4 ms·

I don't see how "youtube neglect" parenting is qualitatively different from "regular neglect" parenting, honestly. We've always have people just "dump" their ki

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.
    - lmm 8y ago
      > "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. "This is absurd" is pure assertion. The same argument would say that spending time alone playing with lego is very different from spending time alone playing with toy trains, or with dolls, or with crayons, or in a treehouse, or ... . If you're saying that all these things are "very different from" each other, then sure, youtube is different from lego in the same way that lego is different from crayons. But very few parents seem concerned that their child spends too long playing with crayons and not long enough with lego, or vice versa, or would want to ban one in favour of the other. > 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. I gave an analogy to that effect already. More generally, people are better at learning anything (particularly things that are largely subconscious) as children than as adults - languages, riding a bike, performance arts...
  - zamfi 8y ago
    I’m not sure your claim is obviously true either. I’d say that leaving kids in a an environment of addictive substances (say, cigarettes?) is a great way to get them addicted. Why would YouTube be any different?
    - lmm 8y ago
      > I’d say that leaving kids in a an environment of addictive substances (say, cigarettes?) is a great way to get them addicted. Just as with social media, my general impression/experience is that people who were kept away from addictive substances (cigarettes/alcohol/coffee/...) growing up tend to be more likely to have problems with them in later life than people who had them around when they were growing up. (There are specific health reasons to keep particular substances away from young children, but that's a distinct thing).
      - Freak_NL 8y ago
        With smoking it actually helps prevent children from acquiring the addiction if they grow up in a society where people rarely smoke. Denormalization of smoking has been proven to work.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

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.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > "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. "This is absurd" is pure assertion. The same argument would say that spending time alone playing with lego is very different from spending time alone playing with toy trains, or with dolls, or with crayons, or in a treehouse, or ... . If you're saying that all these things are "very different from" each other, then sure, youtube is different from lego in the same way that lego is different from crayons. But very few parents seem concerned that their child spends too long playing with crayons and not long enough with lego, or vice versa, or would want to ban one in favour of the other. > 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. I gave an analogy to that effect already. More generally, people are better at learning anything (particularly things that are largely subconscious) as children than as adults - languages, riding a bike, performance arts...
- zamfi 8y ago
  I’m not sure your claim is obviously true either. I’d say that leaving kids in a an environment of addictive substances (say, cigarettes?) is a great way to get them addicted. Why would YouTube be any different?
  - lmm 8y ago
    > I’d say that leaving kids in a an environment of addictive substances (say, cigarettes?) is a great way to get them addicted. Just as with social media, my general impression/experience is that people who were kept away from addictive substances (cigarettes/alcohol/coffee/...) growing up tend to be more likely to have problems with them in later life than people who had them around when they were growing up. (There are specific health reasons to keep particular substances away from young children, but that's a distinct thing).
    - Freak_NL 8y ago
      With smoking it actually helps prevent children from acquiring the addiction if they grow up in a society where people rarely smoke. Denormalization of smoking has been proven to work.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]