6 ms·

Someone has to say it. If you’re letting your kid use YouTube or I’d even say the internet or smart phones unsupervised before their brain is well developed you

Someone has to say it. If you’re letting your kid use YouTube or I’d even say the internet or smart phones unsupervised before their brain is well developed you are taking a tremendous risk on their mental development. A few years back when my kids were toddlers I’d rather naively give them my phone with YouTube on it, and after ignoring them for just 15 mins they’d have switched from whatever edutainment programme I’d put on to a video of a burly pair of hands unwrapping toys - for 4 hours...there are no studies on the long term effects of YouTube on cognitive development in young brains but why wait? It’s not like it’s rocket science to infer that if you show growing minds poor quality content you’re going to get poor quality results. I don’t feel comfortable leaving my kids to watch Netflix either. It’s too easy for them to binge watch a half season of Paw Patrol or Omizumi or other similarly lite content. As a kid I remember eagerly waiting for the next episode of He-Man or Ghostbusters but to have had several seasons of dozens of episodes on tap would have been too much to resist. With auto play on these services too it’s not like they have the interests of us or our kids at heart. We need to be super careful here, this is new territory with early indicators showing declines in ability to concentrate in adults from these forms of distraction - god knows what it’s doing to our kids.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
While I agree with your statements, isn't this the same warnings that people gave years ago with the rise of television? Cable TV? Video game consoles? The internet? I mean it's the same as children's TV on cable, with the main difference that it's infinite instead of constrained to at most a couple of hours.
- IloveHN84 8y ago
  Yes and see what happened? We got NEET (people not employed, not looking for job) and JavaScript developers coming out of walls. We have poor quality skills
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Oh come on. NEETs exist because the job market is ridiculous, and while I like to diss JavaScript like everyone else, JS developer is still an above average result in upbringing.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      The job market is better than it's ever been. The jobs are better too.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        If you're a skilled professional, sure. If you're just a regular person, not really. The very existence of the so-called "gig economy" tells us something is rotten.
        leereeves 8y ago
        There's always been a lower class working terrible jobs. Driving for Uber or working fast food for $8/hour is a terrible job, but it's not as bad as working in a steel mill or coal mine.
        sciurus 8y ago
        Except the people working in the mills and mines have full time employment with benefits and salaries averaging over $50k.
        leereeves 8y ago
        Now they do, yes. That wasn't the case 100 years ago when the steel industry was cutting edge.
        repraptim 8y ago
        Registered this account to point out that, when mining was a dangerous job that didn't pay well, we invented unions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Mine_Workers#Development_of_the_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Mine_Workers#Developmen...
- knightofmars 8y ago
  It is the same set of warnings. Those warnings are justified. This is anecdotal and I am well aware that all children are different. In my case, I have a 5 year old, there is a marked difference in their behavior based on the content they are is watching. As an example, we don't let the child watch "Paw Patrol" because it winds them up due to the constant high-intensity rush to solve a problem. Where as a show such as "Creative Galaxy" is paced to emphasize content instead of emotional waves. I would say that the beauty of the internet is now we can actually limit and screen content. No longer do children watch "whatever is on TV". They watch whatever on demand show that their parents allow them to watch. This is where pre-screening and understanding your child's developmental level are the most important. "Here's a phone watch YouTube." is the extreme and as stated in a prior post could be considered neglectful.
shezi 8y ago
Maybe the problem isn't Netflix and Youtube, maybe the problem is letting them watch for 4 hours? And unsupervised, too. It sounds to me like it's a bit like letting your children run free in a candy store for hours and then wondering why they ate so much. I try to teach my kids that these things are tools: we want to know how something works --> there's definitely a video on that --> we found out and turn it off again. And as with any tool, you can use them to become better or to hurt yourself.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Maybe the problem isn't Netflix and Youtube, maybe the problem is letting them watch for 4 hours? Isn't your assertion "Youtube isn't a problem so long as you don't watch for 4 hours" and leonroy's that "If you want something to watch for 4 hours, Youtube is a problem" just the same statement worded in different ways?
  - frabert 8y ago
    I would say no, the point is that there's _nothing_ that's good to be watched for 4 hours
