Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 516 posts

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

#371

Post by zzo38computer »

holstvoogd wrote: post #8
trynumber9 wrote: post #3

> 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…

yeah, there are definitely 'good' games, there used to be more. However, most games these days are also just digital crack. I guess it might be hard to understand that difference if you've never experienced things like AoE へ‿(ツ)‿ㄏ I think the problem is not screens or technology, it is, as with so many things, greed and the 'marketing' tactics that it breeds.

I do think many games isn't so good. (That is Sturgeon's Revelation.) Also to consider what is written on ZZT when the program terminates, there is one of two pages possible one is complain about such game with "flashy but meaningless graphics" and other problems they have.

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

#372

Post by setr »

a13n wrote: post #297
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? Slot machines are regulated because they fall under the category of gambling and video games don't meet the legal definition of gambling. (Although, I'd agree that it's starting to seem more and more as if they should.) There's a pretty good explanation of the criteria at https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... but th…

> the TOS of all games say that the player does not own them Yet loads of people sell their in-game items (that they got through chance) for real money. So in a sense, they do own them.

Usually despite being banned by the TOS, as a black market kind of operation.

More problematicly, im not sure how youd stop it from extending to say WoW gold-selling, or even cartridges with 100% saves on them.

People will attribute value to anything for any number of reasons, but I’m not sure you can make regulation on anything beyond “encouraging” such behavior. (And I would assume these companies already actively discourage it; you’re not supposed to be able to get money back out of the system!)

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

#373

Post by nine_k »

a13n wrote: post #297
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? Slot machines are regulated because they fall under the category of gambling and video games don't meet the legal definition of gambling. (Although, I'd agree that it's starting to seem more and more as if they should.) There's a pretty good explanation of the criteria at https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... but th…

> the TOS of all games say that the player does not own them Yet loads of people sell their in-game items (that they got through chance) for real money. So in a sense, they do own them.

So, if a player does not have a title to anything in the game, the player has control over some items, and can sell this control? I suppose tokens in casinos also don't belong to players, but they are readily exchangeable for money.

On one hand, this may be enough to consider it gambling for money.

On the other hand, many games may expressly forbid selling in-game stuff. This is not easy to enforce, though, unless you forbid to drop and pick up items, or make in-game exchanges. A number of games uses exchange as a important "social" / "multiplayer" feature, but likely those are not slot-machine-like anyway.

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

#374

Post by Nasrudith »

This brings up a weird tendency of parents to feel obligated to turn into their antithesis without any shred of self awareness. Elvis was wholesome despite his hip thrusting and a song about MSM in jail (Jailhouse Rock) although to be fair the censorship regime was basically enforced naivety while metal in the same genre is evil incarnate.

All with the usual special pleading about how things were different then.

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

#375

Post by isodude »

Tehchops wrote: post #30

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…

Quotas is not recommended, but playing games up to 1.5h each day is positive, anything beyond that is contra productive.

Being involved changes a lot, making agreements, talk about feelings and evaluating. So like you would with any activity.

Let they play but add mandatory walks i.e., or mix up with physical actvities. I mean, kids don't have THAT much time at hand to spend after school.

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

#376

Post by setr »

lubujackson wrote: post #339
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? Slot machines are regulated because they fall under the category of gambling and video games don't meet the legal definition of gambling. (Although, I'd agree that it's starting to seem more and more as if they should.) There's a pretty good explanation of the criteria at https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... but th…

I have no idea if there is any legal precedent for requiring resell value on a prize, but these "rare drops" definitely do constitute prizes on a human level. And they by definition DO economic value (even if you can't resell them) because people pay money specifically for a chance to win them.

If value of something is how much the market is willing to pay for it: it had value before you bought it, and none after (you can’t resell!). Is there a difference from buying an “experience”?

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

#377

Post by marcell »

A sidebar on this is why parents put their kids in front of a screen in the first place. Depending on your child and your childcare arrangements, sometimes the easiest and cheapest way to get your kids to stop bugging you is to plop them in front of a screen.

Is your kid whining st a restaurant? Or bugging you while you need to make an important phone call. It’s easy to calm them down if you hand them an iPhone with candy crush.

I think many parents are uncomfortable with this use of phones, but reality forces you to use it.

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

#378

Post by fromMars »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #21

>Technologists building these products and writers observing the tech revolution were naïve, he said. >"We thought we could control it,” Mr. Anderson said. “And this is beyond our power to control. This is going straight to the pleasure centers of the developing brain. This is beyond our capacity as regular parents to understand." A 6 year old's brain has no chance against a team of trained data scientists. We all kn…

"A 6 year old's brain has no chance against a team of trained data scientists. We all know this."

What a glib statement.

Although, a meme here on Hacker News, it doesn't take a data scientist to make addictive games and video content.

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

#379

Post by cwkoss »

VectorLock wrote: post #230
mindslight wrote: post #205

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…

This is the conclusion that a lot of people on HN seem to be reaching. Now how do we go about filtering out the 'bad screen' while allowing the 'good screen?'

Is there a "Stallman" hosts file, that blocks all sites that do not have incredibly free software?

I feel like dumping a kid into the deep end of linux box with access some so-so games installed and letting them figure out how to make things work is extremely valuable learning experience. It's the "passive" screen behaviors that are harmful IMO.

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

#380

Post by solean »

gameswithgo wrote: post #356
Tehchops wrote: post #30

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…

How is fortnite more like a slot machine than doom or mortal kombat?

It's really not, feels like a case of "the things I did when I was young were good, but the kids these days..."
Post reply on HN