5 ms·

Lots of bad stuff. But Capitalism, our one-and-only True God, is making sure that it's all for the Greater Profit - so we shouldn't worry about it. Or even th

Lots of bad stuff. But Capitalism, our one-and-only True God, is making sure that it's all for the Greater Profit - so we shouldn't worry about it. Or even think about it - to do so would both inefficient, and non-revenue-generating. Meanwhile, back at the coalface - could the "Protect children from screens!" crusaders spare a thought or few for the non-0.01% parents, whose kids need healthy alternative to screen time? The great & unwashed 99.99% can't just order their 24/7 nannies to keep the kids busy without screens, or their security staff to drive the tykes to the park and supervise their play there.

djtango 3y ago
There was a brief period where it was fairly attainable to have a family supported by a single parent which meant one parent had the time, energy and head space to do those kinds of things for the children and also attend to other family affairs.
- treyd 3y ago
  And this brief period happened right after the government was heavily involved in managing the economy, bypassing normal market conventions, and building huge amounts of infrastructure to support the war effort.
- datascienced 3y ago
  1950s?
- bell-cot 3y ago
  I was thinking of the far, far longer time when it was okay - in most places - to let your kids freely roam the neighborhood to play. Or to walk to & home from school by themselves. Or to send 'em half a mile to a grocery store, because "I'd like to make some cookies, dear, but we're low on flour...". (No comment on how often I bought such stories from my mom:)
constantcrying 3y ago
Blaming random things on "capitalism" is neither helpful nor interesting. No, this isn't the fault of capitalism. Any social system would suffer from young people too invested in an online world. The class division doesn't even make senses, previously "anti-capitalist" we're protesting about poorer children having less access to information technology, now that capitalism has largely fixed this and nearly everyone has access to a phone, the "anti-capitalist" complain that only the rich can afford not to give their kids phones. This is literal nonsense. Capitalism isn't preventing kids from spending time outside, it even sells them what they need to do so.
- licebmi__at__ 3y ago
  It’s hard to imagine a scenario of young people getting pushed a skinner machine without any real pushback. But in this case, it’s possible because advertising companies can pay top bucks to the brightest minds to make their platforms as much addictive as possible, and criticism is deflected by a combination of appeal to personal responsibility, and the ideology that political collective action is bad and profit seeking is good. I guess we can find an alternative scenario, yet is hard to argue that it isn’t capitalist ideology what brought us here this time.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    Since this phenomenon is taking place at basically every part of the globe either capitalism is so all consuming that escape is not possible or it is a universal human phenomenon. Again, the same people blaming capitalism for too much phone use have in the past blamed capitalism for disadvantaging the poor by gatekeeping access to technology. The whole critique is incoherent and unhelpful. Instead of trying to find actual solutions the blame is put on a vague concept. So vague that is can cause anything, too much phones, too little phones and anything else you can imagine. It is just a very lazy thought process. The truth is that markets will always exist and that humans will always seek pleasure in unheayways, phones are just one instance, but so are drugs, online gambling, prostitution, etc. If you blame capitalism you can't solve anything, because the change required to change anything would be so great as to guarantee it will never happen.
wizzwizz4 3y ago
Snark aside, your point is valid. If a parent has time to take their child to the local park regularly (i.e., at the same phase of a periodic cycle, e.g. from 13:00 to 14:00 on Wednesdays), that can act as a Schelling point for other parents in the area. In places that are not large cities and do not have stroads, it can be safe for children to play outside in groups, largely unsupervised. However, I don't think this will be common again (per capita) for at least another 50 years: even just cars are getting more dangerous for children.
- theothermelissa 3y ago
  Agreed. A lot of convos about kids playing outside point to human dangers -- predators, bullying, kidnapping -- as the "reason" many parents don't let their kids play outside unsupervised, but imo the actual deciding factor is usually traffic. It seems like a neighborhood design problem to me, at least in the newish suburbs I'm most familiar with. By optimizing for easy-to-drive neighborhoods with large driveways, more of the available space is dedicated specifically to car traffic, leaving less for open or common space. Fenced yards are fun to play in IF you already have playmates -- but without a common place to meet new kids, that can be much more challenging.
ghusto 3y ago
Consider how my family was able to handle it, growing up on a council estate (kind of like a ghetto, in America) in the 80s. Sure there was probably more T.V. than was healthy, but there was as much quality time as possible. Nowadays we say negligent parenting (yes, I believe putting your kid in front of a screen all day is negligent) is acceptable, and move on. Stop blaming circumstance. I know there are alternatives, because here I am.

