6 ms·

My 5-year old nephew has access to a smart phone along with social media accounts on the major platforms. Is it healthy? Probably not. Neither was my generation

by briga 3y ago

My 5-year old nephew has access to a smart phone along with social media accounts on the major platforms. Is it healthy? Probably not. Neither was my generation binging on TV and video games. But it also gives them access to an absurd wealth of information richer than any library I had growing up. How can a kid's mind not be absolutely entranced by that sort of thing? Telling a kid that they can't have a phone when they see their parents addicted to their phones reeks of "do as I say, not as I do"--I dunno about you but I didn't like being told that as a kid. Maybe early exposure will act as a sort of mental inoculation to addictive algorithms. Maybe it will screw up a generation of kids. Maybe it'll better prepare them for wild changes technology is going to have in their lifetimes. Only time will tell. The experiment has already started

andai 3y ago
The people who built this stuff don't let their own kids touch it. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?
voidhorse 3y ago
This view seems a bit rosy and willfully ignorant of the actual current state of the internet. I think it will spoil most of the batch but the lucky few will come out better for it. Those kids that do have a desire for encyclopedic knowledge may be well served by a smart phone. However, most kids do not have that desire to begin with, and even those that do face problems. Unlike a traditional library, the internet is an ocean full of some information of so-so quality and much of abysmally low quality. A local library will not typically house the latest unedited, unhinged screed of the resident neo-nazi, and if it did, a well-educated librarian could help put it in appropriate context and help reaffirm the community's values. Learning from the internet outside of maybe learning about tech itself (and even the info quality there is in rapid decline imo) is mostly like learning from an encyclopedia authored by conspiracy theorists and village idiots.
- briga 3y ago
  I’m not putting forth any particular prediction. I don’t know how this will turn out (and neither does anyone else). I’m more just resigned to the fact that kids can and will have access to this technology. If their parents don’t let them their friends will
  - voidhorse 3y ago
    True. Honestly, probably the best thing you could do is to start drilling solid information literacy habits, skepticism, and critical reasoning skills into kids sooner rather than later.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  I was watching gore videos when I was 13. I bet lots of others were too. I turned out ok. Survivorship bias isn’t a great way to make an argument, but I’m skeptical of the view that the internet is so much worse now. There isn’t even a liveleak anymore. A family friend was groomed at 9yo. She was pressured into sending nude pics of herself to a 15yo. That kind of thing seems like the real danger for unsuspecting kids, and teaching them from a young age to guard themselves is the strategy I’ll be trying.
  - voidhorse 3y ago
    13 /= 5 (numeral cited in the parent comment). I stated in another comment that I think 8th grade (aka 13) is the appropriate time for internet exposure precisely because it's when I think kids can possibly be exposed to this sort of thing and have it have less of a chance of it being damaging. I think the fact that you cited some of the more severe dangers a younger friend at 9yr faced further illustrates the point. Kids should not have access to the internet until they have access to sufficient information literacy and critical reasoning skills.
  - bobsmooth 3y ago
    >I turned out ok. You sure? I was also a young child on the internet and I think it made me an antisocial shut in that wasn't able to relate to his peers.
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      Have you been screened for autism et al? I used to believe this until I found out I was autistic, which went unnoticed as a kid due to being very wordy, and instead only had my ADHD diagnosed.
      - bobsmooth 3y ago
        I'm not one to blame external factors on my shortcomings.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
JADev62096 3y ago
It's not a given that the parents are addicted to phones. It's also not clear that access to large amounts of information driven by selection pressure of algorithms is automatically a good thing: some of these informational memes drive children to do harmful things (for example, the tide pod challenge).
elzbardico 3y ago
My 10-year kid watches the usual amount of silly stuff on youtube. But from time to time I catch him watching some popular science content. One of these days he gave a very good explanation of what a black hole is during dinner. Then paying attention to him, I found out he is a subscriber to a very entertaining young astronomer's channel and that's where he was learning all that stuff. I sit along with him and engaged with him in the content. On the other hand that are some content producers that are absolute trash, in those cases, I gently persuade my son this is not the best content for him, well, sometimes not so gently, in the worst cases I just lay down the law that he is not to watch that channel anymore. I do it rarely enough that it still works. It is not magic, you just need to parent, the same way you have to do in every other situation in your kid's life that doesn't necessarily involve a screen.
krzyk 3y ago
Does your 5-year old nephew reads?
autoexec 3y ago
> My 5-year old nephew has access to a smart phone along with social media accounts on the major platforms. Is it healthy? Probably not. Neither was my generation binging on TV and video games. But it also gives them access to an absurd wealth of information richer than any library I had growing up. The things that made TV and video games "unhealthy" for you are not the same or even comparable to the threats that make social media unhealthy for kids today. Also, children don't need access to social media to have "an absurd wealth of information richer than any library". That can be obtained elsewhere online. I don't think many people are suggesting that children should be cut off from the internet entirely, but rather that they shouldn't be given constant unsupervised access, or access to platforms run by companies who are devoted to exploiting those children. When I was young, I didn't have the internet, but I was active on a number BBSs. I suppose that could have been considered the "social media" of the day, and I was not supervised while online, it was also an entirely different beast. It was not run by companies who were looking to exploit me, manipulate me, and collect every scrap of my personal data that could be extracted. They were mostly being run by other nerds. It was about community and not profit and exploitation. Early exposure to the internet, to online communities, and to technology in general is important, but no child needs a device in their pocket which is designed primarily to collect/leak personal information and for media consumption to do those things. A cell phone and a facebook account are probably the worst way to achieve those ends anyway. We can do better for our children than to throw them to the wolves.

