“should be allowed”, in practice, means “should be forced”, since it means saying no to the huge collection of devices (TVs, computers, tablets, nintendos etc) that prevent boredom.
You could argue by providing those things you’re forcing them into perpetual stimulation. It’s a matter of perspective. The difference is that like sugar, unless we’re using our rationality to override the impulse, we’ll always pick stimulation though that’s not necessarily healthy.
In reality, things are never so black and white. When I tell my kids “no youtube, no gaming, but you’re allowed to use Scratch” there’s a risk they’re just browse scratch’s endless catalog of games made by others, plenty of which are impressively fun. So then I gotta say no to that too. But then my youngest wants to use Scratch with a youtube tutorial. That’s fine right? Well yes it is but it also means there’s the addictive recommendation cycle right there on the screen too. He’s not allowed to click on them but that’s hard to resist etc etc. It’s all solvable but it’s all very nuanced and makers of apps and platforms (including MIT) actively work against you at every step.
My theory is that every person in this thread who thinks this is simple doesn’t have children. It’s simple in the abstract and super messy in reality.