    - roenxi 8y ago
      Something like Sesame Street might be good. My problem with YouTube is it creates feedback loops where if you like something you seek out more of it, but with a near infinite range of topics. Throw an underdeveloped mind in there who is using basic stimulus to work out what is good and bad and who knows what will happen. Wouldn't surprise me if that feedback loop was damaging even for many adults, but at least they are responsible and already have some grasp of how the world should work.
  - shezi 8y ago
    As others have said, watching 4 hours of anything might be problematic. However, my point is this: different things require different amounts of moderation. Candy all day is probably worse than carrots all day. In moderation, candy is great. Same as YouTube.
black_puppydog 8y ago
I don't see how "youtube neglect" parenting is qualitatively different from "regular neglect" parenting, honestly. We've always have people just "dump" their kids (of any age) into a room without supervision, predominantly people who just can't afford to be present all the time. Might be more appropriate to demand universal child care or sth along those lines instead of bashing the parents.
- Arnt 8y ago
  We've always had that. But you're assuming that neglect is the major/only factor here. I disagree. I think the major factor is what the children are doing. Spending time alone in a room with Lego is very different from spending time alone with some dark-pattern-studded UI, even if a parent is beyond viewing distance and within shouting distance in both cases. Do I need to argue that?
  - lmm 8y ago
    > Spending time alone in a room with Lego is very different from spending time alone with some dark-pattern-studded UI, even if a parent is beyond viewing distance and within shouting distance in both cases. Do I need to argue that? Yes, you do need to argue that. Humans are good at learning to interact with things; neither Lego nor YouTube were present in the ancestral environment but we manage just the same. If anything I'd say that people who grow up with "dark-pattern-studded UI" all around will probably learn to handle the tricks much better than people who only encounter it as adults (just as those who grew up with social media tend to have a much healthier relationship with it than the older generation).
    - Arnt 8y ago
      You tell me to argue, but you yourself just assert. I will, though. I'll argue my point by RAA. You may recall my phrase, "spending time alone doing <x> is very different from <y>, ….". If spending time alone doing X is not very different from Y, then it follows that pairs of activities are roughly equally educational, roughly equally dangerous, roughly equally healthy, and so on, or at least roughly equal in sum of the qualities parents care about. Ie., if one activity is more educational than another, then the other must necessarily be less dangerous for the child, so as to conserve equilibrium. This is absurd. QED. I interpret you as saying that people are better at learning to cope with dark patterns as young children than as adults. Right? Please argue.
godid 8y ago
Is this an anecdote? E.g. I assume you are calling this a tremendous risk because you have seen it first-hand negatively affect your own kids mental development? Whilst I agree with the sentiment of less tech = probably better for young kids, your comment reads as FUD. 15 minutes a day watching youtube is probably fine and will likely have minimal effect on development compared to other factors.
- crististm 8y ago
  A couple of points: - He also mentions something about four hours somewhere in the comment - Less tech is not the same thing with less TV - How are 15 minutes fine? Compared to how many? - finaly, how is your opinion not anecdata?
- knightofmars 8y ago
  The content being consumed plays a huge role in this. 15 minutes a day can range from enriching to neutral to harmful. As an example, a kid repeatedly watching YouTube videos of other kids kicking each other in the balls and laughing is likely to elicit unwanted social behavior.
abalone 8y ago
The key issue is supervision. YouTube Kids also has very enriching content. My hyper intelligent kid was able to direct himself to all kinds of educational content — way better than being forced to watch whatever crap was on TV like when we were growing up watching He-Man and Skeletor and GI Joe which was some real f’d up shit if you think about it. Like, they had swords and guns and shot people and it was “harmless fun”.
- gambiting 8y ago
  Just fyi - Youtube Kids sells itself as "curated" content, but you can very quickly find Jake Paul videos which are absolutely 100% not kid-friendly on it.
- crtasm 8y ago
  Wasn't GI Joe basically like the storm troopers in star wars? Laser guns and nobody gets hit? My memory of it is hazy and likely warped by pastiches like adult swim's Too Many Cooks.
- franciscrick1 8y ago
  > My hyper intelligent kid was able to direct himself to all kinds of educational content Is this the same child that was convinced sleeping under a tree would be fatal?
  - abalone 8y ago
    No, because he didn't claim it was fatal. But your comment reveals just how much of a dick you are. He's 6.
    - franciscrick1 8y ago
      Calling your child "hyper intelligent" makes you sound like a dick.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