djtango 3y ago

There was a brief period where it was fairly attainable to have a family supported by a single parent which meant one parent had the time, energy and head space to do those kinds of things for the children and also attend to other family affairs.

treyd 3y ago
And this brief period happened right after the government was heavily involved in managing the economy, bypassing normal market conventions, and building huge amounts of infrastructure to support the war effort.
datascienced 3y ago
1950s?
bell-cot 3y ago
I was thinking of the far, far longer time when it was okay - in most places - to let your kids freely roam the neighborhood to play. Or to walk to & home from school by themselves. Or to send 'em half a mile to a grocery store, because "I'd like to make some cookies, dear, but we're low on flour...". (No comment on how often I bought such stories from my mom:)

constantcrying 3y ago

Blaming random things on "capitalism" is neither helpful nor interesting. No, this isn't the fault of capitalism. Any social system would suffer from young people too invested in an online world. The class division doesn't even make senses, previously "anti-capitalist" we're protesting about poorer children having less access to information technology, now that capitalism has largely fixed this and nearly everyone has access to a phone, the "anti-capitalist" complain that only the rich can afford not to give their kids phones. This is literal nonsense. Capitalism isn't preventing kids from spending time outside, it even sells them what they need to do so.

licebmi__at__ 3y ago
It’s hard to imagine a scenario of young people getting pushed a skinner machine without any real pushback. But in this case, it’s possible because advertising companies can pay top bucks to the brightest minds to make their platforms as much addictive as possible, and criticism is deflected by a combination of appeal to personal responsibility, and the ideology that political collective action is bad and profit seeking is good. I guess we can find an alternative scenario, yet is hard to argue that it isn’t capitalist ideology what brought us here this time.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  Since this phenomenon is taking place at basically every part of the globe either capitalism is so all consuming that escape is not possible or it is a universal human phenomenon. Again, the same people blaming capitalism for too much phone use have in the past blamed capitalism for disadvantaging the poor by gatekeeping access to technology. The whole critique is incoherent and unhelpful. Instead of trying to find actual solutions the blame is put on a vague concept. So vague that is can cause anything, too much phones, too little phones and anything else you can imagine. It is just a very lazy thought process. The truth is that markets will always exist and that humans will always seek pleasure in unheayways, phones are just one instance, but so are drugs, online gambling, prostitution, etc. If you blame capitalism you can't solve anything, because the change required to change anything would be so great as to guarantee it will never happen.

wizzwizz4 3y ago

Snark aside, your point is valid. If a parent has time to take their child to the local park regularly (i.e., at the same phase of a periodic cycle, e.g. from 13:00 to 14:00 on Wednesdays), that can act as a Schelling point for other parents in the area. In places that are not large cities and do not have stroads, it can be safe for children to play outside in groups, largely unsupervised. However, I don't think this will be common again (per capita) for at least another 50 years: even just cars are getting more dangerous for children.

theothermelissa 3y ago
Agreed. A lot of convos about kids playing outside point to human dangers -- predators, bullying, kidnapping -- as the "reason" many parents don't let their kids play outside unsupervised, but imo the actual deciding factor is usually traffic. It seems like a neighborhood design problem to me, at least in the newish suburbs I'm most familiar with. By optimizing for easy-to-drive neighborhoods with large driveways, more of the available space is dedicated specifically to car traffic, leaving less for open or common space. Fenced yards are fun to play in IF you already have playmates -- but without a common place to meet new kids, that can be much more challenging.

ghusto 3y ago

Consider how my family was able to handle it, growing up on a council estate (kind of like a ghetto, in America) in the 80s. Sure there was probably more T.V. than was healthy, but there was as much quality time as possible. Nowadays we say negligent parenting (yes, I believe putting your kid in front of a screen all day is negligent) is acceptable, and move on. Stop blaming circumstance. I know there are alternatives, because here I am.