Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? | Hacker News Reader

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?

theatlantic.com

128 pointseludwig85 comments

Most people in this thread seem to be downplaying the seriousness of these problems, but as a parent I can tell you that the problems are very real. Paul Graham wrote about them several years ago in his essay "The Acceleration of Addictiveness" [0]:

"I've avoided most addictions, but the Internet got me because it became addictive while I was using it. Most people I know have problems with Internet addiction. We're all trying to figure out our own customs for getting free of it. That's why I don't have an iPhone, for example; the last thing I want is for the Internet to follow me out into the world."

[0] http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html

> Most people in this thread seem to be downplaying the seriousness of these problems, but as a parent I can tell you that the problems are very real.

In my generation, parents said the same thing about TV.

The urge to believe in the moral decay of the young is extremely powerful. This article exploits it, and commensurate skepticism is warranted.

> This article exploits it, and commensurate skepticism is warranted.

Sure, but empirical evidence tells me that my children are much happier after having played outside with their friends for an hour than they are after watching videos on YouTube. I can't just ignore that.

And what about the multitudes of children that are not outside playing because of being online? In the community where I live, there are very few kids outside. All my son has ever wanted to do is play online, multiplayer games. The idea of roaming the streets on a bike and playing in a park... that is completely foreign to him.

They are missing out

It is going to take major cultural and societal change to make it so we interact with our technology in a healthy way.

I was born in 1980. There were kids in my generation who preferred video games to outside, too, but, for the most part, parents didn't allow this behavior. You have a say in what your child gets up to on a Saturday morning. It's not just up to him.

True, but video games of that era eventually got boring; not to mention you had to coax your parents into finally buying you another vs downloading from an infinite library. I can remember my friends and I collectively getting bored of playing video games and deciding to go outside. At some point, most kids ended up outside, so there was a desire to go out and play.

The only time I can remember my parents having to tell us to go outside is when we lazed around the house in our PJs too long on a non-school day.

Today, the opposite is true. They want to be on their devices for both entertainment and social interaction. Yeah, parents have a say, but it's a constant fight.

I don't have kids myself but can refer to my nieces.

They have iPhones and access to the internet but they have limited internet time. Not limited in some sort of technological way, but their parents simply tell them they're not allowed to use the devices before 5pm during weekdays and they quite simply listen to their parents.

Why don't other parents do this?

Sounds like he never did get the chance to learn what else he could want.

And also near impossible to do because parents won't let them roam more than 100 feet away, let alone the 5+ miles I roamed as a kid.

Well, there's nobody out there and they're not allowed to go anywhere interesting anyway. It's not surprising.

"but the Internet got me because it became addictive while I was using it".

The point is you don't have to "use" a "TV". But we arguably have to use a smartphone and the internet.

> In my generation, parents said the same thing about TV.

I lived through the transition, and the internet/smartphones are definitely worse than TV.

TV gets boring (or there's nothing on), the one NES game you got for Christmas last year gets boring, but there's always something new within easy reach on the internet. It's much harder to get so bored you want to do something else.

>there's always something new within easy reach on the internet. It's much harder to get so bored you want to do something else.

Very true, but have you ever found yourself bored enough to do something else, yet still continuing to check your favorite sites or looking for engagement online and being disappointed? It's like looking for that dopamine hit and not finding it. It kind of goes beyond boredom to a strange kind of empty feeling.

> Very true, but have you ever found yourself bored enough to do something else, yet still continuing to check your favorite sites or looking for engagement online, and being disappointed? It's like looking for that dopamine hit and not finding it. It kind of goes beyond boredom to a strange kind of empty feeling.

This pretty much sums up a great majority of my online browsing experience in the last few years.

> TV gets boring (or there's nothing on), the one NES game you got for Christmas last year gets boring, but there's always something new within easy reach on the internet. It's much harder to get so bored you want to do something else.

I think the notion of video games getting boring might be weird to people who didn't grow up with consoles like the NES, but it's true. I'm sure plenty of people went nuts for games back then and played them all day, not just one odd day in a while but all the time, but for most an hour or two of Mario or Doom or Commander Keen was about all you could take, then you'd wanna go ride bikes or something.

It seems to me that this started to shift around the 16-bit console era, and got way worse quickly in the late 90s. I'm not entirely sure why. I think part of it was that games started to be tuned to be more "fun"/addictive, especially by toning down difficulty and allowing endless increasingly-low-friction lives/continues. Now, of course, they've gone farther than that and have tuned them to be consistent low-dose dopamine delivery services. It's creepy.

