17 ms·

I don't expect my kids to be "self-driven", in the sense of "productive" when I restrict screen time. They can literally do whatever they want... if that is mop

I don't expect my kids to be "self-driven", in the sense of "productive" when I restrict screen time. They can literally do whatever they want... if that is mope around bored as hell, so be it. If that is digging a hole in the back yard, so be it. If that is getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street, so be it. If they want to read the latest "Diary of a wimpy kid", so be it. The only thing I am after is some kind of interaction with the physical world where they are making the decisions. I have no idea if that is the right thing to do, but it feels like it is.

zachlatta 9y ago
I deeply and thoroughly don't understand this mindset. Whether you like it or not, technology is part of growing up in the 21st century. It's not just an "outlet" or a place to waste time on YouTube, it's interwoven into everything in their lives. Their ability to gather information depends on it. Their social lives depend on it. Just as yours does. If you restrict access, you're pretending like a very crucial part of living today doesn't exist -- or isn't as important as it actually is. At the end of the day, I'd imagine your goal is for your child to have a happy and healthy life. As part of that, you probably want them to have a healthy relationship with technology. Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did.
- noxToken 9y ago
  > Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did. I think restricting screen time is part of building the healthy relationship. We're not an all digital society, so kids still need to interact with the outside world - this includes people. Think about how vile people can be on the Internet when the person they're shouting at is a faceless username. Breaking this immersion to have your kid run up the street to watch YouTube videos with a friend is a bit different than doing it alone. You can explain that your child's friend is also online behind and anonymous username, so if they intend to say something mean to someone, you can say that the child may be hurting their own friend's feelings without even knowing it. Restricting access doesn't have to be a "back in my day!" spiel. Sometimes it's exploring other avenues of entertainment. Sometimes it's partial restriction like reading for 30 minutes. Sometimes it's just making sure that the child still has a foot grounded in reality. I'm a huge advocate for a connected world, but even as a developer, I still have to talk to my colleagues to my left and to my right.
- ryanianian 9y ago
  Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. Saying "no screen time" for an arbitrarily large amount of time seems anathema to growing up today, but saying "no more than N hours a day" (where N depends on age and kid and what the kid does for the time) seems quite reasonable. This isn't just about screen time imho, it's about ensuring balance when kids don't yet know what's best for them. A "healthy relationship" doesn't mean "free to do as much of it as they want to the detriment of other aspects of being a healthy human being." Anecdote: My best friend growing up was super into soccer. So much so that other parts of his life were suffering and he had little life outside of it. So his parents set a weekly limit on the number of hours he could practice and play. He hated it at the time. But during his down time he found programming and now he's a programmer and soccer isn't nearly that important to him anymore.
  - LrnByTeach 9y ago
    The problem with this "no more than N hours a day" is that - For parents it is hard to implement N hours/day on long term basis ( parents may be able to do for a week or month) - The parental control tools are too narrow in scope, good ones cost $10/month - on top of all this, you do not know what they are doing in those N hours/day , using 50% time for FB/Snap etc.. - It is ironic in this day and age of ML/Deeplearning software and open source github thousands of projects, we do not have a open source Parental control that really works. - The solution is to build an Open source Parental control on Iphone/Android/Mac/PC in an integrated way to enforce N hours/week screen time and smart enough to account all non-school work related screen time across devices. - To have a small regulation( to force device manufacturers ) stating above mentioned kind of "high quality" open source Integrated Parental control software pre-installed on all devices . > Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. Saying "no screen time" for an arbitrarily large amount of time seems anathema to growing up today, but saying "no more than N hours a day" (where N depends on age and kid and what the kid does for the time) seems quite reasonable.
    - watwut 9y ago
      Max n hours a day is significantly easier then unlimited time. Mostly because they can't regulate themselves which basically means that they act out when playing you much. It is not just that parent would dislike abstract idea of kid playing etc too mu ch, it is largely behavior the kid displays when it is playing too much. You don't need high quality expensive software either. There are sufficient free ones.
- mholmes680 9y ago
  I think where we can agree to disagree is we both want them to have a healthy relationship with technology, but we're disagreeing on what that healthy relationship is. At the end of the day, the job of the parent is to protect. As a part of that, if i read and believe that technology is rewiring their brains for reason X, Y, Z then that's what i fix. Not if it makes them happy or not; I'm not their friend first.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > At the end of the day, the job of the parent is to protect. I disagree. At the end of the day the job of the parent is to prepare. That involves a mix of protection, education, and other things, including refraining from protection, at times.
