Live data from Hacker News

A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

nytimes.com

391–400 of 516 posts

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#391
post #57

This has always been a form of Luddism. Tech is inevitable. I view tech similarly to how I view sex-ed in 2018: it's been proven that if you do abstinence only education then bad things happen (teen pregnancies, stds, etc...). Your kids are going to grow up to be adults with bad tech habits if you don't start teaching them how to use it responsibly and protect themselves early. Help them find good content. Have days…

It's not Luddism, because the "tech" in question here isn't technology but consumerism via consumer technology. When everything is abstracted how it is nowadays, the technological aspects are hidden from the end user. Teaching your kids to tap on a touchscreen doesn't constitute technology. Neither does knowing how to use an online search engine, or resource like, say, wikipedia. All of that an abstracted package tha…

I agree with you that consumerism is at least one of the important issues, which is why generic "tech is bad and scary" articles are still a form of Luddism. It's not addressing the actual issue, as you said. You're sort of making this either/or case rather than a connected whole.

Your kid is eventually going to have a communication device. You have to embrace the dangers of that and teach them about the issues they'll face and the compromises they'll have to make when using it. That doesn't mean you disable Netflix, but that does mean you can teach them about how the internet works, how companies make money off advertising and data, and that there are still ways to protect themselves to reduce risks. Your 2nd paragraph is all things I cover with my kids.

"No, convenience trumps all"

No, this is not what we should teach our kids. Compromises may be acceptable, but that doesn't mean convenience trumps all. One other avenue to explore is how our government can and should do more to make it harder for companies to abuse people in the name of convenience. That's not something that they do a good job of now, but hey, better education for people is part of the point we're discussing. Luddites don't even know the right questions to ask.

"There is no responsible way to "teach" consumer technology"

I disagree, but also don't think we have a choice. Either you learn better ways to teach your kids about tech, or you'll continue to have a system that abuses tech.

"This is just common sense, it applies to everything."

Tech risks are not common sense though outside Silicon Valley. I agree some of the tech problems are more about consumerism, in general, but there are plenty of issues that aren't just that. Avoiding tech won't stop those particular issues.

"And as you write, the former is inevitable, but then so is a lack of privacy, and so are the bad habits that are inherent to consumer technology."

There will always be risks and compromises with interacting with tech. Going back to my sex-ed analogy, there are also risks with sex, but we learn to wear condoms and practice safe sex to minimize those risks. This idea that we can't teach safer risk mitigation strategies for tech also is silly: ad blockers, privacy blockers, better password and identity management, how and when to share personal information, government and legal interventions. All of these are things that affect tech use and should be taught.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#392
post #182

> There is a looming issue Ms. Stecher sees in the future: Her husband, who is 39, loves video games and thinks they can be educational and entertaining. She does not. I'm still peeved so many people hate video games categorically. Age of Empires & Civilization got me into history as a kid and I checked out dozens of books as a result. Plus, the reason I ended up wanting to learn more about computers was to make game…

Studying ancient history and reading books have been thought to be a frivolous waste of time by previous generations as well. It all comes from your frame of reference.

That's a surprisingly stupid statement to read on here.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#393
post #55

I think it's less about the screen time, and more about what's on the screen. Echoing some of the existing comments: Games and sites today are vastly different than they were 20 years ago. Games like Civilization, Quake, Diablo, C&C, Mortal Kombat, Tony Hawk etc... were definitely addictive. But modern games like Fortnite and Clash of Clans are not engineered the same way. They are specifically designed to function l…

> They are specifically designed to function like a slot machine. I work in the gambling industry, making literally slot machines. Slot machines are heavily regulated and there is a lot of "engagement" tricks that can not be used in the gambling industry. The kind of trick that Candy Crush will use. The dangerous side of gambling is for people that think that they can "win money". But the games themselves are kind of…

I'm waiting for you guys to implement a separate "screen" or "application" on all slots, which is a cryptocurrency or Forex or CFD (or even pretend "securities") client hooking up to the casinos' central exchange system, and the casino takes no positions long or short but just charges a very small % tx fee on each transaction. If it's cryptocurrency, then have 1:1 conversion between cryptocurrency and the various chip species each representing said currency (like Doge chips, Litecoin chips, Bitcoin chips, Ethereum chips, etc) so the incentive to trade on the slots is that the player can then gamble the objects of trade directly. The keys (or casino crypto exchange authentication data) can be stored on smart card and can be carried around by the gambler. Then it's a matter of having various slots and tables which accept these other cryptos in addition to their existing dollar variants. It's like having Euro machines and tables, Renminbi machines and tables, etc.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Non-networked binary distribution of yore was also (mostly) aligned with the interests of its users. It's much more related to who is paying the bills. Technical concerns do make some difference, but are eclipsed by the money question. Our current problem is that people mostly don't pay for software anymore. So we are left with FOSS and anti-user software.

