I don't think the issue is screens. I think the issue is internet connectivity, more specifically always on internet connectivity.
A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
351–360 of 516 posts
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
WoW had an absurdly high recurring fee that it tried to make you renew again and again and again. Because there was no micropayment infrastructure, it didn't use "pay to throw dice", it used "pay to retain your investment". By contrast, many of the modern games don't do that and are perfectly happy with their high turnover rates.
The point is, though, it costs the same amount of money if you take one chance at winning or a hundred. A monthly recurring fee makes the devs optimize for lasting engagement, not impulsive choices. Sure, lasting engagement may be created by having mechanics that make the player feel guilty about not playing regularly but it's not the same sort of incentive as a slot machine.
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).
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#353I 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…
> Not sure what the fix is either, other than ruthless enforcement of quotas. Buy older computers (1980s/early 1990s) that don't provide access to those games or the internet.
No reason at all to do that, you can give the kids a great machine that they can use for the internet and games, but strictly limit when it is connected.
I don't know if modern laptops can do this (modern ultra-portables can't because everything is soldered in), but I recently took the wifi card out of my (ancient) T61, it required only taking out screws[0] and disconnecting the daughter board, so that I would have a machine without always-on-internet. Haven't had much use of it, but sitting in front of it, I have caught myself starting up chrome...
[0] sadly I failed to keep track of which goes where, but that is also the only issue.
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#354Calling 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…
Like TV ads targeted to children 20 years ago to buy into the beanie baby craze?
Ironically it was the adults who were susceptible - they were just plush toys to kids. Which I suppose ironically rhymes with social media and deception.
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Fortnite is just a bad example. It's one of the few games where you don't feel at a complete disadvantage when you choose not to spend money on it.
Yeah, if anything I think Fortnite does a good job of avoiding gambling and preserving the integrity of free-to-play. Loot crates, which are basically slot machines, don't exist. You buy what you see, a skin. They make a lot of money from skins but once again, there's no in-game advantage. It's purely cosmetic so at the end of the day even if you don't give Epic a dime you're still on a level playing field with every…
I agree, Fortnite handles this pretty well. The only thing I would describe as somewhat manipulative would be their store. Having a rotation that only lasts a day or two rather than allowing players to purchase the items that they want evokes a feeling of "If I don't purchase this skin now, how long is it going to be before I get another chance?" I have a few friends who stockpile skins that they think are "alright" just in case they want to use them in the future.
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#356I 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…
How is fortnite more like a slot machine than doom or mortal kombat?
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is, though, it costs the same amount of money if you take one chance at winning or a hundred. A monthly recurring fee makes the devs optimize for lasting engagement, not impulsive choices. Sure, lasting engagement may be created by having mechanics that make the player feel guilty about not playing regularly but it's not the same sort of incentive as a slot machine.
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.
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#358The organization I work for, Common Sense Media, has done a good bit of research on screen time, addiction, and it's effect on families. Here is the report on Technology Addiction: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/technology-addicti... Here is our other research reports covering a wide range of media/technology topics effecting children, families and teachers: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research?page=1
Thank you, Common Sense Media.
Your website helped me get control over what my wife and parents were exposing my four year old daughter to, by establishing a neutral source of extremely valuable information. It became very easy to set guidelines thanks to your rating system and the wide range of titles reviewed.
The new 3D animation style and cutesy animal characters are dangerously subversive. My mom thought I was being a grinch until I made her read a review from CSM of the Alvin and the Chipmunks movie she wanted to show my daughter:
"There was a scene where the male Air Marshall (who was following them), woke up in a drunken haze (yes, there was a scene where shots and drinks were involved) with 2 new tattoos and in the bedroom or hotel room with another man (and all that that implied)."
There is just no way this stuff is age appropriate. I don't care how far the Overton window has shifted.
The Illumination Studios pictures are particularly insidious. I believe their content is generally inappropriate for young children, deleterious to moral character, culturally degenerate, etc. The character design aesthetics are offensive and stupefying. I wasn't surprised to find the same creative oversight involved in the duff Chipmunks pictures.
Case in point is Sing, which when I looked it up, it turns out the movie is notorious for culturally stereotyped presentation of Japanese people, and animal singers who shake their butts around. There's no way young children can appropriately contextualize either of these things.
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#359One thing to bring out the elephant in the room is what technology replaces. Technology is replacing human to human interaction. Instead of seeing your friends in real life we may watch their activities on social media. Instead of going with our friends watching videos together we are watching video on demand by ourselfes.
That and that online content is made by the producers to be addictive. There is a competition for consumer attention time. Attention time brings in advertising money. One should be aware that when the product are free, the information about us is being sold to advertisers.
Kids should play and learn not be targets for ad revenue by online content made like dopamine slot machine rewards.
I have an issue with video feeds going to the kids which has dark / violent content in them. Kids do not have proper developed reality and what is fiction filters. There is computer programs and there are TV programs.
Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley
#360Please mommy, don't take away my Hacker News!