And yeah, then there's netflix and such. It occurred to me just the other day (I'm dense) that my kids will have no idea what it means to schedule TV-watching around when something airs. No clue what it means to miss an episode something and just... miss it. To not have the option of watching cartoons (or whatever) right this second because there aren't any on, and there won't be until tomorrow. Now you can always catch up, binge-style. With $30-$40 in subscriptions (or a torrent client) You can watch just your favorite shows and movies 8hrs/day for weeks on end without running out of material, even if you've got fairly specific or refined tastes.

  Pretend we are writing a fable in which a sorcerer always gets what he wants.

  Consider what happens to a soul which always gets what it wants.

- Emily Bludworth de Barios, "Packages show up on the lawn it is astonishing how they appear."

From:

http://www.forkliftohio.com/index.php?page=freight-31

I feel TV was actually really bad for me personally. So, I have no problem saying Smartphones are likely just as bad if not worse for young kids.

What's important is it's not bad in the same way. Tending to zone vs. having trouble focusing etc.

>In my generation, parents said the same thing about TV

How do you know they weren't right, relatively speaking?

>The urge to believe in the moral decay of the young is extremely powerful.

Did you read the article? It's not about "moral decay", but a multitude of other (measurable) behavioral and emotional factors. As it happens, many adults are also experiencing challenges related to these same factors.

I think the difference is that there is no moral argument here, just a functional one. TV is fine, morally, but its rise did correlate strongly with the explosion of obesity and diabetes. Our entertainments have been getting more engaging at an accelerating rate, and we should probably consider what that means before we lose the capacity to decide.

For one, I think they were right about TV. And as a millennial, I think there is a significant moral decay happening. Our culture seems to value self gratification and meaningless BS above all else. While the more empathetic political inclinations of the young might mask that, when we'd actually have to be the ones responsible for making the world a better place, it seems we'd rather play video games, watch Netflix, do drugs, or hook up with strangers we meet on the internet. I suppose you could use environmentalism as an argument against having children, but that doesn't apply to adoption. We aren't raising children. The proportion of people who are these days are generally less well equipped for the job, and the percentage of single parent households continues to rise. Statistically speaking, this almost guarantees a downward trend in terms of mental and social health. Maybe what I've seen of the people that live in my city and stats about this type of thing aren't telling the whole story, but to me it seems like there's a measurable decline that's happening. Or at least an increase in selfish behavior, even if that change is just due to changing cultural expectations.

Edit: As far as the internet goes, kids watching a bunch of porn on their phones alone has already been demonstrated to be causing significant problems. There are high school boys with erectile dysfunction! Last month, teen vogue published an article on how to have anal sex. This seems to be a rather disturbing trend to me.

> that doesn't apply to adoption.

The barrier to entry for adopting a child is ridiculously high, even when compared to just having a child, both in terms of cost and time.

https://adoption.com/wiki/Adoption_Costs

https://adoption.com/what-does-a-home-study-involve

I'm not saying the costs and time is unjustified, but it takes a financially secure and stable couple to do. You would really want to have kids to go through the process.

>The urge to believe in the moral decay of the young is extremely powerful.

It's probably actually right. It takes a long time to figure life out. The problem is that the older people of today are comparing themselves who have lots of life experience with youngsters who have a lot to figure out. People forget that they were just as rambunctious when they were young.

It's also true that youngsters take their own day-and-age as the new-and-improved era in which they live, and have much less ability to compare past circumstances with modern ones.

The idea that the modern era is morally superior to preceding ones (even taking into account reprehensible notions such as slavery) is a tautology that stymies a critical reflection of history.

I've found it more useful to think of the modern day as a semi-improved and semi-regressed random walk of history. Some parts better, some parts worse. No sweeping generalizations to distort what we can't ever really know in our hearts – how past lives felt.

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Socrates supposedly said that already over 2000 years ago, similar sentiments have probably been around for thousands of more years.

Elders demand respect and locality (follow in our footsteps) on account of their age and experience, while youths demand individuality and freedom to pursue their dreams and passions, it's bound to clash.

> In my generation, parents said the same thing about TV.

And they weren't wrong. One of the best things I've ever done is gotten rid of my TV.

I'm a millennial myself, and I think there might be a good argument to make that there is an accelerated moral decay happening, and that has been happening for many decades.

It feels good to say that this is just old hogwash that gets repeated each generation – but as a student of history I look around and start to think maybe there is a long and steady moral decline that materializes itself in huge and unsolved economic/social crisis like what we're seeing now in the U.S.