Though it's harder to be lucratively anti-user without a channel for telemetry and control. I've long pondered if an economy around Free software could be better implemented. We take it as a forgone conclusion that wide source code availability precludes charging per-instance, but really that's just an assumption. Of course the idea is likely moot in the light of network effects, which seem to be a major underlying f…

I wonder if it's possible to create some Paternon-like project that is inclusive, proportional to use, and does not fall victim to politics or administrative take-overs.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#395
post #57

This has always been a form of Luddism. Tech is inevitable. I view tech similarly to how I view sex-ed in 2018: it's been proven that if you do abstinence only education then bad things happen (teen pregnancies, stds, etc...). Your kids are going to grow up to be adults with bad tech habits if you don't start teaching them how to use it responsibly and protect themselves early. Help them find good content. Have days…

Sex ed is bullshit, it has no relation to teen pregnancies. It is all depend on the community and culture. Hassidic Jews practice abstinence and no sex-ed with almost 0% teen pregnancy. The UK has sex ed and probably one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the west and don't get me started on black communities in the US. So while I agree with what you said in general this example is a very bad one.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#397

Calling it "screen time" is missing the elephant in the room. The largest part of the problem is that the software we're directly interacting with has been designed by companies with interests directly contrary to ours! Social interaction will inherently set off more chemical rewards, but it is the tuning of the feedback loop (optimizing for micro-interactions) that keeps us glued. Emacs/mutt/libreoffice/python/kodi…

The largest part of the problem is that the software we're directly interacting with has been designed by companies with interests directly contrary to ours!

I have two adult sons. They were online as early as ages 2 and 5. I beg to differ and all that.

If kids are being ignored and not getting their needs adequately met, etc, then what happens online can have a huge adverse impact on them. But I don't think this is a problem we solve by trying to "fix software." This is a problem we solve by trying to fix social fabric.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#399
post #55

I think it's less about the screen time, and more about what's on the screen. Echoing some of the existing comments: Games and sites today are vastly different than they were 20 years ago. Games like Civilization, Quake, Diablo, C&C, Mortal Kombat, Tony Hawk etc... were definitely addictive. But modern games like Fortnite and Clash of Clans are not engineered the same way. They are specifically designed to function l…

> They are specifically designed to function like a slot machine. I work in the gambling industry, making literally slot machines. Slot machines are heavily regulated and there is a lot of "engagement" tricks that can not be used in the gambling industry. The kind of trick that Candy Crush will use. The dangerous side of gambling is for people that think that they can "win money". But the games themselves are kind of…

I'm curious to know some examples of what is and isn't permitted. The flashing lights, interesting but not too interesting ding-dong-boom sounds, the loud massive amping up when you win something, all that is allowed and I believe (though don't quite have a source at hand) that these are provably enticing hooks. I'm sure there are things that aren't, but I'm curious as to what.

I'm also curious about want Candy Crush does that a slot machine can't by regulation? Is it a level of interactivity?

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#400
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was definitely less abusive, but I think it was more malevolent - like payday loans instead of horse racing. Both prey on the destitute, but one builds itself into your life (like a need), the other is merely novelty (like opportunity).

The point I'm making of that a subscription model isn't like horse racing. Loot boxes are like horse racing - an immediate chance followed by an immediate reward or loss. Subscription models don't go for that, though. They go for long term engagement. Usually through progression mechanics. The main draw of games like WoW is levelling your character, not getting loot. It's not like a horse race.

Right. I was making the comparison that mobile games are like horse races, and WoW was like payday loans.

Now, I don't really have a solid base of experience to form these generalizations with, so a lot of it is just being judgmental. But I want to make the point that while the endorphin loop of loot boxes (or worse, time boosts) is rightly condemned, the WoW model of milking your audience for literally billions was - aside from revolutionary - malignant. It wasn't just the good old days, it was a cash cow that consumed Blizzard for a decade until they too switched to the loot box model.

Post reply on HN