While I agree with your statements, isn't this the same warnings that people gave years ago with the rise of television? Cable TV? Video game consoles? The internet? I mean it's the same as children's TV on cable, with the main difference that it's infinite instead of constrained to at most a couple of hours.

IloveHN84 8y ago
Yes and see what happened? We got NEET (people not employed, not looking for job) and JavaScript developers coming out of walls. We have poor quality skills
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Oh come on. NEETs exist because the job market is ridiculous, and while I like to diss JavaScript like everyone else, JS developer is still an above average result in upbringing.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    The job market is better than it's ever been. The jobs are better too.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      If you're a skilled professional, sure. If you're just a regular person, not really. The very existence of the so-called "gig economy" tells us something is rotten.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        There's always been a lower class working terrible jobs. Driving for Uber or working fast food for $8/hour is a terrible job, but it's not as bad as working in a steel mill or coal mine.
        sciurus 8y ago
        Except the people working in the mills and mines have full time employment with benefits and salaries averaging over $50k.
        leereeves 8y ago
        Now they do, yes. That wasn't the case 100 years ago when the steel industry was cutting edge.
        repraptim 8y ago
        Registered this account to point out that, when mining was a dangerous job that didn't pay well, we invented unions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Mine_Workers#Development_of_the_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Mine_Workers#Developmen...
knightofmars 8y ago
It is the same set of warnings. Those warnings are justified. This is anecdotal and I am well aware that all children are different. In my case, I have a 5 year old, there is a marked difference in their behavior based on the content they are is watching. As an example, we don't let the child watch "Paw Patrol" because it winds them up due to the constant high-intensity rush to solve a problem. Where as a show such as "Creative Galaxy" is paced to emphasize content instead of emotional waves. I would say that the beauty of the internet is now we can actually limit and screen content. No longer do children watch "whatever is on TV". They watch whatever on demand show that their parents allow them to watch. This is where pre-screening and understanding your child's developmental level are the most important. "Here's a phone watch YouTube." is the extreme and as stated in a prior post could be considered neglectful.

shezi 8y ago

Maybe the problem isn't Netflix and Youtube, maybe the problem is letting them watch for 4 hours? And unsupervised, too. It sounds to me like it's a bit like letting your children run free in a candy store for hours and then wondering why they ate so much. I try to teach my kids that these things are tools: we want to know how something works --> there's definitely a video on that --> we found out and turn it off again. And as with any tool, you can use them to become better or to hurt yourself.

michaelt 8y ago
Maybe the problem isn't Netflix and Youtube, maybe the problem is letting them watch for 4 hours? Isn't your assertion "Youtube isn't a problem so long as you don't watch for 4 hours" and leonroy's that "If you want something to watch for 4 hours, Youtube is a problem" just the same statement worded in different ways?
- frabert 8y ago
  I would say no, the point is that there's _nothing_ that's good to be watched for 4 hours
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Something like Sesame Street might be good. My problem with YouTube is it creates feedback loops where if you like something you seek out more of it, but with a near infinite range of topics. Throw an underdeveloped mind in there who is using basic stimulus to work out what is good and bad and who knows what will happen. Wouldn't surprise me if that feedback loop was damaging even for many adults, but at least they are responsible and already have some grasp of how the world should work.
- shezi 8y ago
  As others have said, watching 4 hours of anything might be problematic. However, my point is this: different things require different amounts of moderation. Candy all day is probably worse than carrots all day. In moderation, candy is great. Same as YouTube.

black_puppydog 8y ago

I don't see how "youtube neglect" parenting is qualitatively different from "regular neglect" parenting, honestly. We've always have people just "dump" their kids (of any age) into a room without supervision, predominantly people who just can't afford to be present all the time. Might be more appropriate to demand universal child care or sth along those lines instead of bashing the parents.

