3 ms·
Yes of course it's important to note that screens are huge enablers of passive consumption. But the way we name things is important. Calling it passive consump
by Misdicorl 7y ago
Yes of course it's important to note that screens are huge enablers of passive consumption.
But the way we name things is important. Calling it passive consumption yields all sorts of interesting questions. Is the sickness of Facebook/Instagram any different from that of Netflix/YouTube? How about than Fox news? Does it actually matter what age you are? How much is bad? Does live theater count? What about a concert?
Parents deserve the nuanced result/questions when deciding what is right for their children and selves (if indeed my supposition is correct ish). Calling it screen time is lazy science until it is shown to be unique to screens (which would be an immense surprise to me)
- satyrnein 7y agoI would have thought Facebook contained interaction, competition, and surprise, for better or worse.
- Misdicorl 7y agoOnly if you're publishing a lot. I think most users mostly just scroll through their feed. Nonetheless I see your point. Perhaps there is an interesting distinction! Maybe worth investigating, and not particularly suggested by a 'screens are bad' line of thinking
- teunispeters 7y agorelated: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39354-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39354-4