6 ms·

Or just don't let them use it. A lot of verbiage there; no reason to let your child use social media. I wonder if they've been lobbied.

by b800h 3y ago

omginternets 3y ago
I think they were probably just asked to be as accurate as they could, and no more. There's no clear and compelling reason for a blanket recommendation to avoid social media altogether. But I'm largely with you. As a practical matter, it's easier just to avoid it entirely.
- bilqis 3y ago
  Kids may be socially isolated if they’re not present online.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - uoaei 3y ago
    That doesn't happen in a vacuum. Parents are responsible for enabling their childrens' social lives, it's part of their duties as parents. Friends live far away? Organize with other parents to drive kids back and forth, or go home together from school. You live in SFZ suburbia? Well, that requires a more drastic change but it's doable.
  - b800h 3y ago
    I think the downsides outweight the upsides. If they're doing sports and clubs, the social isolation will be minimal, other children will have phone bans too, and they won't be at risk from a load of horrendous stuff online.
    - bnj 3y ago
      I’ve experienced a lot of exasperation recently as the sports and clubs that my kids are involved with only communicate the practice schedule and meeting times over WhatsApp.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    If a parent takes the intervening effort to limit time online, they can take the intervening effort to ensure their child takes part in social activities. The connection is not lost on them. Social media is addicting in large part because kids are addicted to each other. It's often used as a substitute for hanging out. That barrier doesn't need to be there all the time. Adults get complacent with tech and will bias towards the convenience of staying at home versus going out-into-the-world to do things - if we want to lead by example, changing our own lifestyle helps, but simply accommodating a kid's extra-curriculars will get you out of the house too. And really, if you prevent a kid from watching 3 hours of television, are they going to do "nothing" instead? No, they'll figure something out to keep entertained. By the same token, they'll want to satisfy their social needs. One problem is that opting for online chat can be a defense mechanism against going out and being vulnerable in front of other people.
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      Are you pro or anti Remote/Work From Home?
      - slothtrop 3y ago
        Pro do what you want. Personally I end up working from a coffee shop once a week, I'd be alright with flexible hybrid. I do get some social needs met from family, but I clearly benefit from getting out of the house. With kids, it's easier this way than having your own weekly extra-curriculars (though I try to set time for some). Friends in this city are few and weekends get repetitive.
  - 31337Logic 3y ago
    That's true only if the majority of kids spend the majority of their time online. It's a circular argument. And while one might argue that that is indeed the case today, the question is SHOULD it be the case, tomorrow? I think it's just an objective fact: given the way social media sites intentionally try to grab and hold onto our attention at any cost, the cons far outweigh the pros and we all (not just children) would be better off consuming less social media. Once the media companies restructure their business model and make their platforms more ethical and sustainable for society, then I have no problem with widespread adoption again.
  - tboyd47 3y ago
    Yet, this argument doesn't seem persuasive to the creators of such technology. https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-screen-time-children-bill-gates-steve-jobs-2019-9#google-ceo-sundar-pichais-middle-school-aged-son-doesnt-own-a-cell-phone-and-the-tv-can-only-be-accessed-with-activation-energy-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-screen-time-child...
  - omginternets 3y ago
    Maybe. And maybe you can work around that. It's a judgement call.
kingkawn 3y ago
lobbied by their children, as i've seen in all my friends who've tried to limit internet access with their pre-teen and teenage kids
- b800h 3y ago
  Hah. I might be a terrible curmudgeon, but my answer is just a flat no.
  - kingkawn 3y ago
    Hope it works out once they're free of you
    - sarchertech 3y ago
      Then they’ll be adults and hopefully able to manage their social media use better than children can. Worst case, they’ll be no worse off than those of us who came of age before social media existed.
hexis 3y ago
There’s zero chance this message was not shaped by social media companies. Any message like this, regarding any industry, would get that industry’s input. That said, it sure seems like social media companies got this to be as neutral as they possibly could, considering the very strong evidence that social media is extremely bad for kids. We’re definitely soft rebooting the tobacco experience, this time with psychology instead of lungs.
- b800h 3y ago
  In the UK the standard combination appears to be vapes and Tiktok.
- basch 3y ago
