter, who is two years older. The problem I see is lack of interest and motivation - this stuff becomes like homework/schoolwork; and the more I explain the more they tune me out. I was the kid who got excited when someone gave me a book about how to code on my Commodore 64. I've yet to witness that level of motivation in kids today.
I've witnessed the neighboring kids struggle to find the power button on a custom built pc in my kitchen, as well as holding down the power button during shutdown cuz it did not shut off immediately. Don't get me started on what I've witnessed millennials do at work. I scoff at the notion that we're raising the tech elite, quite the opposite really.
As long as the appity apps continue to be convenient, hardly anyone except those already astute in the ways of a tinker will bother to explore anything under the hood. And as long as the next kid gets their dopamine fix via fortnite or any other like-minded avenue and things 'just work,' I cannot fathom this younger generation venturing too far outside their comfort zone; yet alone creating the next Facebook or anything for that matter.
As far as the main topic in question, screen time should absolutely be limited, depending on the child, and their usage. So if kids are using it for productivity or school, they should absolutely be given leniency to get said work done. Personally, I've got parental controls that set a curfew so they are not awake all night buried in a screen. Make sure kids get adequate rest, very important.

Re: Some parents limit screen time too tightly

[Anonymous Coward]

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 where are the reasons?
Ingame scripting languages and Minecraft redstone circuits probably have a larger pull than any fancy IDE that you first have to find, then download and install.

Re:Some parents limit screen time too tightly

[gtall]

" 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: Some parents limit screen time too tightly

[tepples]

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: Some parents limit screen time too tightly

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

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, & C") not negative parenting ("You can't do A, B, & C"). Once my kids are done with their schoolwork, their chores, and work assignments, they can do what they want with the rest of their time.

They have built numerous projects using Raspberry Pi kits, and their tech knowledge is far beyond where I was at their age.

Re: Some parents limit screen time too tightly

[sjames]

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.

(Let Them) Grow Up Already

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Screen time isn't the problem.

[Kremmy]

The problem is not screen time, it's unmoderated screen time without an overarching purpose.
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:Screen time isn't the problem.

[The Evil Atheist]

No, the problem really is screen time. Because any screen time is unmoderated with no overarching purpose.

Re:Screen time isn't the problem.

[Dr. Evil]

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 their response, and they were infinitely patient teachers.

Modern computers are a different thing.

Re: Screen time isn't the problem.

[peragrin]

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

Re:Screen time isn't the problem.

[Shaitan]

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 especially not social media. My intention is cheap tablets with a heavily locked down view, even to the point of booting directly into a single application in the style of old arcade cabinets.

When she gets older my current plan to implement a household crypto-currency. She'll get an allowance of cash I pay into an account she already has but what I'll give her directly is a simple cryptocurrency or possibly even just some custom physical chips or tokens which she will earn through achievement in her home schooling program and completing chores around the house. Exchanging them for cash will be an option up to a limit but things like recreational screen time for games and television. Social media is simply out.

This means she'll be proficient with screen and computer interaction while limiting the addictive forms but every time she watches tv or plays a video game she'll be saving for college. She'll also be learning economic principles at the the same time so that when she begins to deal with real money as an adult it will already be second nature to her.

The Makers Rule

[monk]

Children should not be allowed to use computers of any sort until they are able to build their own.

Re:The Makers Rule

[tepples]

By "build their own" do you mean out of individual logic gates, like Kevin Horton's NANDputer? 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:The Makers Rule

[93 Escort Wagon]

Children should not be allowed to use computers until they are able to design and fab a microprocessor.

Re:The Makers Rule

[Waffle Iron]

By "build their own" do you mean out of individual logic gates, like Kevin Horton's NANDputer?

Hell, no.

There is a firm rule in my household: The children must build their computers using only NOR gates.

Re:The Makers Rule

[ShanghaiBill]

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:The Makers Rule

[The Evil Atheist]

Porque no los dos?

No fucking way

[iamacat]

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:No fucking way

[Anonymous Coward]

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:No fucking way

[MrL0G1C]

FML "working in factories during industrial revolution"

Are you saying that was a good thing!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, but _I_ don't have a problem.

[shess]

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:Yeah, but _I_ don't have a problem.

[PopeRatzo]

Once I went on a trip with a boy-scout crew where we spent a week on an island with no services.

This is the Slashdot equivalent of the first line of a Letter to Penthouse.

Re:Yeah, but _I_ don't have a problem.

[93 Escort Wagon]

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:Yeah, but _I_ don't have a problem.

[gtall]

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

[swell]

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 to them. Frivolous (and violent) games can be tempting. Educational materials not so appealing. It's possible that 8 of 10 hours that children spend online are not beneficial to them.

Time is also an issue. 8 hours of daily screen time combined with 0 hours of physical activity is seriously out of balance.

