Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

481–490 of 516 posts

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

#481
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…

You're suggesting more or less what people are doing.

Yet you sneer at it, calling it Luddism.

You missed the point. It's not that there's FUD around tech. It's that the people who understand tech the most (see the headline) are restricting children's access to it more than you (the general reader) might realize.

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

#482

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?'

I see a consensus that Anything on a screen is bad, whats mitigated the issue to the point that people are OK with screens?

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

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I just don’t have smartphone addiction, but (if I do) there is something different between this “addiction” and others. There are no withdrawal symptoms for me. I feel the compulsion to pick it up and look at it, but if I don’t have my phone, after reaching for it in my pocket and not finding it a few times I just stop. I don’t feel a need to go find a phone or feel rotten because I don’t have one. And these…

I'm in the same boat as you. One thing I've learned over the last few years is that the problem with "phone addition" has more to do with the lack of boredom than any physical effects. The really short version is that there's some science that suggests that periods of boredom increase creativity. By constantly keeping active with your phone, we're losing this "boredom time". Personally, I've made a habit of occasiona…

I often wonder how much creativity, thought and self-reflection is missed out on because the response to boredom or quiet moments is to reach for the phone, rather than engaging the brain and being alone with one's thoughts for a time.

Not only personal time, but work time as well. How many of us see work colleagues on their phones or random websites during work time? If that moment of boredom had been spent thinking about new products, the details of a customer problem, or something else work-related, that could have produced something tangible, rather than being wasted. When "slack time" is automatically used for indulging in phone apps or web surfing, that's displacing activity which pre-phone-apps and pre-internet, would be much more likely to have involved alternative productive activity, from future planning to work-related talk with co-workers, to designing and prototyping experimental stuff. Now it's self-indulgent skinner boxes compelling us to fairly fruitless time wasting.

Some people are so focussed on this stuff that it takes priority over actual face to face conversations, which I personally find intensely rude, and I don't think I'm wrong in saying this is going to directly affect the productivity and effectiveness of them as an individual and the team as a whole. Their focus isn't on the company's business, but on themselves. I don't find this degree of self-absorption healthy; it's like working with zombies. In some ways, I preferred my original programming job where we only had a shelf full of books and dial-up internet, and you actually worked with your co-workers, talked to your customers on the phone, rather than merely existing in the same space while their minds are somewhere else. Not that I'm a Luddite, it's the social changes I abhor, not the technical.

It's weird, and worrying, just how addicted people have become at the expense of real life in the here and now, and a pushback against it is long overdue.

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

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the evidence for your argument that Apple is "optimizing the addictive parts"? Your argument seems to be entirely based on screen size; is there some study that demonstrates a correlation between screen size and 'addictive' qualities?

It's more the 3rd software companies that are optimizing the addictive parts than Apple, because that's how they make money. Having the screen be smaller makes those software products suck enough that I don't like using them for extended periods, it's a defense mechanism against hyper optimized advertising engagement apps. Personally I think that's a feature. My other problem with Apple that they're only interested i…

That's such a stupid argument. What's next? Make car seats uncomfortable so people don't commute? You vent about Apple not making a small phone, and I too think they should. But don't try to push that argument on the back of phone addiction, that's pathetic.

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

#485
post #435

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 lik…

The medium is the message.

Go read a book or some studies about attention. It's not mindless fear-mongering.

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

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've gotten me wondering: Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? Is that a state-by-state regulation? A federal regulation? And does the regulating code specifically mention physical machines? Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity.

> 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 think that’s not the best defense.

I believe if I had a slot machine that paid out in free vacations instead of cash, there would be no doubt playing it is a form of gambling.

I think it’s that the micropayments don’t get a random return. When someone buys to complete a level it is a predictable outcome, not a gamble.

People get variable return on item drops, but you don’t generally pay with money for item drops, just time.

There is a one-step-removed way in which I think video games could be regarded as a kind of indirect or obscured gambling.

1-I pay to receive an in game item like a weapon

2-I use that investment to go out and kill monsters for treasure drops

3-I end up with some randomly variable items of value that are by definition valuable, because people will pay me for them, TOS doesn’t establish a thing’s market value.

But I think this would really require us rethinking or redefining a number of concepts.

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

#487

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 absolutely disagree. It is all about the screen time and only a little bit about the content.

Screen time modifies your behavior. That modification is compounded as the quantity of access time increases. This change is determinate and quantifiable.

You can quickly validate this with a simple experiment. Take any child and take away access to screens. Look at what they do to fill their time and how they respond to people in the first 30 minutes after screen loss and against after 2 hours. Also notice the longer term modifications to behavior after screens are removed for a week.

Part of this is a component of addiction, missing social stimulus, and lack of physical activity.

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

#488
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the game. In multi player games where people can exchange items, people will pay real world money for other players items. EX: People buying WoW gold.

> " buying WoW gold " IIRC, Blizzard doesn't profit from that directly and explicitly prohibits it in their ToS.

They released their own PLEX clone ("Wow Tokens") a few years ago.

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

#489

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…

My kids love Minecraft, and it's pretty obvious that others do too.

I'm now playing Crossout, where you can build your own car, and my son also loves building his own cars and fighting with them.

I don't think you have to look at it so negative, kids actually enjoy creating stuff in games, and I think that's a good thing.

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

#490

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?'

I grew up on old computers with old games, and that is what my kids shall also be stuck with for a while also. Mwahaha.
Post reply on HN