  It's interesting to see beauty, appearance, and eating disorders called out, along with racism and bullying, but little else. Those are absolutely problems, and rabbit holes to keep out of, but I'm not sure that calling some specifics out really encompasses the whole problems, or the higher level problems that exist above the topic of content. At a higher level, short video content has become a super refined version of americas funniest home videos and mtv. There is no narrative between videos, and it just constantly presses the dopamine button. Then you get the split videos where you have a sensory video playing alongside someone talking. It also doesn't talk about faux excitement. Every other youtuber that isnt Miss Rachel is yelling or screaming, and basically producing entire videos of hysterical feigning of shock, mouth agasp. That transcends nearly any topic. It also doesnt talk about learning to navigate youtube vs being fed youtube by youtube. It also doesnt talk about advertising, especially the organicish kind. Teaching kids that the video about a guy making pancakes with Prime is a Prime ad. It also doesnt talk about replacing friends with celebrities.
flangola7 3y ago
A vital amount of social interaction that kids and young adults experience is online. For reclusive or socially anxious individuals it may even be the majority of interaction. It isn't like how it was 20 or even 10 years ago, blanket banning will leave them significantly socially isolated and stunted. IME anyone over the age of 25 will not fully appreciate this unless they regularly interact with and (critically!) actively listen to what kids have to say.
- tgv 3y ago
  Taking away heroin from addicted people will leave them feeling bad. That's not a reason to keep supplying it to them. > blanket banning will leave them significantly socially isolated If they get that much of their interaction online, they're already socially isolated. That it happens to be called social media doesn't mean it's actually social.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Unilaterally taking heroin away from individuals (especially without investing in the necessary support structures) is also a wrong and doomed strategy (I think everyone here is familiar with the abject disaster that was the War on Drugs), so that's not very encouraging. Government does have a place here, but it's in the form of banning hyperoptimizing attention/advertising algorithms and other business models that rely on precision crafted human manipulation, not micromanaging as a parental stand-in.
    - tgv 3y ago
      But it's not a reason to just keep supplying addicts with heroin, which is the implied laissez-faire solution of the parent comment. > the War on Drugs That's not a one-dimensional topic, and in the case of social media, the suppliers are very, very well known.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Ok, so if the world has changed to the point where these kids cannot live satisfied lives without their phones… then we need to start progressively raising the voting age now so they never have any input into how the rest of us live. We can make them leper colonies filled with screens with up-arrows to click on.
EvanAnderson 3y ago
Agreed. It might help the mental health of the parents, and increase interaction with their children, if they cut back on their social media use themselves. It would definitely serve as a good example. (I realize I'm saying this via a social media channel while being a father. I get that it's not easy. I am also aware I'm committing hypocrisy.) My wife and I promised each other not to "share" much (and absolutely no photos) about our child on the Internet (even as the child, getting older, has started asking us to "share" things). I think not being able to use my child for sweet, sweet Internet points was useful in helping me disengage from the least rewarding, most mentally taxing social media (which, for me, was Facebook). I caught myself replying HN comments during evening read aloud time. I decided to start using the dedicated e-reader, instead of my phone, so that it won't happen again.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
barbazoo 3y ago
What's the downside, kids miss out, might be excluded by their peers maybe even bullied? Would the parent/child relationship suffer? But would the compound effect be better or worse than exposing a young child to social media? I have no idea but my gut feeling is that people would be better off overall without social media. Just a gut feeling though and we shouldn't make policies based on gut feelings obviously.
- Brusco_RF 3y ago
  You don't need to go to the extreme in either direction. Everything is fine in moderation. Kids are terrible at moderating (adults aren't great either), so use the screen time limits that Apple gives you.
trasz4 3y ago
No reason to let your child any media, unless you want them to be literate or sth. And social media is less harmful than some traditional ones. It's just that you've been conditioned by the traditional ones to believe they are somehow normal.
concordDance 3y ago
> no reason to let your child use social media. It's nowhere near that simple unless you're living with the Amish. No social media results in isolation from peers, a cure worse than the disease.
- Minor49er 3y ago
  What's stopping kids from simply hanging out with one another?
  - ohdannyboy 3y ago
    Culture has changed a lot since we were kids. Online communication is integral, disturbingly so since covid. They'll still hang out, but less than we did and they'll miss a lot since everyone except them was part of the online component. Pre-social-media I grew up with no TV, only Christian music, limited movies and a whole host of other things that isolated me from my peers. It didn't do anything but build resentment towards my parents and make me thankful they have no say in my life anymore. I don't now the best approach with kids these days since I don't have any. But I strongly doubt it's the "strict no" route.

