631–640 of 706 posts
Disclosure: I work for a social media company. However I live in the UK. Most schools in the UK ban phones in school. The difference here is that in this study phones were taken away for 21 days, even after school. They lost access to the phone completely during that time. I am less convinced that we should wholesale ban phones for kids, because in the UK at least, there is no longer any culture of letting kids go ou…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
some types of content are indisputably disturbing for kids, like violence, war footage, sexualized content (esp. a sexualized female image targeting male kids & teens), etc
So outlaw Betty Boop and Jessica Rabbit? Will dating before 21 without a religious chaperone be OK?
Disclosure: I work for a social media company. However I live in the UK. Most schools in the UK ban phones in school. The difference here is that in this study phones were taken away for 21 days, even after school. They lost access to the phone completely during that time. I am less convinced that we should wholesale ban phones for kids, because in the UK at least, there is no longer any culture of letting kids go ou…
> there is no longer any culture of letting kids go out and socialise. Could this have died due to tech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So outlaw Betty Boop and Jessica Rabbit? Will dating before 21 without a religious chaperone be OK?
you can be agnostic while not objectifying the female image to a point of forming a generation of young man that are addicted to porn and can't talk and connect to a real women
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you police what's addictive on purpose vs what's addictive by use? Who polices the difference between addictive additives versus standard driving of engagement? After all, I think sites/apps Youtube or even Hacker News would be guilty depending on how you draw the lines.
For starters, forbid behaviour and engagement surveillance. Without that data it would be impossible to fine tune the apps to be addictive for each individual. Just with that, it'd probably tackle most of the "device addiction". Then if you want to go the extra mile, consider forbidding things like personalised recommendations, infinite scrolling, auto-play-next, loots and even notifications on by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My kids are addicted to reading and I don't like it. Reading is great but not at the expense of staying up until 3am on a school night, not helping with basic household chores, not practicing music, not doing homework.
I think all of those downsides may be frustrating in the moment, but will turn out to be much less important, when viewed in the longer term.
Big deal they are staying up late. Let them sleep in on the weekend to make up the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you police what's addictive on purpose vs what's addictive by use? Who polices the difference between addictive additives versus standard driving of engagement? After all, I think sites/apps Youtube or even Hacker News would be guilty depending on how you draw the lines.
For starters, forbid behaviour and engagement surveillance. Without that data it would be impossible to fine tune the apps to be addictive for each individual. Just with that, it'd probably tackle most of the "device addiction". Then if you want to go the extra mile, consider forbidding things like personalised recommendations, infinite scrolling, auto-play-next, loots and even notifications on by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had unfiltered internet access from around the age of ten onwards. I can confidently say that was a horrible idea and I would have been much better off as a person without it.
Thank you. We always hear from the geek who only learned to program solely due to unfiltered internet access growing up. But not folks like you. I personally learned to program before widespread internet access, so know it’s not at all a requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think all of those downsides may be frustrating in the moment, but will turn out to be much less important, when viewed in the longer term.
I honestly think that parents enjoy depriving their kids of experiences because it's how they were raised. Big deal they are staying up late. Let them sleep in on the weekend to make up the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning phones is simpler, and has no downsides. You are at school to learn, you don't need a phone or tablet for that. Besides, lots of things can be addictive and distracting. Personally I'm addicted to reading news. Had smartphones existed when I was a kid, simply banning social media and games wouldn't have been enough.
Banning phones has no downsides. You're in the office to work, you don't need a phone or tablet for that.