But TV does have bad effects — among other things, it causes us to believe that we have a deep knowledge of facts about subjects we actually have only a superficial knowledge of artistic depictions of (cf. the CSI effect in jury trials). Its unfortunate political and social effects are notable when one looks at the last few decades.

The world would probably be much better if people watched less TV.

It's digital crack.

I'm pissed that I was effectively forced to let my 13 year old get a smartphone because all of her friends had one (which meant their parents had caved).

You seem to be criticising them for doing the exact same thing that you ended up doing.

“We have fallen upon evil times, the world has waxed old and wicked. Politics are very corrupt. Children are no longer respectful to their elders. Each man wants to make himself conspicuous and write a book."- Naram Sin, c. 5000 B.C. (Cuneiform tablet)

Every time I hear 'olds' talk about how the 'youngs' are lesser or missing something, I am reminded of this quote pulled out of the dust from 7,000 years ago. That said, yes, things are changing. Just like the Naram Sin's society underwent a transformation from hunting and gathering to agriculture, we are undergoing a similarly sized shift in human life from industrial to climo-genetic-digital. Yes, things are changing, probably not for the better in the short term, but that changing is not going to stop.

So, I don't know, maybe instead of trying to make things like the old times, jump in with the 'youngs' and help fend off the sharks alongside them. Maybe it'll help those diseases the 'olds' always seem to catch: nostalgia and regret.

Also, yeah, those graphs are a train-wreck.

There have been multiple civilization-wide collapses in those intervening 7,000 years, so he wasn't necessarily wrong for his time period

And until it recently became taboo to do so, many giants of the enlightenment looked back and blamed many of those collapses on moral decay

A lovely quote. But sadly, apocryphal:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/22/world-end/

> "In conclusion, QI believes there is currently no compelling evidence that any one of the multiplicity of quotations listed above was really inscribed on a tablet during ancient days in Assyria."

> A lovely quote. But sadly, apocryphal

it did seem odd to me to suggest anyone in 5000 BC would be wanting to "write books" as a means of gaining notoriety. seems a bit anachronistic, but perhaps i underestimate our ancient friends.

"No"

The answer to the question in the title.

The generation is different, and a correlation does not imply causation. I personally find the connection pretty far fetched. After all, while the smartphone is also common in the EU, the teen suicide rates did not change that much. (slide 9: https://www.escap.eu/bestanden/Research/alan_apter_on_youth_... )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

> Betteridge's law of headlines is one name for an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Someone needs to come up with a law for internet laws that become overused to the point where they're more of an impediment to discussion than the thing they're about.

"If you're not paying then you are the product" being another prime example that seems to have been done to death here on HN.

The only kind of person who would say that is a na—Sorry. Never mind.

" One piece of data that indirectly but stunningly captures kids’ growing isolation, for good and for bad: Since 2007, the homicide rate among teens has declined, but the suicide rate has increased. As teens have started spending less time together, they have become less likely to kill one another, and more likely to kill themselves. In 2011, for the first time in 24 years, the teen suicide rate was higher than the teen homicide rate.

Depression and suicide have many causes; too much technology is clearly not the only one. And the teen suicide rate was even higher in the 1990s, long before smartphones existed. Then again, about four times as many Americans now take antidepressants, which are often effective in treating severe depression, the type most strongly linked to suicide."

What are you refuting with your link?

TFA says Since 2007, the homicide rate among teens has declined, but the suicide rate has increased.

The slide you cite ends in 2005.

[1] is a better source (taken from eurostat report [2], which defines intentional self-hard as "purposely self-inflicted poisoning or injury and (attempted) suicide."). Despite a brief increase in 2008, overall the teen suicide rate has declined. The suicide rate for people aged 20-24 has slighlty increased since 2007, following a steep decline.

I can't find any data post 2011 for the EU as a whole (eurostat wants to update that statistic next year), but at least in the UK (office for national statistics [3], figure 6) the suicide rate among people aged 10-29 has odd fluctuations, but overall doesn't change much between 2007 and 2015 (algough it has ended the steep decline that was present 1997-2007).

If smartphones are really responsible for increased suicide rates, we would expect to see similar effects all over the developed world. Maybe an effect on EU teenage suicide rates is hidden by an overall decrease in teenage suicides, but that's not apparent from the data at all (the decease until 2007 might just be a return to the "normal" levels of the early 1980s, for all I know).

1: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

2: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

3: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

Despite the clickbait headline, the rest of the article is balanced and well-reasoned, documenting both positive and negative changes. And the graphs at the end (rates of seeing friends, loneliness, having sex) are compelling. Clearly a huge change happened around 2007.

