5 ms·

My God, it's a psycho-social catastrophe waiting to happen, not unlike the mid-century cigarette health catastrophe. I go out in the world and see not just adul

My God, it's a psycho-social catastrophe waiting to happen, not unlike the mid-century cigarette health catastrophe. I go out in the world and see not just adults sitting around a table staring at screens and not interacting, but parents and children. Particularly small children put in front of an iPad and then summarily ignored. It's cruel and inhumane and I admit that I judge these parents harshly for their neglect. I have two kids, 5 and 7, and they use screens but sparingly. Mostly they use them to Facetime relatives and create art and animation with KidPix. They mostly color and play in the real world. They are well socialized, smart and I daresay they are and will remain ahead of any other kids who are addicted to screens by their parents. The problem is if screens rot an entire population of minds, the remaining few will be powerless to help the decline. Like the old saw, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it." Screens need to be regulated like cigarettes, sooner rather than later.

_heimdall 2y ago
> Screens need to be regulated like cigarettes, sooner rather than later. I also would prefer to see the average kid spend a lot less time on screens. Interestingly I have a totally different take on the "how" though. I don't thing regulation will do a damn thing in the long run, nor do I think we should accept the few people in charge making such a fundamental decision for us. We didn't need cigarette regulation, we needed informed consent. People choosing to smoke needed to know what the known risks were. Regulation of cigarettes themselves were a cop out when those in charge failed to hold cigarette companies liable for lying to the public. Had it not taken decades for the truth about what was known, and covered up, by cigarette companies we would have been in a much better spot in my opinion. What's that mean for screens? For starters, I'd say anyone in a leadership position at major tech companies that leverage their wealth and power to shield their own children from the very tech they sell to everyone else's kids should be held criminally liable. If, for example, major tech leaders happen to send their kids to private schools designed specifically to minimize screens and technology in the classroom, they damn well know its a problem and are keeping that from the public.
- gizmo686 2y ago
  So, instead of regulating the industry, you would to hold industry leaders criminally liable for how they operate in an unregulated industry?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    No, they'd be held liable for lying to the public about the risks of the products they are trying to sell. If you know smoking can cause cancer and decide to bury the research and lie, that's a huge problem. If you know it can cause cancer and make that clear, and people still decide to smoke anyway, what's the problem exactly? More importantly, we only know what industries to regulate and how to regulate them after the fact. When an industry, like the cigarette or oil industries, has first access to data that is damning of that industry and buries it, how do we know what to regulate? If we can only intervene after the fact anyway, my proposal is to hold accountable those who lied and buried evidence and educate the public on the newly discovered risks. Let people deicide for themselves once those risks are clear.
- ta988 2y ago
  This isn't entirely true. I was told and all my peers about the dangers of cigarette and yet in college half of my class was smoking regularly (decades ago in Europe). The only thing that really reduced consumption was when it became banned in public places and the prices increased beyond what most kids could afford (richer kids didn't care), but still compared to countries like US people are still smoking a lot there even nowadays.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    My point, though, was only that its up to individuals to smoke as long as they know the risks. Smoking in public is one caveat where regulations make sense, if someone next to me deciding to smoke can harm me that's a different story. But for anyone was that was aware of the risks and smokes anyway, why do the need to he stopped?
    - 2y ago
WWLink 2y ago
> I go out in the world and see not just adults sitting around a table staring at screens and not interacting, but parents and children. Remember newspapers and comic books and magazines and those junkie magazines by the cash register that talked about celebrity scandals? What about parents who would come home from work and just watch TV all night? That kinda stuff is nothing new really lol.
- lm28469 2y ago
  Screen time tripled in 25 years but yeah it's "nothing"
  - onion2k 2y ago
    It's not nothing, but it's not automatically bad just because it's a change.
    - lm28469 2y ago
      We should determine if it's a problem before making it the #1 thing people spend time on every single day
      - onion2k 2y ago
        That doesn't really work in practise though. No one decided to make smart phones popular. It's something that happened organically because they're useful and fun. We can't really legislate before things get too popular. We can only legislate once things become popular, and even then only if they're proven to be bad enough to warrant legal intervention. Unless we want a society where people are only allowed the things sanctioned by government, we will always have to accept bad things will happen until we stop them. I think that's ok for most things.
- latentcall 2y ago
  Yes but those things aren’t infinite content, are they? They are material things with a beginning and an end. YouTube is infinite. You can scroll forever and would never reach the end.
mjevans 2y ago
It's a LOT easier to regulate something that has a fixed place and can be seen. If I had kids I'd only break out tablets / mobiles in Offline mode with content I approved of for trips. Everything else needs to be on a PC or big TV that's around to be seen and thus reviewed by nearby adults. There's just way too much bad stuff online, including content that might look fine at a glance but could be horrific if the audio track is on headphones.
- sircastor 2y ago
  > If I had kids I'd only break out tablets / mobiles in Offline mode with content I approved of for trips. I used to have thoughts like this. To turn the phrase: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” That’s said, the iPad we have is so old it doesn’t do much. Its obsolescence prevents a lot of the danger.