- 282883392 9y ago
  On the other hand, 24 hour screen time is not healthy either. Sitting there hitting that dopamine all day every day is not going to lead to success, especially if they are participating in more passive activities like youtube or mobile gaming. Even going to a friends house to watch youtube is probably better than sitting at home, as a social activity rather than an individual one. Additionally, being bored and or having downtime is beneficial for ones mental health.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    I played video games 24/7 as a young child, and while I played sports in high school and college as well, my main love was always, always video gaming, coding, and using computers until 5 AM. I am a parent now and I get restricting screen time for the sake of planning/scheduling, but not out of some utopian ideal. That never existed. Not when we were young and not when anyone else was, either. They just restricted reading the newspaper and books back then.
- projproj 9y ago
  Assuming GP means "limit screen time" when they say "restrict screen time", then you can still have a healthy relationship with technology. A child with limited screen time will still know how to use a computer, phone, etc. Like most of us, the kids I know gravitate to tech. junk food. So unrestricted/unlimited access to screens would probably lead to an unhealthy relationship. And GP wouldn't be in bad company.[0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-was-a-low-tech-parent.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-... - Steve Jobs, Chris Anderson, and Evan WIlliams limit/limited kids' screen time [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/apple-ceo-tim-cook-dont-let-your-kids-use-social-media.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/apple-ceo-tim-cook-dont-let-... (Speaking at Harlow College in the U.K., Apple CEO Tim Cook warned against “overuse” of technology, and said he didn’t want young members of his own family to use social media.)
- carlmcqueen 9y ago
  > I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did. Be careful of using yourself as the sample of why or why not people should do something. I was also given hard time limits of video games, hard times on television and my brother and I balanced it with playing basketball outside, biking around the neighborhood, going to a friends house (social interaction), and finding other things to do. Never felt restrictive, just the rules.
- munificent 9y ago
  I don't think it makes sense to lump all of uses of technology into a single conceptual bucket any more than it's useful to say, "Kids will use things that are made of plastic when they grow up so we shouldn't restrict access to plastic things." Watching unboxing videos on YouTube, posting selfies on Instagram (and getting judged by them), programming a videogame, compulsively clicking notifications and skimming social media feeds, reading articles on Wikipedia, playing some pay-to-Win addiction-optimized phone game, and writing a blog are completely fundamentally different activities. Restricting "screen time" is the simplest way to reduce access to the harmful things in that list, at the cost of also filtering the nice stuff. A more sophisticated approach is probably to control which apps kids have access to and for how long, but that's a lot harder to pull off effectively.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
    They pulled it off effectively with the personal computer of the early 90s. Edit: Unwittingly.
    - jonlucc 9y ago
      Maybe, but then when you turned off the computer, you might have gone to sit in front of the TV with your family, or played a board game, or talk on the phone with your friends. All of those things can happen online, and so I don't know that it's fair to compare computer usage of the 90s with computer usage today.
      - 0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
        It's fair to say computer's of today can turn off as well as the computers of the 90s.
        Nition 9y ago
        Better really, my computer turns itself off when I shut it down now. I used to have to do it manually once it was "now safe to turn off your computer."
- wvenable 9y ago
  I had a computer at a young age in the 80's and started programming in early elementary school. I also have a young child who is absolutely absorbed in computers, youtube, etc. I understand how much their collective social lives revolves around it. But even all the time I spend on computers, I still find the experiences vaguely disturbing. The effects on mental health are immediately obvious -- a few hours of "screen time" has very obvious negative implications. There is also a quality of addiction to it all. The computer/smartphone is all.
  - biswaroop 9y ago
    This is interesting: the difference in 'screen time' a few decades ago versus today. Is the incredible productization of screen time a recent phenomenon? Could we improve screen time by restricting the access large social media companies have to our brains? Can we convert, or perhaps return, the computer from an interactive television to a digital canvas for hackers?
  - jimmaswell 9y ago
    > a few hours of "screen time" has very obvious negative implications Can you elaborate more specifically?
- turtlebits 9y ago
  Depends on the age. I avoid/restrict almost all screen time for my almost 6 year old. Why? There is unlimited content and you can essentially never get bored, which means you don't need to think about what you want to do. In my experience kids are the happiest in self-directed play. Once they've learned self-control/having balance (which not even most adults can handle), then I have no problems introducing technology. Technology is fine if used as a tool, but for me, has no part in entertainment for my kids (up to a certain age)