Or just don't let them use it. A lot of verbiage there; no reason to let your child use social media. I wonder if they've been lobbied.

by b800h 3y ago

Or just don't let them use it. A lot of verbiage there; no reason to let your child use social media. I wonder if they've been lobbied.

omginternets 3y ago

I think they were probably just asked to be as accurate as they could, and no more. There's no clear and compelling reason for a blanket recommendation to avoid social media altogether. But I'm largely with you. As a practical matter, it's easier just to avoid it entirely.

bilqis 3y ago
Kids may be socially isolated if they’re not present online.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- uoaei 3y ago
  That doesn't happen in a vacuum. Parents are responsible for enabling their childrens' social lives, it's part of their duties as parents. Friends live far away? Organize with other parents to drive kids back and forth, or go home together from school. You live in SFZ suburbia? Well, that requires a more drastic change but it's doable.
- b800h 3y ago
  I think the downsides outweight the upsides. If they're doing sports and clubs, the social isolation will be minimal, other children will have phone bans too, and they won't be at risk from a load of horrendous stuff online.
  - bnj 3y ago
    I’ve experienced a lot of exasperation recently as the sports and clubs that my kids are involved with only communicate the practice schedule and meeting times over WhatsApp.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  If a parent takes the intervening effort to limit time online, they can take the intervening effort to ensure their child takes part in social activities. The connection is not lost on them. Social media is addicting in large part because kids are addicted to each other. It's often used as a substitute for hanging out. That barrier doesn't need to be there all the time. Adults get complacent with tech and will bias towards the convenience of staying at home versus going out-into-the-world to do things - if we want to lead by example, changing our own lifestyle helps, but simply accommodating a kid's extra-curriculars will get you out of the house too. And really, if you prevent a kid from watching 3 hours of television, are they going to do "nothing" instead? No, they'll figure something out to keep entertained. By the same token, they'll want to satisfy their social needs. One problem is that opting for online chat can be a defense mechanism against going out and being vulnerable in front of other people.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    Are you pro or anti Remote/Work From Home?
    - slothtrop 3y ago
      Pro do what you want. Personally I end up working from a coffee shop once a week, I'd be alright with flexible hybrid. I do get some social needs met from family, but I clearly benefit from getting out of the house. With kids, it's easier this way than having your own weekly extra-curriculars (though I try to set time for some). Friends in this city are few and weekends get repetitive.
- 31337Logic 3y ago
  That's true only if the majority of kids spend the majority of their time online. It's a circular argument. And while one might argue that that is indeed the case today, the question is SHOULD it be the case, tomorrow? I think it's just an objective fact: given the way social media sites intentionally try to grab and hold onto our attention at any cost, the cons far outweigh the pros and we all (not just children) would be better off consuming less social media. Once the media companies restructure their business model and make their platforms more ethical and sustainable for society, then I have no problem with widespread adoption again.
- tboyd47 3y ago
  Yet, this argument doesn't seem persuasive to the creators of such technology. https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-screen-time-children-bill-gates-steve-jobs-2019-9#google-ceo-sundar-pichais-middle-school-aged-son-doesnt-own-a-cell-phone-and-the-tv-can-only-be-accessed-with-activation-energy-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-screen-time-child...
- omginternets 3y ago
  Maybe. And maybe you can work around that. It's a judgement call.

kingkawn 3y ago

lobbied by their children, as i've seen in all my friends who've tried to limit internet access with their pre-teen and teenage kids

b800h 3y ago
Hah. I might be a terrible curmudgeon, but my answer is just a flat no.
- kingkawn 3y ago
  Hope it works out once they're free of you
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    Then they’ll be adults and hopefully able to manage their social media use better than children can. Worst case, they’ll be no worse off than those of us who came of age before social media existed.

hexis 3y ago

There’s zero chance this message was not shaped by social media companies. Any message like this, regarding any industry, would get that industry’s input. That said, it sure seems like social media companies got this to be as neutral as they possibly could, considering the very strong evidence that social media is extremely bad for kids. We’re definitely soft rebooting the tobacco experience, this time with psychology instead of lungs.

