31–40 of 198 posts
It’s not just about limiting - why don’t these people make it easier on the apps themselves to do it? We know why.
YouTube Kids itself has a parental locked section where you can set a timer. The rest just don’t feel like they’re meant for kids at all. And that leaves adolescents in such a vulnerable spot.
All ages benefit from time-limited exposure to social media. We have a term for it now: brainrot. Fully convinced it is the cigarettes of our generation: ubiquitous enough to be pervasive despite negative externalities.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brainrot
The best definition I see is
> the crippling addiction to low effort content
But also have seen it used plenty to refer to the low effort content itself
Brainrot is a small portion of social media
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their point is that despite being the designers of such systems, they prevent their own children from using them. Akin to a drug dealer not consuming what he sells.
I would expect an x-ray technician to limit their kid's time in x-rays. It doesn't mean kids should never get an x-ray. Sometimes moderation means complete abstinence but generally not.
[flagged]
Their point is that despite being the designers of such systems, they prevent their own children from using them. Akin to a drug dealer not consuming what he sells.
See how uninteresting and obvious that is?
Just throw it out of the window. I'm not going to give my 6y son access to a smart phone until he is much older, ideally when he is in senior high school. The only issue is that his future friends may not have the same idea, so it's going to be extremely difficult when he grows older. Fortunately we have a mobile ban in the school, so at least they know this is not a good thing.
I find having conversations with parents at school and the parents of their friends leads to the best results (so far, I’ve only been at it a few years for my kiddos so we’ll see I guess longterm). If you’re all vaguely on the same page it just seems to make things a little easier. If that’s not an option, then just don’t be the first person to buy one and when all their peers start having certain technology you give them access too, but you sit down and talk to them about it or find ways to restrict the faucet.
For instance, when it became clear YouTube was not going to be completely eradicated from my house, I just ripped a few videos and added them to my Plex server. They get to watch a little bit of nonsense content, but they’re not just getting flooded with more of it constantly (or ads). As a result those YT videos are just one among several things they watch. It isn’t special or all consuming.
Video games have also been interesting. Most of the parents I know have, like me, adopted to use older stuff and/or just not let them get on the Internet.
Ultimately at some point you have to do some combination of “controlling the faucet,” watching what your kids are watching so you know what’s going on, and ultimately educating them/giving them context to the media they are enjoying.
Ye and Zuckerberg plugs the laptop mic with a dud cable. I guess most parents try to limit screen time. But some have a hard time doing it since it is a great babysitter. I try to do a total blockade of YT at home for kids. Watching other kids be hypnothized by the feed years ago was enough. The algorithm seems to converge to unboxing videos and surreal spam.
An iPad addiction is arguably better than being sedated so you don't bother your parents.
Ye and Zuckerberg plugs the laptop mic with a dud cable. I guess most parents try to limit screen time. But some have a hard time doing it since it is a great babysitter. I try to do a total blockade of YT at home for kids. Watching other kids be hypnothized by the feed years ago was enough. The algorithm seems to converge to unboxing videos and surreal spam.
> But some have a hard time doing it since it is a great babysitter. We should be clearer on what it means. An iPad will satisfy their need for stimulation but not their developmental emotional and social needs, nor their fine motor skills and executive functioning skills (and it likely harms the latter two, unlike old-school toys). Boredom and non-excessive stimulation levels are essential to letting the child’s inn…
In this occurrence I mean "distract the kids with something such that they don't hurt them self, fight or destroy stuff so the parent can do X" such as doing the disches or resting.
Not like, great at raising the kids in some moral sense. In which YT etc is terrible.
I cheat on fancy restaurants and might hand the kids some screen (not YT) to give us a chance to finnish the meal. Stuff like that, but overused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But some have a hard time doing it since it is a great babysitter. We should be clearer on what it means. An iPad will satisfy their need for stimulation but not their developmental emotional and social needs, nor their fine motor skills and executive functioning skills (and it likely harms the latter two, unlike old-school toys). Boredom and non-excessive stimulation levels are essential to letting the child’s inn…
It's worse, iPads don't satisfy the simulation but instead create a harmful dependency on it. I'll go as far to say that giving young kids iPads is a form of abuse that doesn't get called out.