It's not the screen, it's what's on it, what they do with it.
It's the choices we and they make that can be harmful.

End screen time for adults

[Njovich]

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

[DanDD]

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 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:Only with real parenting

[Shadow of Eternity]

And that son's name? Baralbert Obamastein!

Re:Only with real parenting

[Enigma2175]

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:Only with real parenting

[DanDD]

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 any humans for an attribute, rather it was to couple behavior with it's measurable effect on hormone levels, thus behavior.

This 'hypothesis' is that if children selectively choose behaviors that increase adrenaline, over time they will develop behavioral traits that are coupled with induced hormone levels, and that these traits will likely last a lifetime.

Basically, animals, including humans, are a product of their environment, and not some type of etch-a-sketch that can simply wipe the slate clean and learn a new behavior at any point in time. Humans _can_ be a little more general purpose, but generally carry the baggage of our childhood in many complex ways.

No, just direct them

[wolfheart111]

Send them to online codecamps, try and inspire their inner geek. If you tried that on... Musk, Woz, or Jobs we wouldn't have the tech we have today. :)

We never had screen time

[Anonymous Coward]

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 before school.
- They have become pretty good at using keyboard and mouse, yet neither is interested in learning the 10 finger system to write fast, and neither is seriously interested in programming the way I was when I was at their age. This could be because computers nowadays already have so many games ready.
- Both are doing exceptionally good at school, e.g. both are in the top 2 of their class in Math. I think that is more related to my way of parenting and to their genes than it is to games. Just wanted to mention that we have not seen that this has any negative impact to their school. And despite them playing violent games where blood is visible and heads fly, there has been no violent episodes at the school.

No

[Troed]

"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.

Stupid way to solve the problem

[ET3D]

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.

I welcome this

[spikesahead]

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

[Kjella]

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 the theory that young people should not get to do stupid things with their money. When you're 13 and have an allowance that's exactly the time to go broke because it's not really a big deal. For example I remember back in my youth we had these lottery machines, you could put in ~$0.25 and win ~$2.50. It was a totally fine way to learn that gambling away your money isn't very smart.

Today you have to be 18+ to gamble, wasting a few quarters is as serious as drinking beer, smoking and driving a car. While we do have a lot of sensible young adults we also have some that seem to have been extremely shielded and now have the full freedom to take up loans and go really, really broke. Give them a loan. Make them pay it back. Give them chores to get extra money. If they want to work their way to $20 for Fortnite skins, let them. My theory is that a lot of things you should let them learn through experience, parents can lecture all they want but chances are pretty big that you run out of time without the kids maturing and they go "Free at last, now I can finally do what I want with my money" when they turn 18.

No

[CrimsonAvenger]

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).

But don't force them to learn to use 19th century tools just because they might be exposed to a falsehood on 21st Century tools. Because, ultimately, they'll be exposed to falsehoods with the 19th Century tools also (note, by the by, that the Wizard of Oz was NOT a travelog, it was fiction (AKA false))....

There is an important distinction

[jd]

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.

SchrÃdinger

[jd]

Both are true until observed. I

Re: Start them on 1970s to 1980s tech...

[jd]

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.

No, they shouldn't

[Sqreater]

We have people with a foot in the before and a foot in the after doing what such people do: lamenting the change from their own childhoods. But the fact is that a virtual world is and will continue to be developed. The "computerverse" will continue to advance and people will be drawn further and further into it. The past is dying/dead. In the 1980s, when I first projected such a change, I called it to myself the "Reality Rebellion." It was a scifi story I wanted to write (never did, I'm not a writer) in which people withdrew more and more from the physical world. People had computer chips inserted in their brains at birth along with a network of connections to the various parts of the brain. People could choose a way to alter the real world to live in various artificial worlds while moving in the real world. It doesn't matter what you think you are eating as long as you eat enough. You can see a rocket ship coming down the street instead of a car as long as you get out of the way. The world became simple, bland, white (green screen?), because the mind/system painted it as you selected in your brain as you moved through your day - a castle, a mansion, a place on Mars. Why not rebel against reality when reality is so painful for so many people? In any case, that is where it is going in the far future, or something like that. Computer augmented reality. And there are people choosing to live in virtual worlds already, as primitive as they are today. They have "property," get married, have "sex," have "children," own "things." They get real-life mad if you "trespass" on their "property" images. They work, have "jobs." Obey the laws, or not. Anyway, people living in their cellphones, or computer games are doing essentially the same thing, living in a virtual reality controlled by the priests of technology at Google, Facebook, etc. It will continue developing.

As someone born in 1967...

[argStyopa]

...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:As someone born in 1967...

[Opportunist]

In the eternal words of the grand master George Carlin: And they switched cocaine for Rogaine.