- teekert 9y ago
  There is no real skill involved in watching YouTube or even in operating an iPad. Modern gizmos are filled with apps that battle each other for your kids attention and they play on their weaknesses. All the time a kid spends staring at a screen being passive (watching low IQ vloggers praise the latest soda, watch hours of other kids gaming, watch other kids unpack Kinder Eggs, etc) is time spend learning the brain that this is the way to relax. All that time is not spend in social situations, in nature, playing outside, using fine motor skills, learning what is feels like to actually make something of value to yourself or someone else. A healthy relationship with technology is not that of a consumer in my view, but that exact relation is most profitable to technology producers in this age. Tablets, chromecasts, smartphones and gaming consoles are consumption devices designed to elicit ever more desire to consume. Being a good consumer is not an important part of life imo and that is a message I want to thoroughly imprint on my kids. While they are to young to self regulate I'm right on top of it.
  - photojosh 9y ago
    That sounds awfully just like the TV time of the previous generation is being replaced with passive tablet time, and in both cases it's a manifestation of apathetic parenting that's always been around. Personal anecdote: my kids are really getting in to mountain biking. Their screen time is more likely to be looking up tips for how to ride better, and then every once in a while we all sit together and watch MTB fail videos (100x the content of the old 'funniest home videos' shows, and more relevant, and I hope it's making caution sink in). Then they go outside and have been building jumps out of logs and dirt...
- astura 9y ago
  I'd much rather have my kid watching YouTube with a friend than sitting in his room watching YouTube by herself. Watching content with friends is a form of (minor) socialization. Anyway, "restricting" is not a synonym of "banning."
- jpalomaki 9y ago
  Kids may need help in controlling themselves. Spending time with phone or computer provides certain satisfaction, just as browsing social media does for adults. But those things don't necessarily make us or the kids happy. It can be like an addiction, they would like to quit, but they can't. Parent enforced screen time may be a way for them to escape this and do something that really gives them pleasure.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Eventually, we may be able to develop single-ride autonomous flying vehicles that will at a moment's notice be able to take you from point A to point B and no one would ever have to walk from anywhere to anywhere again outside. That doesn't mean I would be happy in that world with my child never having learned what it means to hike up a mountain and see the vista by earning it.
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    Did you drive to the mountain to start the hike? People from 200 years ago might say, "I can't believe this person has never learned what it means to load up your horse, ride 50 miles to the mountain, climb it, and earn the view of the vista" I am not saying there isn't value in outdoor activities and climbing, but I find it interesting that we set the level of technology that we had as a kid as the 'baseline' for a normal experience. All those things you said about self-driving flying vehicles could be said about cars in general, but you don't think of that because cars are just 'normal' to you.
    - lr4444lr 9y ago
      Point taken. I'll bite the bullet and admit that there is indeed probably something lost when I have to use a modern machine to get from where I live to the experience of pristine nature I crave. Something almost tragic, as if my "normal life" is unnatural or lacking in something primally good for me, which I have to "visit". But to not have experienced it at all, like not being unplugged from technology for a long stretches, would I think be stunting in a far worse way.
      - cortesoft 9y ago
        Wanting to view pristine nature makes total sense, and is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. However, I think your idea of your 'normal life' being unnatural is a construct you make. Being in a beautiful landscape isn't any more 'natural' than being somewhere boring and bland. Visiting different areas and seeing natural wonders is certainly enjoyable, and can improve your health and well being. But that would be true even if you lived a primitive hunter gatherer lifestyle; most people aren't going to be living on a mountaintop, or living in a forest. A big part of what makes visiting the pristine nature such a cathartic experience is that it is different from your day to day life. Novelty is a strong desire in humans. If you lived on an isolated mountaintop, you might feel that same good feeling visiting the city that you get visiting the mountaintop.
- sanderjd 9y ago
  > Their social lives depend on it. Just as yours does. It definitely isn't true that my social life depends on this sort of technology, and I suspect it isn't true for most adults. I suppose you may be using a broader definition of "technology" than me, but my social life would be unaffected if I had a text-enabled phone and a computer sitting at home all day while I'm at work or out doing stuff on the weekends. I don't do that, but not because of my social life. Having said all that, insofar as it comes to kids, I think your point about the may be a good one! But the fact that this isn't the world many or must adults live in may give you insight on why they don't view this in the same way you do. I think it is hard to come to terms with the fact that your kids live in a different world with different requirements than yours.