b800h 3y ago
In the UK the standard combination appears to be vapes and Tiktok.
basch 3y ago
It's interesting to see beauty, appearance, and eating disorders called out, along with racism and bullying, but little else. Those are absolutely problems, and rabbit holes to keep out of, but I'm not sure that calling some specifics out really encompasses the whole problems, or the higher level problems that exist above the topic of content. At a higher level, short video content has become a super refined version of americas funniest home videos and mtv. There is no narrative between videos, and it just constantly presses the dopamine button. Then you get the split videos where you have a sensory video playing alongside someone talking. It also doesn't talk about faux excitement. Every other youtuber that isnt Miss Rachel is yelling or screaming, and basically producing entire videos of hysterical feigning of shock, mouth agasp. That transcends nearly any topic. It also doesnt talk about learning to navigate youtube vs being fed youtube by youtube. It also doesnt talk about advertising, especially the organicish kind. Teaching kids that the video about a guy making pancakes with Prime is a Prime ad. It also doesnt talk about replacing friends with celebrities.

flangola7 3y ago

A vital amount of social interaction that kids and young adults experience is online. For reclusive or socially anxious individuals it may even be the majority of interaction. It isn't like how it was 20 or even 10 years ago, blanket banning will leave them significantly socially isolated and stunted. IME anyone over the age of 25 will not fully appreciate this unless they regularly interact with and (critically!) actively listen to what kids have to say.

tgv 3y ago
Taking away heroin from addicted people will leave them feeling bad. That's not a reason to keep supplying it to them. > blanket banning will leave them significantly socially isolated If they get that much of their interaction online, they're already socially isolated. That it happens to be called social media doesn't mean it's actually social.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Unilaterally taking heroin away from individuals (especially without investing in the necessary support structures) is also a wrong and doomed strategy (I think everyone here is familiar with the abject disaster that was the War on Drugs), so that's not very encouraging. Government does have a place here, but it's in the form of banning hyperoptimizing attention/advertising algorithms and other business models that rely on precision crafted human manipulation, not micromanaging as a parental stand-in.
  - tgv 3y ago
    But it's not a reason to just keep supplying addicts with heroin, which is the implied laissez-faire solution of the parent comment. > the War on Drugs That's not a one-dimensional topic, and in the case of social media, the suppliers are very, very well known.
williamcotton 3y ago
Ok, so if the world has changed to the point where these kids cannot live satisfied lives without their phones… then we need to start progressively raising the voting age now so they never have any input into how the rest of us live. We can make them leper colonies filled with screens with up-arrows to click on.

EvanAnderson 3y ago

Agreed. It might help the mental health of the parents, and increase interaction with their children, if they cut back on their social media use themselves. It would definitely serve as a good example. (I realize I'm saying this via a social media channel while being a father. I get that it's not easy. I am also aware I'm committing hypocrisy.) My wife and I promised each other not to "share" much (and absolutely no photos) about our child on the Internet (even as the child, getting older, has started asking us to "share" things). I think not being able to use my child for sweet, sweet Internet points was useful in helping me disengage from the least rewarding, most mentally taxing social media (which, for me, was Facebook). I caught myself replying HN comments during evening read aloud time. I decided to start using the dedicated e-reader, instead of my phone, so that it won't happen again.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

barbazoo 3y ago

What's the downside, kids miss out, might be excluded by their peers maybe even bullied? Would the parent/child relationship suffer? But would the compound effect be better or worse than exposing a young child to social media? I have no idea but my gut feeling is that people would be better off overall without social media. Just a gut feeling though and we shouldn't make policies based on gut feelings obviously.

Brusco_RF 3y ago
You don't need to go to the extreme in either direction. Everything is fine in moderation. Kids are terrible at moderating (adults aren't great either), so use the screen time limits that Apple gives you.

trasz4 3y ago

No reason to let your child any media, unless you want them to be literate or sth. And social media is less harmful than some traditional ones. It's just that you've been conditioned by the traditional ones to believe they are somehow normal.

concordDance 3y ago

> no reason to let your child use social media. It's nowhere near that simple unless you're living with the Amish. No social media results in isolation from peers, a cure worse than the disease.

Minor49er 3y ago
What's stopping kids from simply hanging out with one another?
- ohdannyboy 3y ago
  Culture has changed a lot since we were kids. Online communication is integral, disturbingly so since covid. They'll still hang out, but less than we did and they'll miss a lot since everyone except them was part of the online component. Pre-social-media I grew up with no TV, only Christian music, limited movies and a whole host of other things that isolated me from my peers. It didn't do anything but build resentment towards my parents and make me thankful they have no say in my life anymore. I don't now the best approach with kids these days since I don't have any. But I strongly doubt it's the "strict no" route.