4 ms·
It's funny how you guys are going around accusing everyone who disagrees with the study of being too addicted, while not actually responding to any of the numer
by dotnet00 3y ago
It's funny how you guys are going around accusing everyone who disagrees with the study of being too addicted, while not actually responding to any of the numerous shortcomings of the study people have pointed out here.
Maybe you're the ones too set in your opinion to consider anyone else's?
- ghusto 3y agoFair point, but it's because I'm so tired of these arguments. They all sound like rationalisation of behaviour that the person making the argument exhibits. I don't think anyone making these arguments _doesn't_ exhibit the behaviour they're defending. Think about how emotionally invested someone has to be to say "No this study on _one year old babies_ being negatively effected is nonsense, because it doesn't negatively effect 12 year olds" — of course I'm heavily paraphrasing for effect, but just read some of the comments above.
- zanellato19 3y agoThese are the studies we have. Disregarding evidence that we have because it doesn't follow some specific parameter that you care about means that you are valuing your experience more than studies. By default, why are you assuming that screens for under 2-year-olds are good? What is your evidence here? We have a lot of evidence that it's bad, maybe it's not perfect evidence, but since we don't _any_ evidence to the contrary, it seems bad faith to believe otherwise or intellectual laziness.