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  The GP said "I restrict screen time" I take this as limit rather than ban. Which I think is a good thing. Screen time is addictive, especially for kids. We all know it. Try and pull your 4 year old away from the TV to get them ready and come back with your results. It is like restricting (but not banning) sugar, and for older kids (depending on your country etc.), caffeine and alcohol.
  - photojosh 9y ago
    Get them ready and THEN plonk them in front of the TV and you can get ready in peace. We learned this quickly... ;)
    - quickthrower2 9y ago
      Then you have to prize them away when you want to leave the house.
- empath75 9y ago
  A healthy relationship with technology is a balanced one, but I don’t know how I’ll enforce it with my kid when I’m on my phone every second of downtime and so is my wife.
- jeroen 9y ago
  Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. When you limit screen time to x minutes per day, that should include screen time outside the house.
Chris2048 9y ago
What do you mean by "getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street"?
twoquestions 9y ago
> If that is getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street, so be it. That sounds like a wonderful way to get killed by either the law or your neighbors if you're the wrong social status.
alasdair_ 9y ago
I definitely restrict "passive" screen time - especially TV, but also youtube that just autoplays stuff - but I have less of an issue with more interactive things. An example: my six year old loves Algodoo (a physics simulator) and builds all kinds of crazy stuff in it. I have no problem with him building and creating things (not all day of course) - It's the passive viewing of content without thought ir interaction that bothers me.
- ddnb 9y ago
  What are your thoughts on documentaries?
baursak 9y ago
What do you guys think of this short read? http://www.artbrock.com/blog/those-kids-and-their-darn-gadgets/ http://www.artbrock.com/blog/those-kids-and-their-darn-gadge...
- tc7 9y ago
  Didn't love it :). Seems like the initial list of complaints he's responding to are chosen to be the most superficial (and easily argued against) ones. And things like this: "these self-assured statements are being made by Americans who spend an AVERAGE of 5 hours per day watching television," Again, seems like he wants to create the weakest possible version of those he's debating against. It's irrelevant to the argument. In articles like this, I'd prefer to see the author present the strongest possible case for the other side of the debate, and then argue against _that_. It doesn't make me want to examine his counterpoints very deeply if he's manipulating the argument by positioning the other side as foolish or easily disproven.
  - photojosh 9y ago
    > Seems like the initial list of complaints he's responding to are chosen to be the most superficial (and easily argued against) ones. Yet these arguments are very common. Once you get people to see that the superficial objections are wrong, only then can you start to discuss nuance... how much is beneficial? what kind of screen time? what games are okay and which are only dopamine triggers?
mmjaa 9y ago
Totally. (Parent here, checking in..) My kids get very limited screen time, and are expected to fill their life with art and activity that does not involve, at least not directly, cheap electrons. Expected, because its what we, their parents do by way of example. And I'm damn proud of my kids now. They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and useless peers. So, yeah. Its an epidemic. Kids don't need technology. It has been so for thousands of years, and I truly believe in an event horizon where there are limits to how involved in 'the next great thing' kids should be allowed be, and to engage. I'm all for using computers productively. I'm not cool with 20 kids standing at the train station not talking to each other, not standing on the right side of the yellow line, not paying attention to the train that is about to push them off the platform, just so they can push a few pixels around. This is junkie dystopia, people.
- underwater 9y ago
  > They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and useless peers. That’s an awfully cynical observation for a kid to make.
  - Hextinium 9y ago
    Kids are hilariously cynical at times because they haven't figured out how to say stuff nicely very often. My 9 year old cousin will say stuff that I would never say because he is saying it as it is, not as an adult would say it.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    I dunno, I don't think its that cynical - they grew up, after all, with friends and peers who actually talk to each other, engage each other with play projects, do stuff outside with each other. I think its more that the situation is so dire, with the current new-teen generation, who expect an App-store like experience in their daily lives. To arrive in high school, and nobody wants to talk about anything other than their Candy Crush score, or whether or not "Peer Y" has an "iPhone X", and so on .. this was a bit of a disappointment to my kids, raised as they were to have human interaction be a priority over technology and material possession.
tmaly 9y ago
I restrict screen time, but I also am careful about what goes on the screen. The kid is more than happy is the selection, and I am happy to avoid some bad suggestion by the content algos. I find just picking different projects and giving broad exposure to a number of different fields a better framework. Even if you are assisting them in a project, the exposure they gain builds confidence that they can carry on in that field if they so choose.