This isn't a new question

[rikkards]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 clustering in my moms basement.

Turns out everything I did was actually in my best interests. Got "discovered" at Defcon and hired away from $9/hr building computers to 60k+ as a an engineer. Never had to go to college, doubled that income to 120k in 5 years, then was "discovered" again to go make 250k+ for wall street working remotely from a cheap part of the world.

Id say my life is great considering I didnt even graduate high school or attend college all because my parents didnt stop me from using technology at a young age or tell me it was "wrong".

Re:I am that kid. Happy I was left alone.

[Opportunist]

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 life. Still not the rich guy, I had to find a way to keep my bills, especially phone bills, low, and this led to learning a lot about hardware and signal modulation since, well, no internet and not exactly being the kind of information you can easily pick up from various official manuals.

And today I'm selling this, among other knowledge I picked up along the way, to customers that pay handsomely for it. I guess I never would have arrived here if it wasn't in the end that I wanted to play computer games...

Mod parent comment to +10.

[Futurepower(R)]

I agree: "Plenty of kids can make their own decisions without parents hovering over them."

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.

Are the authors and viewers the same person

[tepples]

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, 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?

Kids Need To Play Outside, Too

[BrendaEM]

There's nothing wrong with computers, but kids have to play to be healthy.

Re:Kids Need To Play Outside, Too

[Opportunist]

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

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:What about the parents' screentime?

[Opportunist]

If they're religious they're already used to "do as I say not as I do", so it should be ok.

No

[jader3rd]

Given how lots of kids games and shows have educational elements, the kids are getting more advanced and ready for school work at younger ages.

No, stop using fake science to tell me what to do

[Austerity Empowers]

"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

[philmarcracken]

They mention tablets and phones. Those are locked down, consumer only focused devices with centralized 'stores' for software which is somewhat vetted and even then, the elevated privileges are heavily restricted. This means the devices works and rarely breaks.
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.

Re:Start them on 1970s to 1980s tech...

[HatofPig]

Check the link in my signature, that's sort of my approach too. I'm basing it on Marshall McLuhan who said that the content of the new, invisible medium is always the old thing. So back in the early 80s everyone was used to filing cabinets and manila file folders, which lent the Macintosh a interface a friendly interface for an otherwise difficult transition. Now people may use folders on a computer without ever having made use of a filing cabinet to begin with: the meaning of computer interface is severed from the originating metaphors. If you're strapped for time jump straight to episode II (skipping the Prelude and the first ep).

Re:No fucking shit. God fucking shot yes

[demonlapin]

Ha. My wife commented recently that our eight year old niece, her brother’s daughter, seems to get along better with me than with anyone else. I pointed out that I’m the only one who doesn’t try to please her all the time, and says no to screens unless we are being social with each other (e.g., split-screen video games). If she wants to hang out with me, she gets 100% of my attention, but she has to give 100% of her attention too. Funny how that works.

inattention or fear?

[Goldsmith]

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 complaint be that we held the world back and were too afraid of the changes technology were bringing to see clearly? (Similar to the boomers complaint about their parents.)

We don't know.

My Choices

[armada]

I have been a developer for over 30 years and as such my life has been deeply entwined with emerging tech. I have a 6 year old kid and they were not allowed to see any television until they were two and then for no more than an hr per week. Even then, I picked the shows very carefully and they were downloaded and devoid of commercials. It was things like nature shows or geography and such. We never left them with the show by themselves and were always involved and used them as conversation primers and not as a nanny. As far as tablet/phones are concerned, at five we allowed use of a tablet for conveying certain concepts that were too hard to do using RL. Even then, it is limited to two hours per week. We then fill their time with many and varied other activities of a mix between, cerebral/physical, solo/social, competitive/collaborative, and more. They will not have their own device until they are driving their own vehicle. Devising and executing what I consider a healthy and fruitful activity and education schedule for a kid is extremely complicated, full of subtlety, attacked from all angles, and time consuming. This is not something that most people understand or have the agency required to accomplish. I'm afraid that the net result for our society at large will be dire.

Yes.. among other things.

[Rick Schumann]

I believe there has been research showing that too much exposure to even TV, let alone computers and video games, in very young children, has negative effects on their development, am I right? That alone should be enough.

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 shape how they develop, both physically, mentally, and emotionally. Too many people, it seems, have children unthinkingly, and don't make the raising of that child a high enough priority. Using the TV or the computer as a babysitter is not a great idea. Letting schools or the State in effect raise your kid for you is avoiding your responsibility as a parent.

Yes, I know, I'm being very harsh here. But look around you at the world we're living in, and how many people, fucked-up in one way or another, are living in it. You can make the 'nature versus nurture' argument, but how someone is raised has a great bearing on what sort of adult they turn out to be, and no one can deny that.