4 ms·

But then you're not giving your kids access to modern tools (photo, audio recording, translation etc.). You're inserting yourself between them and their grand

But then you're not giving your kids access to modern tools (photo, audio recording, translation etc.). You're inserting yourself between them and their grand parents, close family etc. not letting them navigate a safe social circle. You're closing their world and this is a different angle to blame. PS: I am heavily biased, but in general I think we can give parents a break. Some of them must be shitty, but traditionally the rest of society has been the escape hatch in these situations. If we really think there's an issue, the first question should be why it's not solved at the social/systemic level. Putting kids in a cage and blaming parents can always be done at the very end, when all other solutions have been tried.

kelnos 2y ago
I don't buy that. Once kids are around 10 or maybe even as late as 12 or so, sure, if they aren't connected via whatever social media or messaging platform their peers are using, there will be severe social consequences. But a 3-year-old doesn't need to be watching things on a tablet at the dinner table. A 7-year-old doesn't need "access to modern tools", at least not unfettered, whenever-they-want access. I also don't buy the argument that they'll be behind in digital skills or whatever. I was born in the 80s and didn't have access to a computer until I was 8 or 9, (intermittent dial-up) internet access until I was in my teens, and a smartphone until I was nearly 30. I had no problem acquiring all these "digital skills".
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  You're giving me the "we grew fine even if X and Y" argument, and there is no real measure of how fine average people actually are. My parents grew with no TV, no internet and not that much radio either, and boy they aren't fine. They have other skills, but they're also really bad at understanding what's happening in the world today. What's neither in their local paper nor facebook feed could as well not exist, and they're not better for it. Do 7 yo kids benefit from having a decent dictionary instead of some skimped "portable" paper version or a 4kg reference with still sizeable limitations ? Does it help if they can google how many legs ants have instead of waiting for you to be available and google it for them ? You do you, but I also don't buy blanket statement on how technology is wasted on kids, just because we can come up with random scenari where it's not that great.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    I think you're focusing purely on educational uses of phones, when you could have a locked-down tablet for that. Phones do far more than that, and it's definitely not all positive.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      It's the same situation though. The more powerful the tool, the better upside you get, and the worse potential outcome there is. I get you want me to focus on the downsides, and I offer you to look at the upsides. We do that balancing act for any tool or resource: does pool have positive effects that are worth the drowning risks ? Does letting kids walk the city alone let them do things that outweight the potential of getting run by a car or getting kidnapped ? etc. I am definitely in favour of having kids as independent as possible and get them accustomed earlier than later with the tools they'll be using as adults.

kelnos 2y ago

I don't buy that. Once kids are around 10 or maybe even as late as 12 or so, sure, if they aren't connected via whatever social media or messaging platform their peers are using, there will be severe social consequences. But a 3-year-old doesn't need to be watching things on a tablet at the dinner table. A 7-year-old doesn't need "access to modern tools", at least not unfettered, whenever-they-want access. I also don't buy the argument that they'll be behind in digital skills or whatever. I was born in the 80s and didn't have access to a computer until I was 8 or 9, (intermittent dial-up) internet access until I was in my teens, and a smartphone until I was nearly 30. I had no problem acquiring all these "digital skills".

makeitdouble 2y ago
You're giving me the "we grew fine even if X and Y" argument, and there is no real measure of how fine average people actually are. My parents grew with no TV, no internet and not that much radio either, and boy they aren't fine. They have other skills, but they're also really bad at understanding what's happening in the world today. What's neither in their local paper nor facebook feed could as well not exist, and they're not better for it. Do 7 yo kids benefit from having a decent dictionary instead of some skimped "portable" paper version or a 4kg reference with still sizeable limitations ? Does it help if they can google how many legs ants have instead of waiting for you to be available and google it for them ? You do you, but I also don't buy blanket statement on how technology is wasted on kids, just because we can come up with random scenari where it's not that great.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I think you're focusing purely on educational uses of phones, when you could have a locked-down tablet for that. Phones do far more than that, and it's definitely not all positive.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    It's the same situation though. The more powerful the tool, the better upside you get, and the worse potential outcome there is. I get you want me to focus on the downsides, and I offer you to look at the upsides. We do that balancing act for any tool or resource: does pool have positive effects that are worth the drowning risks ? Does letting kids walk the city alone let them do things that outweight the potential of getting run by a car or getting kidnapped ? etc. I am definitely in favour of having kids as independent as possible and get them accustomed earlier than later with the tools they'll be using as adults.