zachlatta 9y ago

I deeply and thoroughly don't understand this mindset. Whether you like it or not, technology is part of growing up in the 21st century. It's not just an "outlet" or a place to waste time on YouTube, it's interwoven into everything in their lives. Their ability to gather information depends on it. Their social lives depend on it. Just as yours does. If you restrict access, you're pretending like a very crucial part of living today doesn't exist -- or isn't as important as it actually is. At the end of the day, I'd imagine your goal is for your child to have a happy and healthy life. As part of that, you probably want them to have a healthy relationship with technology. Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did.

noxToken 9y ago
> Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did. I think restricting screen time is part of building the healthy relationship. We're not an all digital society, so kids still need to interact with the outside world - this includes people. Think about how vile people can be on the Internet when the person they're shouting at is a faceless username. Breaking this immersion to have your kid run up the street to watch YouTube videos with a friend is a bit different than doing it alone. You can explain that your child's friend is also online behind and anonymous username, so if they intend to say something mean to someone, you can say that the child may be hurting their own friend's feelings without even knowing it. Restricting access doesn't have to be a "back in my day!" spiel. Sometimes it's exploring other avenues of entertainment. Sometimes it's partial restriction like reading for 30 minutes. Sometimes it's just making sure that the child still has a foot grounded in reality. I'm a huge advocate for a connected world, but even as a developer, I still have to talk to my colleagues to my left and to my right.
ryanianian 9y ago
Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. Saying "no screen time" for an arbitrarily large amount of time seems anathema to growing up today, but saying "no more than N hours a day" (where N depends on age and kid and what the kid does for the time) seems quite reasonable. This isn't just about screen time imho, it's about ensuring balance when kids don't yet know what's best for them. A "healthy relationship" doesn't mean "free to do as much of it as they want to the detriment of other aspects of being a healthy human being." Anecdote: My best friend growing up was super into soccer. So much so that other parts of his life were suffering and he had little life outside of it. So his parents set a weekly limit on the number of hours he could practice and play. He hated it at the time. But during his down time he found programming and now he's a programmer and soccer isn't nearly that important to him anymore.
- LrnByTeach 9y ago
  The problem with this "no more than N hours a day" is that - For parents it is hard to implement N hours/day on long term basis ( parents may be able to do for a week or month) - The parental control tools are too narrow in scope, good ones cost $10/month - on top of all this, you do not know what they are doing in those N hours/day , using 50% time for FB/Snap etc.. - It is ironic in this day and age of ML/Deeplearning software and open source github thousands of projects, we do not have a open source Parental control that really works. - The solution is to build an Open source Parental control on Iphone/Android/Mac/PC in an integrated way to enforce N hours/week screen time and smart enough to account all non-school work related screen time across devices. - To have a small regulation( to force device manufacturers ) stating above mentioned kind of "high quality" open source Integrated Parental control software pre-installed on all devices . > Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. Saying "no screen time" for an arbitrarily large amount of time seems anathema to growing up today, but saying "no more than N hours a day" (where N depends on age and kid and what the kid does for the time) seems quite reasonable.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Max n hours a day is significantly easier then unlimited time. Mostly because they can't regulate themselves which basically means that they act out when playing you much. It is not just that parent would dislike abstract idea of kid playing etc too mu ch, it is largely behavior the kid displays when it is playing too much. You don't need high quality expensive software either. There are sufficient free ones.
mholmes680 9y ago
I think where we can agree to disagree is we both want them to have a healthy relationship with technology, but we're disagreeing on what that healthy relationship is. At the end of the day, the job of the parent is to protect. As a part of that, if i read and believe that technology is rewiring their brains for reason X, Y, Z then that's what i fix. Not if it makes them happy or not; I'm not their friend first.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > At the end of the day, the job of the parent is to protect. I disagree. At the end of the day the job of the parent is to prepare. That involves a mix of protection, education, and other things, including refraining from protection, at times.
282883392 9y ago
On the other hand, 24 hour screen time is not healthy either. Sitting there hitting that dopamine all day every day is not going to lead to success, especially if they are participating in more passive activities like youtube or mobile gaming. Even going to a friends house to watch youtube is probably better than sitting at home, as a social activity rather than an individual one. Additionally, being bored and or having downtime is beneficial for ones mental health.
- icelancer 9y ago