> After all, while the smartphone is also common in the EU, the teen suicide rates did not change that much

Bad argument. Gun ownership in Canada is higher than the USA's, yet their firearms murder rate is massively lower. That doesn't mean that gun ownership in the USA isn't a problem worth addressing.

There is something in the intersection of smartphones and teens and the USA which is causing a measurable deleterious effect on the '07-'12 generation. The thing that's changed is smartphone ownership (and the services they can access). So clearly it is worth investigating.

> There is something in the intersection of smartphones and teens and the USA which is causing a measurable deleterious effect on the '07-'12 generation. The thing that's changed is smartphone ownership [...]

Well, that, yes, but there's also the GOP shifting into full-on "destroy Obama by any means" wilful destruction of the USA's political structures which may give them a less than rosy view on their futures.

It's important to differentiate between "smartphones are universally bad for teens", "smartphones are bad for teens in our circumstances" and "smartphones are usually bad for teens, but under some circumstances they work our fine". That's not just an academic difference: it may be easier to change to circumstances surrounding smartphones than the presence of smartphones. But that requires understanding what the factors are. Wrongfully declaring smartphones as universally bad is unlikely to be helpful.

> correlation does not imply causation

The articles adresses this issue and talks about research into correlation.

For the graph part, I find weird that we believe that iPhone introduction is stronger than the 2008 financial crisis on teen anxiety issue.

Well here's a suggestion: A recession manifests to a kid as a traumatic event - mom and lose their jobs, the family has to downsize, you get pulled out of private school. Big, bad things. But after that, it's done; kids are adaptable, they get on with the day-to-day. You're not wallowing in existential dread at 14 in any real way about your own future; maybe it's college or the military or an apprenticeship or whatever, but it's The Future. It'll be fine. Adolescents are horrible at consequence extrapolation: it's why they're famously risk hungry and blasé about doing stuff grownups would be terrified of. Why they never think they'll be the ones who die or get pregnant or fail.

Smartphones though... If you buy the thesis of this article, they're a continuing source of shifting stressors: social media addiction, constant engagement, physical isolation, cyberbullying and exclusion. Those pervasive, chronic pressures would get to you after a while.

I think we can't see the 2008 the 2008 as only a one time event because the 2008 crisis caused a period of stress for a while for a lot of families.

I agree that the smartphone has a strong addictive power but so does the internet, alcohol, various drugs ... It wasn't alone in a "source of shifting stressors".

So I think it s difficult for me to be completely convinced on this thesis because they didn't speak about the nearly concomitant 2008 event that in my mind could explain why teenager would fall to addiction. The fact that the smartphone was the new addiction is not irrelevant but it isn't the full explanation.

> the 2008 crisis caused a period of stress for a while for a lot of families.

And likely still is due to the long term ramifications.

> You're not wallowing in existential dread at 14 in any real way about your own future

You might not have been. I certainly was and I know many other people who were doing that and worse. Don't generalise, it's dumb.

Don't call people dumb, it's rude.

You'll note that I didn't call you dumb, merely the act of generalising. Smart people can do dumb things and calling those out isn't generally an act of rudeness. Heck, half of the comments on HN are exactly that.

I think your choice of phrasing was inflammatory, although the point you made is fair.

A fair point, apologies. I should have made clear that it was the act of generalising that was attached to dumb.

> Adolescents are horrible at consequence extrapolation: it's why they're famously risk hungry and blasé about doing stuff grownups would be terrified of. Why they never think they'll be the ones who die or get pregnant or fail.

With that in mind, I think the worst effects of smartphones/social media/etc are yet to come.

Kids these days broadcast every last embarrassing detail of their lives all over the internet, and smartphones make it possible to do so conveniently from any location, so there's no time to reflect or consider whether it'll come back to bite you. When these kids grow up and realise the extent of the embarrassing (or possibly incriminating) information they've shared about themselves (and how little control they have over that data), it's going to hurt.

Whether smartphones themselves have 'destroyed' a generation is debatable, but the combination of smartphones and social media is certainly going to cause some mental health issues in the future (if it hasn't already).

It is a real problem, as any parent of teenagers can attest. What I find interesting, though, is that a lot of the data on happiness is collected via Smartphone, the very technology under scrutiny. Maybe we didn't know as much about teen depression because we didn't have the technology to collect the data while our kids were drinking at the roller rink.

At any rate, it's up to the parents. I'm not afraid to take the phone away but I also put my own phone down at the same time.