_heimdall 2y ago

> Screens need to be regulated like cigarettes, sooner rather than later. I also would prefer to see the average kid spend a lot less time on screens. Interestingly I have a totally different take on the "how" though. I don't thing regulation will do a damn thing in the long run, nor do I think we should accept the few people in charge making such a fundamental decision for us. We didn't need cigarette regulation, we needed informed consent. People choosing to smoke needed to know what the known risks were. Regulation of cigarettes themselves were a cop out when those in charge failed to hold cigarette companies liable for lying to the public. Had it not taken decades for the truth about what was known, and covered up, by cigarette companies we would have been in a much better spot in my opinion. What's that mean for screens? For starters, I'd say anyone in a leadership position at major tech companies that leverage their wealth and power to shield their own children from the very tech they sell to everyone else's kids should be held criminally liable. If, for example, major tech leaders happen to send their kids to private schools designed specifically to minimize screens and technology in the classroom, they damn well know its a problem and are keeping that from the public.

gizmo686 2y ago
So, instead of regulating the industry, you would to hold industry leaders criminally liable for how they operate in an unregulated industry?
- _heimdall 2y ago
  No, they'd be held liable for lying to the public about the risks of the products they are trying to sell. If you know smoking can cause cancer and decide to bury the research and lie, that's a huge problem. If you know it can cause cancer and make that clear, and people still decide to smoke anyway, what's the problem exactly? More importantly, we only know what industries to regulate and how to regulate them after the fact. When an industry, like the cigarette or oil industries, has first access to data that is damning of that industry and buries it, how do we know what to regulate? If we can only intervene after the fact anyway, my proposal is to hold accountable those who lied and buried evidence and educate the public on the newly discovered risks. Let people deicide for themselves once those risks are clear.
ta988 2y ago
This isn't entirely true. I was told and all my peers about the dangers of cigarette and yet in college half of my class was smoking regularly (decades ago in Europe). The only thing that really reduced consumption was when it became banned in public places and the prices increased beyond what most kids could afford (richer kids didn't care), but still compared to countries like US people are still smoking a lot there even nowadays.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  My point, though, was only that its up to individuals to smoke as long as they know the risks. Smoking in public is one caveat where regulations make sense, if someone next to me deciding to smoke can harm me that's a different story. But for anyone was that was aware of the risks and smokes anyway, why do the need to he stopped?
  - 2y ago

WWLink 2y ago

> I go out in the world and see not just adults sitting around a table staring at screens and not interacting, but parents and children. Remember newspapers and comic books and magazines and those junkie magazines by the cash register that talked about celebrity scandals? What about parents who would come home from work and just watch TV all night? That kinda stuff is nothing new really lol.

lm28469 2y ago
Screen time tripled in 25 years but yeah it's "nothing"
- onion2k 2y ago
  It's not nothing, but it's not automatically bad just because it's a change.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    We should determine if it's a problem before making it the #1 thing people spend time on every single day
    - onion2k 2y ago
      That doesn't really work in practise though. No one decided to make smart phones popular. It's something that happened organically because they're useful and fun. We can't really legislate before things get too popular. We can only legislate once things become popular, and even then only if they're proven to be bad enough to warrant legal intervention. Unless we want a society where people are only allowed the things sanctioned by government, we will always have to accept bad things will happen until we stop them. I think that's ok for most things.
latentcall 2y ago
Yes but those things aren’t infinite content, are they? They are material things with a beginning and an end. YouTube is infinite. You can scroll forever and would never reach the end.

mjevans 2y ago

It's a LOT easier to regulate something that has a fixed place and can be seen. If I had kids I'd only break out tablets / mobiles in Offline mode with content I approved of for trips. Everything else needs to be on a PC or big TV that's around to be seen and thus reviewed by nearby adults. There's just way too much bad stuff online, including content that might look fine at a glance but could be horrific if the audio track is on headphones.

sircastor 2y ago
> If I had kids I'd only break out tablets / mobiles in Offline mode with content I approved of for trips. I used to have thoughts like this. To turn the phrase: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” That’s said, the iPad we have is so old it doesn’t do much. Its obsolescence prevents a lot of the danger.