4 ms·
It's ironic to me that "safetyism" is mixed in with screen time because it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas. For example, every middle
by wvenable 3y ago
It's ironic to me that "safetyism" is mixed in with screen time because it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas. For example, every middle school teacher in the country knows about Andrew Tate through their students.
- smcin 3y agoYou're conflating many many things, and between university and middle school (ages 10-14) children, also conflating the huge difference between them theoretically having "access to" ideas or people, versus getting recommended that several times an hour by online recommender systems, feed from friends etc. I think you're quite aware there are severely different legal considerations on content access to under-13s, 13-17s, and over-18s, in most jurisdictions.
- wvenable 3y agoI didn't conflate those things, the article did. I pointed out that in my original comment. But I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say; it seems like you're agreeing with me. As for legal considerations, it doesn't appear to matter that much.
- smcin 3y agoI disagreed emphatically with claiming "it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas." Most children online consume media and follow recommendations, ads and friend feeds, rather than intentionally searching for topics in a structured and coherent way. Doomscrolling, bingeing, mindless zombie mode, whatever. We may not like it but you're aware that's the way it actually is. As for legal considerations, it does matter: they define/limit the ability of YT, FB, TT et al. to build a profile and blend recommendations, ads and organic content. More so for under-18s and under-13s, more so where there are privacy laws (GDPR). If the US actually passed meaningful privacy laws this would have more effect.