This is incredibly light on real resources and data, and very heavy on over the top language. I'm willing to believe that screen time should be limited - but t

This is incredibly light on real resources and data, and very heavy on over the top language. I'm willing to believe that screen time should be limited - but this is hardly a compelling piece. Come back with real data, and the ACTUAL studies/methodologies and maybe it would be worth reading. --- Here - I'll do the work for them, since they don't seem to really be interested in a real discussion: The first quoted Doctor is Patricia Kuhl - The quote "What we’ve discovered is that little babies, under a year old, do not learn from a machine" Yet when you look through her recent published work - I see an entirely different and more nuanced view: Ex - http://ilabs.uw.edu/sites/default/files/2019_kuhl_lim_etal_developingmindsinthedigitalagebook.pdf http://ilabs.uw.edu/sites/default/files/2019_kuhl_lim_etal_d... A recently published book advocating for digital learning. Including the use of many screen based digital tools. Or http://ilabs.uw.edu/sites/default/files/2018_lytle_garcia-sierra_kuhl_twoarebetterthanone_NAS.pdf http://ilabs.uw.edu/sites/default/files/2018_lytle_garcia-si... Which states that infants don't learn well from a screen alone, but do much better when another peer is present - DRASTICALLY different than "infants don't learn from screens". --- So my take from this: Babies don't learn communication/language skills well from screens in isolation. This is insightful and helpful, but an entirely different message than what's conveyed in the published piece. It seems the screen is fine - Just the screen by itself is not.