Arnt 8y ago
We've always had that. But you're assuming that neglect is the major/only factor here. I disagree. I think the major factor is what the children are doing. Spending time alone in a room with Lego is very different from spending time alone with some dark-pattern-studded UI, even if a parent is beyond viewing distance and within shouting distance in both cases. Do I need to argue that?
- lmm 8y ago
  > Spending time alone in a room with Lego is very different from spending time alone with some dark-pattern-studded UI, even if a parent is beyond viewing distance and within shouting distance in both cases. Do I need to argue that? Yes, you do need to argue that. Humans are good at learning to interact with things; neither Lego nor YouTube were present in the ancestral environment but we manage just the same. If anything I'd say that people who grow up with "dark-pattern-studded UI" all around will probably learn to handle the tricks much better than people who only encounter it as adults (just as those who grew up with social media tend to have a much healthier relationship with it than the older generation).
  - Arnt 8y ago
    You tell me to argue, but you yourself just assert. I will, though. I'll argue my point by RAA. You may recall my phrase, "spending time alone doing <x> is very different from <y>, ….". If spending time alone doing X is not very different from Y, then it follows that pairs of activities are roughly equally educational, roughly equally dangerous, roughly equally healthy, and so on, or at least roughly equal in sum of the qualities parents care about. Ie., if one activity is more educational than another, then the other must necessarily be less dangerous for the child, so as to conserve equilibrium. This is absurd. QED. I interpret you as saying that people are better at learning to cope with dark patterns as young children than as adults. Right? Please argue.

godid 8y ago

Is this an anecdote? E.g. I assume you are calling this a tremendous risk because you have seen it first-hand negatively affect your own kids mental development? Whilst I agree with the sentiment of less tech = probably better for young kids, your comment reads as FUD. 15 minutes a day watching youtube is probably fine and will likely have minimal effect on development compared to other factors.

crististm 8y ago
A couple of points: - He also mentions something about four hours somewhere in the comment - Less tech is not the same thing with less TV - How are 15 minutes fine? Compared to how many? - finaly, how is your opinion not anecdata?
knightofmars 8y ago
The content being consumed plays a huge role in this. 15 minutes a day can range from enriching to neutral to harmful. As an example, a kid repeatedly watching YouTube videos of other kids kicking each other in the balls and laughing is likely to elicit unwanted social behavior.

abalone 8y ago

The key issue is supervision. YouTube Kids also has very enriching content. My hyper intelligent kid was able to direct himself to all kinds of educational content — way better than being forced to watch whatever crap was on TV like when we were growing up watching He-Man and Skeletor and GI Joe which was some real f’d up shit if you think about it. Like, they had swords and guns and shot people and it was “harmless fun”.

gambiting 8y ago
Just fyi - Youtube Kids sells itself as "curated" content, but you can very quickly find Jake Paul videos which are absolutely 100% not kid-friendly on it.
crtasm 8y ago
Wasn't GI Joe basically like the storm troopers in star wars? Laser guns and nobody gets hit? My memory of it is hazy and likely warped by pastiches like adult swim's Too Many Cooks.
franciscrick1 8y ago
> My hyper intelligent kid was able to direct himself to all kinds of educational content Is this the same child that was convinced sleeping under a tree would be fatal?
- abalone 8y ago
  No, because he didn't claim it was fatal. But your comment reveals just how much of a dick you are. He's 6.
  - franciscrick1 8y ago
    Calling your child "hyper intelligent" makes you sound like a dick.