by briga 3y ago

andai 3y ago

The people who built this stuff don't let their own kids touch it. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?

voidhorse 3y ago

This view seems a bit rosy and willfully ignorant of the actual current state of the internet. I think it will spoil most of the batch but the lucky few will come out better for it. Those kids that do have a desire for encyclopedic knowledge may be well served by a smart phone. However, most kids do not have that desire to begin with, and even those that do face problems. Unlike a traditional library, the internet is an ocean full of some information of so-so quality and much of abysmally low quality. A local library will not typically house the latest unedited, unhinged screed of the resident neo-nazi, and if it did, a well-educated librarian could help put it in appropriate context and help reaffirm the community's values. Learning from the internet outside of maybe learning about tech itself (and even the info quality there is in rapid decline imo) is mostly like learning from an encyclopedia authored by conspiracy theorists and village idiots.

briga 3y ago
I’m not putting forth any particular prediction. I don’t know how this will turn out (and neither does anyone else). I’m more just resigned to the fact that kids can and will have access to this technology. If their parents don’t let them their friends will
- voidhorse 3y ago
  True. Honestly, probably the best thing you could do is to start drilling solid information literacy habits, skepticism, and critical reasoning skills into kids sooner rather than later.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
I was watching gore videos when I was 13. I bet lots of others were too. I turned out ok. Survivorship bias isn’t a great way to make an argument, but I’m skeptical of the view that the internet is so much worse now. There isn’t even a liveleak anymore. A family friend was groomed at 9yo. She was pressured into sending nude pics of herself to a 15yo. That kind of thing seems like the real danger for unsuspecting kids, and teaching them from a young age to guard themselves is the strategy I’ll be trying.
- voidhorse 3y ago
  13 /= 5 (numeral cited in the parent comment). I stated in another comment that I think 8th grade (aka 13) is the appropriate time for internet exposure precisely because it's when I think kids can possibly be exposed to this sort of thing and have it have less of a chance of it being damaging. I think the fact that you cited some of the more severe dangers a younger friend at 9yr faced further illustrates the point. Kids should not have access to the internet until they have access to sufficient information literacy and critical reasoning skills.
- bobsmooth 3y ago
  >I turned out ok. You sure? I was also a young child on the internet and I think it made me an antisocial shut in that wasn't able to relate to his peers.
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    Have you been screened for autism et al? I used to believe this until I found out I was autistic, which went unnoticed as a kid due to being very wordy, and instead only had my ADHD diagnosed.
    - bobsmooth 3y ago
      I'm not one to blame external factors on my shortcomings.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

JADev62096 3y ago

It's not a given that the parents are addicted to phones. It's also not clear that access to large amounts of information driven by selection pressure of algorithms is automatically a good thing: some of these informational memes drive children to do harmful things (for example, the tide pod challenge).

elzbardico 3y ago

My 10-year kid watches the usual amount of silly stuff on youtube. But from time to time I catch him watching some popular science content. One of these days he gave a very good explanation of what a black hole is during dinner. Then paying attention to him, I found out he is a subscriber to a very entertaining young astronomer's channel and that's where he was learning all that stuff. I sit along with him and engaged with him in the content. On the other hand that are some content producers that are absolute trash, in those cases, I gently persuade my son this is not the best content for him, well, sometimes not so gently, in the worst cases I just lay down the law that he is not to watch that channel anymore. I do it rarely enough that it still works. It is not magic, you just need to parent, the same way you have to do in every other situation in your kid's life that doesn't necessarily involve a screen.

krzyk 3y ago

Does your 5-year old nephew reads?

autoexec 3y ago

> My 5-year old nephew has access to a smart phone along with social media accounts on the major platforms. Is it healthy? Probably not. Neither was my generation binging on TV and video games. But it also gives them access to an absurd wealth of information richer than any library I had growing up. The things that made TV and video games "unhealthy" for you are not the same or even comparable to the threats that make social media unhealthy for kids today. Also, children don't need access to social media to have "an absurd wealth of information richer than any library". That can be obtained elsewhere online. I don't think many people are suggesting that children should be cut off from the internet entirely, but rather that they shouldn't be given constant unsupervised access, or access to platforms run by companies who are devoted to exploiting those children. When I was young, I didn't have the internet, but I was active on a number BBSs. I suppose that could have been considered the "social media" of the day, and I was not supervised while online, it was also an entirely different beast. It was not run by companies who were looking to exploit me, manipulate me, and collect every scrap of my personal data that could be extracted. They were mostly being run by other nerds. It was about community and not profit and exploitation. Early exposure to the internet, to online communities, and to technology in general is important, but no child needs a device in their pocket which is designed primarily to collect/leak personal information and for media consumption to do those things. A cell phone and a facebook account are probably the worst way to achieve those ends anyway. We can do better for our children than to throw them to the wolves.