  I played video games 24/7 as a young child, and while I played sports in high school and college as well, my main love was always, always video gaming, coding, and using computers until 5 AM. I am a parent now and I get restricting screen time for the sake of planning/scheduling, but not out of some utopian ideal. That never existed. Not when we were young and not when anyone else was, either. They just restricted reading the newspaper and books back then.
projproj 9y ago
Assuming GP means "limit screen time" when they say "restrict screen time", then you can still have a healthy relationship with technology. A child with limited screen time will still know how to use a computer, phone, etc. Like most of us, the kids I know gravitate to tech. junk food. So unrestricted/unlimited access to screens would probably lead to an unhealthy relationship. And GP wouldn't be in bad company.[0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-was-a-low-tech-parent.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-... - Steve Jobs, Chris Anderson, and Evan WIlliams limit/limited kids' screen time [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/apple-ceo-tim-cook-dont-let-your-kids-use-social-media.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/apple-ceo-tim-cook-dont-let-... (Speaking at Harlow College in the U.K., Apple CEO Tim Cook warned against “overuse” of technology, and said he didn’t want young members of his own family to use social media.)
carlmcqueen 9y ago
> I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did. Be careful of using yourself as the sample of why or why not people should do something. I was also given hard time limits of video games, hard times on television and my brother and I balanced it with playing basketball outside, biking around the neighborhood, going to a friends house (social interaction), and finding other things to do. Never felt restrictive, just the rules.
munificent 9y ago
I don't think it makes sense to lump all of uses of technology into a single conceptual bucket any more than it's useful to say, "Kids will use things that are made of plastic when they grow up so we shouldn't restrict access to plastic things." Watching unboxing videos on YouTube, posting selfies on Instagram (and getting judged by them), programming a videogame, compulsively clicking notifications and skimming social media feeds, reading articles on Wikipedia, playing some pay-to-Win addiction-optimized phone game, and writing a blog are completely fundamentally different activities. Restricting "screen time" is the simplest way to reduce access to the harmful things in that list, at the cost of also filtering the nice stuff. A more sophisticated approach is probably to control which apps kids have access to and for how long, but that's a lot harder to pull off effectively.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
  They pulled it off effectively with the personal computer of the early 90s. Edit: Unwittingly.
  - jonlucc 9y ago
    Maybe, but then when you turned off the computer, you might have gone to sit in front of the TV with your family, or played a board game, or talk on the phone with your friends. All of those things can happen online, and so I don't know that it's fair to compare computer usage of the 90s with computer usage today.
    - 0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
      It's fair to say computer's of today can turn off as well as the computers of the 90s.
      - Nition 9y ago
        Better really, my computer turns itself off when I shut it down now. I used to have to do it manually once it was "now safe to turn off your computer."
wvenable 9y ago
I had a computer at a young age in the 80's and started programming in early elementary school. I also have a young child who is absolutely absorbed in computers, youtube, etc. I understand how much their collective social lives revolves around it. But even all the time I spend on computers, I still find the experiences vaguely disturbing. The effects on mental health are immediately obvious -- a few hours of "screen time" has very obvious negative implications. There is also a quality of addiction to it all. The computer/smartphone is all.
- biswaroop 9y ago
  This is interesting: the difference in 'screen time' a few decades ago versus today. Is the incredible productization of screen time a recent phenomenon? Could we improve screen time by restricting the access large social media companies have to our brains? Can we convert, or perhaps return, the computer from an interactive television to a digital canvas for hackers?
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  > a few hours of "screen time" has very obvious negative implications Can you elaborate more specifically?
turtlebits 9y ago
Depends on the age. I avoid/restrict almost all screen time for my almost 6 year old. Why? There is unlimited content and you can essentially never get bored, which means you don't need to think about what you want to do. In my experience kids are the happiest in self-directed play. Once they've learned self-control/having balance (which not even most adults can handle), then I have no problems introducing technology. Technology is fine if used as a tool, but for me, has no part in entertainment for my kids (up to a certain age)
teekert 9y ago
There is no real skill involved in watching YouTube or even in operating an iPad. Modern gizmos are filled with apps that battle each other for your kids attention and they play on their weaknesses. All the time a kid spends staring at a screen being passive (watching low IQ vloggers praise the latest soda, watch hours of other kids gaming, watch other kids unpack Kinder Eggs, etc) is time spend learning the brain that this is the way to relax. All that time is not spend in social situations, in nature, playing outside, using fine motor skills, learning what is feels like to actually make something of value to yourself or someone else. A healthy relationship with technology is not that of a consumer in my view, but that exact relation is most profitable to technology producers in this age. Tablets, chromecasts, smartphones and gaming consoles are consumption devices designed to elicit ever more desire to consume. Being a good consumer is not an important part of life imo and that is a message I want to thoroughly imprint on my kids. While they are to young to self regulate I'm right on top of it.
