6 ms·

I would rather let a young person run free in a library or bookshop than on YouTube or TikTok. The primary difference is that in a library or bookshop there ar

I would rather let a young person run free in a library or bookshop than on YouTube or TikTok. The primary difference is that in a library or bookshop there are competing ideas right there in the same room. A curious mind will develop critical thinking skills. There are also curators who care about something other than making money - they're playing a long game, so will apply quality/safety filters. This is opposite to the algorithms, which in the name of monetization needs to pull you down into a rabbit hole, an echo chamber void of contradiction, a spell of indoctrination and affirmation of your own Worldview. Fiction, in particular, is a useful abstraction to grow emotional intelligence in hand with critical thinking. It allows - no, it demands - you develop a sense of empathy and live a life in someone else's shoes. You can then bring that experience back to your own idea of self and your place in the World. There's a lot of money in putting ads next to content teaching a kid who feels sad that they should kill themselves. I have absolutely no doubt that the World would be a better place if people were inclined to read books instead of hang out on social media, even if those books did contain dangerous ideologies. So, maybe it's time to revise your stance.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
This is exactly it. Add to this the simple reality that each kid has a different temperament and maturity levels and you immediately realize why parents want to have some level of control over what the kid is exposed to given that their filters were not developed yet.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > you immediately realize why parents want to have some level of control over what the kid is exposed to Control we got. Parenting time is up 20-fold (few hours/week->24/7adulting) from my parents generation (silent gen). Consequently, compared to my parents, I (gen x) had 20x the control over my what my kids were exposed to. Parenting was exhausting for me. My kids spent their entire childhood in adult-populated, adult-curated boxes. They were denied the regular hours of adult-free, free-range time, where I developed my most of my life skills. But as a parent, I had pretty exclusive control over what my 5 sons were exposed to.
ethbr1 2y ago
Firstly, I absolutely agree with you on books > internet media. > A curious mind will develop critical thinking skills. This is the linchpin of the debate. What if the first book you read at a critical age insists that it alone is true, and that other books should be distrusted at risk of harms to yourself? Say, the Christian Bible. It is absolutely possible -- unlikely, given the subjects of most books, but possible -- to have harmful information encoded in a book. The question is then how to blunt those negative outcomes, at scale, democratically, without opening the door to arbitrary political interference of the day.
- PaulRobinson 2y ago
  As somebody brought up in the Catholic faith, I can assure you that all humans are exposed to varied ideas and alternative books that they can make their own mind up. Diversity of opinion for me increased after I left school, and that's when I became more critical of the beliefs I held as a child. It's for that reason I think libraries are better than social media - social media is not just the equivalent of a religious tract that insists it is true, it actively prevents you from finding and considering contrary views all by yourself.
  - dTal 2y ago
    >they can make their own mind up On what basis can they do this? No human is born with a magical algorithm in their brain that can sort good ideas from bad. The only scalpels we have are those which we collect. Critical thinking must be bootstrapped. Mind viruses must be inoculated against. Just because you (eventually!) threw off your case of memetic measles, doesn't mean that everyone does. Some people die of it.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
  > that other books should be distrusted at risk of harms to yourself? Say, the Christian Bible A bit off topic, but I find it interesting that the Christian Bible is always the example of a "bad" book, when there are other, very popular, religions whose books literally tell them that non-adherents are worthy only of a grisly death.
techpineapple 2y ago
I also think that books probably don’t have the same social pressure as online. I can’t imagine reading about suicide or self harm being nearly as problematic as seeing 20 different people advocate for something in a reel, and you have to choose to engage with reading in a different way from social media or even television.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago

This is exactly it. Add to this the simple reality that each kid has a different temperament and maturity levels and you immediately realize why parents want to have some level of control over what the kid is exposed to given that their filters were not developed yet.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> you immediately realize why parents want to have some level of control over what the kid is exposed to Control we got. Parenting time is up 20-fold (few hours/week->24/7adulting) from my parents generation (silent gen). Consequently, compared to my parents, I (gen x) had 20x the control over my what my kids were exposed to. Parenting was exhausting for me. My kids spent their entire childhood in adult-populated, adult-curated boxes. They were denied the regular hours of adult-free, free-range time, where I developed my most of my life skills. But as a parent, I had pretty exclusive control over what my 5 sons were exposed to.

ethbr1 2y ago

Firstly, I absolutely agree with you on books > internet media. > A curious mind will develop critical thinking skills. This is the linchpin of the debate. What if the first book you read at a critical age insists that it alone is true, and that other books should be distrusted at risk of harms to yourself? Say, the Christian Bible. It is absolutely possible -- unlikely, given the subjects of most books, but possible -- to have harmful information encoded in a book. The question is then how to blunt those negative outcomes, at scale, democratically, without opening the door to arbitrary political interference of the day.

PaulRobinson 2y ago
As somebody brought up in the Catholic faith, I can assure you that all humans are exposed to varied ideas and alternative books that they can make their own mind up. Diversity of opinion for me increased after I left school, and that's when I became more critical of the beliefs I held as a child. It's for that reason I think libraries are better than social media - social media is not just the equivalent of a religious tract that insists it is true, it actively prevents you from finding and considering contrary views all by yourself.
- dTal 2y ago
  >they can make their own mind up On what basis can they do this? No human is born with a magical algorithm in their brain that can sort good ideas from bad. The only scalpels we have are those which we collect. Critical thinking must be bootstrapped. Mind viruses must be inoculated against. Just because you (eventually!) threw off your case of memetic measles, doesn't mean that everyone does. Some people die of it.
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
> that other books should be distrusted at risk of harms to yourself? Say, the Christian Bible A bit off topic, but I find it interesting that the Christian Bible is always the example of a "bad" book, when there are other, very popular, religions whose books literally tell them that non-adherents are worthy only of a grisly death.

techpineapple 2y ago

I also think that books probably don’t have the same social pressure as online. I can’t imagine reading about suicide or self harm being nearly as problematic as seeing 20 different people advocate for something in a reel, and you have to choose to engage with reading in a different way from social media or even television.