5 ms·
The dilemma parents are grappling with is this: tablets and smartphones, while beneficial for children's learning and socializing, also expose them to constant
by Curvature5868 3y ago
The dilemma parents are grappling with is this: tablets and smartphones, while beneficial for children's learning and socializing, also expose them to constant marketing and propaganda, even within the confines of their bedrooms, as they attempt to connect with peers or complete tasks.
Previously, children's exposure to marketing and propaganda was mostly confined to their entertainment hours, during which they watched television or read magazines. There was at least some hope for moderation. However, "apps" have blurred these boundaries, as the same devices used for education and social interaction are also channels for persistent advertising and messaging, making it harder to limit exposure to just "entertainment" time.
- LesZedCB 3y ago> while beneficial for children's learning and socializing citation needed? or are we just assuming because, well, there's education and social information and apps available on them?
- Curvature5868 3y agoI think it is hard to argue that you can't learn anything or socialize on your phone.
- atoav 3y agoThis is not what needs to be argued. What needs to be argued is that the form of socializing and learning that can only can come through phones/tablets is worth the negative aspects. As someone who grew up just before smartphones became a thing, I kinda also managed using books and shit.
- HDThoreaun 3y agono, the claim was that phones and tablets make it easier to learn and socialize, not that you can't without them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- atoav 3y agoYeah, and doping makes it easier to win the school soccer game — still few would consider letting their kids do it. That is because the trade offs involved are not worth it at all compared to winning by just training harder. Don't get me wrong, I am not dogmatically against smartphones/tablets for kids and I understand the pressures parents operate under, but if you want to figure out whether it is good to let your kids do X vs not doing it, you should probably take into account: - what are the benefits? (claimed: easier learning and socializing, but also: parents don't need to deal with their kids) - what are the downsides? (there are man studies linking e.g. depression to excessive smartphone use in kids, also: parents don't deal with their kids, smartphones are mostly used for consumption, hard to monitor where the algorithm takes them) - are there any alternatives that have similar advantages while having less of the bad stuff? (I mentioned books, but of course it might be even feasible to limit the amart phone use to certain times of the day etc.) And then you weigh those for yourself and decide. This was the point of my post before.
- akprasad 3y agoI take the parent comment's point as "beneficial for children's learning and socializing" as compared to the status quo ante.
- Curvature5868 3y agoUnderstood. I probably should have said "potentially beneficial". A phone is a tool. It can be used or abused like any other.
- wildrhythms 3y agoThey aren't arguing that at all.
- amelius 3y agoWell, the thing you should show is whether a phone allows you to better learn or socialize than without a phone.
- raccoonDivider 3y agoIt's definitely harder to socialize when all your classmates have smartphones and you don't, but you mostly need access to personal messaging apps. TikTok or a Facebook/Twitter feed full of people you don't know IRL are where the problems come from and they aren't needed. If only there was a way of splitting those out into separate apps. Basically we need more things like Facebook's push a few years ago to show more personal updates from close friends and less mass-shared political posts from organizations.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoeducation is debatable, but I don't think there's any argument to be made that social life isnt degraded without a phone. High schoolers won't be invited to things if they don't have access to a smartphone.
- gwbas1c 3y ago> citation needed This isn't Wikipedia. It's a casual internet forum, and you don't need someone to come armed with mountains of proof for casual (and obvious) statements. BTW: One of my kids learned to read by playing a Cookie Monster word game during the pandemic. We've had enough "edutainment" software for a few decades that you don't need to ask for proof in a casual atmosphere.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lossolo 3y ago> The dilemma parents are grappling with is this: tablets and smartphones, while beneficial for children's learning and socializing Recent reports from teachers indicate that many children are intellectually behind their peers. A concerning trend is that these children struggle to hold conversations, a problem attributed to their parents phone/social networks addiction. Rather than engaging and raising their children through conversation and interaction, these parents often resort to pacifying them with tablets or phones.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoYeah. I think this is the real problem. Electronics let parents slack off on parenting but electronics do not replace socialization.
- LargeTomato 3y agoWhat do you mean they struggle to hold conversations? I was an awkward kid and you could say I struggled to hold conversations but it wasn't due to an addiction to tech. I'm also socially well adjusted now, as an adult.
- steakknife 3y agoThere can be multiple reasons for the same outcome in a complex system. Prevalence of social awkwardness at certain developmental stages due to variances in individual immutable developmental schedules should remain stable over short time frames. Unless you think the researchers/teachers are incompetent enough to have not accounted for the baseline levels of social awkwardness, then the fact that some people are awkward because genetics or whatever is an irrelevant point to make.
- LargeTomato 3y ago> Unless you think the researchers/teachers are incompetent Well the original post said > Recent reports from teachers indicate I don't think teachers are incompetent but they aren't researchers.