- photojosh 9y ago
  That sounds awfully just like the TV time of the previous generation is being replaced with passive tablet time, and in both cases it's a manifestation of apathetic parenting that's always been around. Personal anecdote: my kids are really getting in to mountain biking. Their screen time is more likely to be looking up tips for how to ride better, and then every once in a while we all sit together and watch MTB fail videos (100x the content of the old 'funniest home videos' shows, and more relevant, and I hope it's making caution sink in). Then they go outside and have been building jumps out of logs and dirt...
astura 9y ago
I'd much rather have my kid watching YouTube with a friend than sitting in his room watching YouTube by herself. Watching content with friends is a form of (minor) socialization. Anyway, "restricting" is not a synonym of "banning."
jpalomaki 9y ago
Kids may need help in controlling themselves. Spending time with phone or computer provides certain satisfaction, just as browsing social media does for adults. But those things don't necessarily make us or the kids happy. It can be like an addiction, they would like to quit, but they can't. Parent enforced screen time may be a way for them to escape this and do something that really gives them pleasure.
lr4444lr 9y ago
Eventually, we may be able to develop single-ride autonomous flying vehicles that will at a moment's notice be able to take you from point A to point B and no one would ever have to walk from anywhere to anywhere again outside. That doesn't mean I would be happy in that world with my child never having learned what it means to hike up a mountain and see the vista by earning it.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  Did you drive to the mountain to start the hike? People from 200 years ago might say, "I can't believe this person has never learned what it means to load up your horse, ride 50 miles to the mountain, climb it, and earn the view of the vista" I am not saying there isn't value in outdoor activities and climbing, but I find it interesting that we set the level of technology that we had as a kid as the 'baseline' for a normal experience. All those things you said about self-driving flying vehicles could be said about cars in general, but you don't think of that because cars are just 'normal' to you.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    Point taken. I'll bite the bullet and admit that there is indeed probably something lost when I have to use a modern machine to get from where I live to the experience of pristine nature I crave. Something almost tragic, as if my "normal life" is unnatural or lacking in something primally good for me, which I have to "visit". But to not have experienced it at all, like not being unplugged from technology for a long stretches, would I think be stunting in a far worse way.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      Wanting to view pristine nature makes total sense, and is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. However, I think your idea of your 'normal life' being unnatural is a construct you make. Being in a beautiful landscape isn't any more 'natural' than being somewhere boring and bland. Visiting different areas and seeing natural wonders is certainly enjoyable, and can improve your health and well being. But that would be true even if you lived a primitive hunter gatherer lifestyle; most people aren't going to be living on a mountaintop, or living in a forest. A big part of what makes visiting the pristine nature such a cathartic experience is that it is different from your day to day life. Novelty is a strong desire in humans. If you lived on an isolated mountaintop, you might feel that same good feeling visiting the city that you get visiting the mountaintop.
sanderjd 9y ago
> Their social lives depend on it. Just as yours does. It definitely isn't true that my social life depends on this sort of technology, and I suspect it isn't true for most adults. I suppose you may be using a broader definition of "technology" than me, but my social life would be unaffected if I had a text-enabled phone and a computer sitting at home all day while I'm at work or out doing stuff on the weekends. I don't do that, but not because of my social life. Having said all that, insofar as it comes to kids, I think your point about the may be a good one! But the fact that this isn't the world many or must adults live in may give you insight on why they don't view this in the same way you do. I think it is hard to come to terms with the fact that your kids live in a different world with different requirements than yours.
quickthrower2 9y ago
The GP said "I restrict screen time" I take this as limit rather than ban. Which I think is a good thing. Screen time is addictive, especially for kids. We all know it. Try and pull your 4 year old away from the TV to get them ready and come back with your results. It is like restricting (but not banning) sugar, and for older kids (depending on your country etc.), caffeine and alcohol.
- photojosh 9y ago
  Get them ready and THEN plonk them in front of the TV and you can get ready in peace. We learned this quickly... ;)
  - quickthrower2 9y ago
    Then you have to prize them away when you want to leave the house.
empath75 9y ago
A healthy relationship with technology is a balanced one, but I don’t know how I’ll enforce it with my kid when I’m on my phone every second of downtime and so is my wife.
jeroen 9y ago
Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. When you limit screen time to x minutes per day, that should include screen time outside the house.

