> On average, 4+ hours of screen time has a negative effect on babies. That's not what the study showed. It showed that on average, 4+ hours of screen time for

> On average, 4+ hours of screen time has a negative effect on babies. That's not what the study showed. It showed that on average, 4+ hours of screen time for babies is correlated with a negative outcome. Would you also say that on average, ice cream sales has a large effect on shark attacks? Then why do you insist on ignoring the actual causal effect between parental neglect and high screen time and poor educational outcomes? > How do we know they wouldn’t learn how to read anyway with dedicated parents and books? [etc.] You're holding my anecdotes to a higher standard than the research you're citing. How do we know these neglected children wouldn't be equally impaired had they not been put in front of a screen? > Can you give any examples of ‘high-quality’ screen time in babies? I already did under this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37222954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37222954). Children younger than one can start to learn to read from apps that help them learn letter sounds and associate words with pictures and actually read at age 1.