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

431–440 of 516 posts

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

#431

Post by mindslight »

OpenBSD-reich wrote: post #403
mindslight wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IMO the problem is two pronged: a) hardware changes too much too fast creating a constant hamster wheel of driver hacking which puts GNU, Illumos, and BSD at a disadvantage, and b) that hardware is nowhere near significantly documented enough to make driver writing quick and painless. (a) can be fixed by having platform standards where the interfaces and commands are the same between device brands, but I think the be…

I don't disagree with your idea, but unfortunately there is always going to be that churn. Commercial device/app developers have lots of money to invest in robust development and advertisement, to beget the return of more money. Meanwhile, the economic benefits to preserving people's autonomy (/dignity) is spread out amongst those people. Which is why in another comment, I called it a "zero" million dollar idea.

The flip side is all of this device churn is all the actually devices left in the wake, available for cheap/free. If software is done right, even last-decade specs are perfectly capable devices good for another decade. Which is what we need, because convincing someone to pave over their current device or spend a lot on a new "weird" one isn't going to happen. Tablets got a foothold by being a new type of device, rather than an immediate replacement.

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

#432

Post by kilburn »

entee wrote: post #399
kartan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The most basic thing Candy Crush does that slot machines can't is adapt its behavior to the user.

Candy Crush can (and does) let you play freely, only to popup the "insert coin to get help" when you are stuck. It also adjusts the game play to your level (by advancing to harder levels) so that you are always challenged and possibly get stuck. If you advance by paying, you probably will need to pay more to get further (if you failed an easier level without help you will probably fail later levels without such help).

In an imaginary world, a slot machine could have a camera to track who is playing. It would let you play for free the first few times, even give you some money, but leaving you one "advance" short of the stronger payments. After some rolls, you are prompted to insert coins to get extra advances. Of course, the machine keeps the payment structure favorable to itself, but tricking you into inserting more and more coins, all the while getting you hooked into the game. It could even adjust the payment structure to be more and more in its favor the more "hooked" it detects you are.

Regulation that prevents the above:

1. Slot machines cannot track users by any means.

2. The payment distribution has to fit certain parameters (think X% of money given back within N rolls)

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

#433

Post by qubax »

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…

> I was an avid "gamer" growing up. I wasn't always the most responsible with it. Probably overdid it a lot. But I can see with my own child, this is a different ball-game altogether.

People said the same thing about WoW and Everquest and pretty much every video game. Go back far enough people said the same thing about nintendo and gameboy. Every generation thinks they are unique. You aren't unique. Your father thought the exact same thing as you are thinking right now. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

> Not sure what the fix is either, other than ruthless enforcement of quotas.

How about being a parent rather than blaming games. It's always human nature to blame others for one's own failings.

Now it's social media and smartphone games. Before that it was people were blaming video games, simpsons, south park, mtv, etc for violence, dumbing down kids, etc. In 10 years, it'll be something else. Maybe virtual reality or sex dolls. Who knows. The same complaints, different products.

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

#435

Post by qubax »

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…

> Whereas on the same exact screen, firefox/chromium are gateways to madness.

Oh my god, what hyperbole. This is like the cringey hyperbole equating rock 'n roll with devil music back in the 50s.

Things will be fine. Every older generation thinks the newer generation is "mad". It's not the end of the world.

Is hacker news mostly grandparents now? Just worried about every new technology? So many comments here feel like my grandparents talking.

It's so sad how old and scared HN has gotten. HN isn't supposed to be like it.

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

#437

Post by tdeck »

kilburn wrote: post #432
entee wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The most basic thing Candy Crush does that slot machines can't is adapt its behavior to the user. Candy Crush can (and does) let you play freely, only to popup the "insert coin to get help" when you are stuck. It also adjusts the game play to your level (by advancing to harder levels) so that you are always challenged and possibly get stuck. If you advance by paying, you probably will need to pay more to get further…

Casinos themselves kind of do this though, right? They give you a card with a balance to pay for games and load winnings, and sometimes they just add extra money to it if you've had a bad day to keep you playing. At least that's what I recall reading somewhere.

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

#438

Post by hollerith »

I don't have kids, but if I did, I'd probably let even a 6-year-old kid of mine have pretty much unlimited access to a Linux box connected to an ASCII terminal instead of a monitor if the box lacked access to the web and to file-sharing services.

(The purpose of not giving the kid a monitor would be to deny him access to Linux games with engaging user interfaces.)

My point is that the word "screens" is an imprecise description of the danger. The danger is restricted to certain platforms.

(Yeah, I realize that it is possible that the kid could get access to stuff I wouldn't want him to see via the ability to install from a large repository of Linux packages or via FTP, but as long as I'm occasionally inspecting his Linux installation, the expected benefits would outweigh the expected risks. For example, it is very unlikely that any Linux package or ftp repository has been optimized much for addictiveness.)

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

#439

Post by dorchadas »

eksemplar wrote: post #385
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…

I was an avid gamer, and today I have a wonderful family and I manage 70 people, but I’m not sure my screen time really did me that much good. I don’t think it did me that much harm either, but I would probably have been better off being a normal kid. I think modern games absolutely do harm, I don’t think they should really be called games either, because they are build for addiction to make you play their built in s…

> They grew up much healthier than their peers and I think it was the strict rules on technology that did most of the work.

I'm noticing this among my cousins, at least among social health. I've got one cousin who just entered 7th grade this year, and might be the only person in her class without a phone. One of her best friends just got one at the beginning of the year. Those two are among the only two who actually know how to talk and have a conversation; other kids have no clue how to read tone of voice to tell jokes, or have any clue how to read facial expressions, etc. They honestly say what they want, when they want, without regards to people and then can't interpret that someone is upset.

I've noticed it especially in regards to my 11 year old cousin, who's now had his phone for 3 years. He doesn't pick up on tone in jokes, and so unless the joke has an obvious punch line, he doesn't really get it. He has a lot of one-word conversations, often in a brusque tone, because he just wants to watch Minecraft videos. Often, the first thing he'll do when he gets to my grandmother's from school is go to her bedroom, lock the door, and just watch videos. No interaction whatsoever, and good luck trying to get him to talk.

I also see it to a much more dangerous degree among my high school students. The lengths they will go to to be on their phones during class (and not even to chat; merely to be on them) is, quite frankly, alarming. I fear for our future, and am looking at dumb phones for myself now (I'll keep my dual sim smartphone for when I travel outside the country and exercise because music)

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

#440

Post by dorchadas »

qubax wrote: post #433
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…

> I was an avid "gamer" growing up. I wasn't always the most responsible with it. Probably overdid it a lot. But I can see with my own child, this is a different ball-game altogether. People said the same thing about WoW and Everquest and pretty much every video game. Go back far enough people said the same thing about nintendo and gameboy. Every generation thinks they are unique. You aren't unique. Your father thoug…

Eh, I think we are seeing quantifiable differences in the effects that current games and social media are having on people, across all age spans. There is very much a difference in how kids are nowadays, and it is definitely a whole new world (or perhaps a Brave one, even).
Post reply on HN