Chris2048 9y ago

What do you mean by "getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street"?

twoquestions 9y ago

> If that is getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street, so be it. That sounds like a wonderful way to get killed by either the law or your neighbors if you're the wrong social status.

alasdair_ 9y ago

I definitely restrict "passive" screen time - especially TV, but also youtube that just autoplays stuff - but I have less of an issue with more interactive things. An example: my six year old loves Algodoo (a physics simulator) and builds all kinds of crazy stuff in it. I have no problem with him building and creating things (not all day of course) - It's the passive viewing of content without thought ir interaction that bothers me.

ddnb 9y ago
What are your thoughts on documentaries?

baursak 9y ago

What do you guys think of this short read? http://www.artbrock.com/blog/those-kids-and-their-darn-gadgets/ http://www.artbrock.com/blog/those-kids-and-their-darn-gadge...

tc7 9y ago
Didn't love it :). Seems like the initial list of complaints he's responding to are chosen to be the most superficial (and easily argued against) ones. And things like this: "these self-assured statements are being made by Americans who spend an AVERAGE of 5 hours per day watching television," Again, seems like he wants to create the weakest possible version of those he's debating against. It's irrelevant to the argument. In articles like this, I'd prefer to see the author present the strongest possible case for the other side of the debate, and then argue against _that_. It doesn't make me want to examine his counterpoints very deeply if he's manipulating the argument by positioning the other side as foolish or easily disproven.
- photojosh 9y ago
  > Seems like the initial list of complaints he's responding to are chosen to be the most superficial (and easily argued against) ones. Yet these arguments are very common. Once you get people to see that the superficial objections are wrong, only then can you start to discuss nuance... how much is beneficial? what kind of screen time? what games are okay and which are only dopamine triggers?

mmjaa 9y ago

Totally. (Parent here, checking in..) My kids get very limited screen time, and are expected to fill their life with art and activity that does not involve, at least not directly, cheap electrons. Expected, because its what we, their parents do by way of example. And I'm damn proud of my kids now. They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and useless peers. So, yeah. Its an epidemic. Kids don't need technology. It has been so for thousands of years, and I truly believe in an event horizon where there are limits to how involved in 'the next great thing' kids should be allowed be, and to engage. I'm all for using computers productively. I'm not cool with 20 kids standing at the train station not talking to each other, not standing on the right side of the yellow line, not paying attention to the train that is about to push them off the platform, just so they can push a few pixels around. This is junkie dystopia, people.

underwater 9y ago
> They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and useless peers. That’s an awfully cynical observation for a kid to make.
- Hextinium 9y ago
  Kids are hilariously cynical at times because they haven't figured out how to say stuff nicely very often. My 9 year old cousin will say stuff that I would never say because he is saying it as it is, not as an adult would say it.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  I dunno, I don't think its that cynical - they grew up, after all, with friends and peers who actually talk to each other, engage each other with play projects, do stuff outside with each other. I think its more that the situation is so dire, with the current new-teen generation, who expect an App-store like experience in their daily lives. To arrive in high school, and nobody wants to talk about anything other than their Candy Crush score, or whether or not "Peer Y" has an "iPhone X", and so on .. this was a bit of a disappointment to my kids, raised as they were to have human interaction be a priority over technology and material possession.

tmaly 9y ago

I restrict screen time, but I also am careful about what goes on the screen. The kid is more than happy is the selection, and I am happy to avoid some bad suggestion by the content algos. I find just picking different projects and giving broad exposure to a number of different fields a better framework. Even if you are assisting them in a project, the exposure they gain builds confidence that they can carry on in that field if they so choose.