You know, those graphs are really not that compelling. If you look closely, the overall trends started either before, or after, 2007. None of them appears to demonstrate a strong correlation with the launch of the iPhone itself.

That's not to say the article, itself, doesn't have merit, but man, if you're gonna try and put together impactful visuals, that's not the way to go about it.

Most of them lag the release by a similar amount, which you'd expect since the trend of giving kids smart phones didn't start the moment the iPhone came out (would have seemed insane at the time, in fact).

[EDIT] thought the sleep one especially is weird. WTF happened in the 90s to make sleep get so much worse?!

Most of them lag the release by a similar amount

I interpret them slightly differently. IMO, most seem to show a preceding trend followed by trailing acceleration. One (I believe it was the Teen Sex graph) shows a steady trendline with no point-in-time correlation whatsoever.

You could put a line almost anywhere on those graphs labelled "iPhone" and it'd be about as compelling.

Take the line out and I absolutely agree that something that was going on for at least a decade prior to about 2010 seems to have sped up. But the iPhone line feels entirely artificial and, IMO, undermines the impact of those visuals.

> WTF happened in the 90s

Personal experience as a child of the 90s: for the middle class family, a TV began to occupy the bedrooms of teens. They were still too expensive in the 80s to justify, and cable wasn't nearly as pervasive in the 80s.

Exactly. It's social media that especially started with MySpace and later Facebook (FB/FBChat/Instagram/WhatsApp). that is causing the issues. Not smartphones, they are just devices.

This is thoughtful and well researched. It is really worth reading properly; it deserves more than a tiresome, reflexive quotation of Betteridge's law and the assumption that smartphones are a universal good.

There's actual data: increase in reported feelings of loneliness; increase in suicide rate; decrease in time spent socializing; increase in symptoms of depression; decrease in sleep and sleep quality. There's a significant inflection point around 2007. It is a compelling presentation which demands an attempt at an alternative explanation, yet I haven't seen one here.

Upvoted.

Another relevant data point: Empathy dropped by 40% among college student between 2000-2010.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-love/201005/shocke...

That time range has many things inside it which could explain that drop, e.g. terror attacks, war on terror, banking crashing and seeing "too big to fail" applied to big banks, while people on the street were left to suffer. Before that the 90s with "you should only care for yourself, that way everyone is cared for" and so on.

I totally agree with you. My kids are in their 30s so I avoided this whole question through timing. I am fascinated to see what the others here think, especially those with kids that are in the affected cohort.

There was a very tragic event in our area (Norther NJ) just recently. A 12 year old girl committed suicide due to bullying, some of which was described as "cyberbullying." There are not a lot of details available yet, so it's hard to say if there was a smartphone involved or not. Can you imagine that not only are you getting bullied on school grounds, but now it also follows you home in your pocket? Egad. No escape. All by yourself. Horrible.

I guess in the end it really is up to the parents to do what they can.

That's a very sad story. You are right, the inescapability is very hard to imagine.

My own kids are 5 and 3. I am acutely aware that this problem is looming for us. So far, my kids almost never play with our iPhones beyond FaceTiming grandparents; they get access to an iPad on the one international flight we do a year; and TV is a rare, weekly treat. Both of us work so this is tough to enforce, but I've already fired one nanny in part over it. I am hoping that their own imaginations will become more appealing places to play than some screen, but I recognize the forces I'm fighting against.

We're not luddites at all; they understand that music and fun things come from the internet, they get that there are fun apps on the phone they can occasionally play, we don't make any secret of our own use of technology, but we position it as a grown-up thing, like beer or going to bed after dark in the summer.

I don't really see how our approach can survive first contact with grade school.

>>I don't really see how our approach can survive first contact with grade school.

I hear you. Best of luck. This whole subject is hard to find "reasonable parental balance" around. I'm really not sure what we would have done.

Thanks. Yep, nobody knows. Maybe we'll (claim to) figure it out and get a book deal out of it.

I wonder how strong this effect would be without the increase in overprotectivity and decrease in labor values. That is, I wasn't allowed to leave home with friends my parents didn't know or if I didn't know when I'd be home. I usually didn't know what time I could I guarantee I'd be home or where we'd go, or I didn't want to be a burden by restricting where my friends could go to where I could go. Similarly, working felt like a waste of time because high school students can basically only get minimum wage jobs and we already spent 40+ hrs a week at school or on homework. Even part time at 10 hours/week just felt like chump change.

The real lost generation are the toddlers and preschoolers of today. The majority of parents have just disconnected. I work with about 300 3-5 year olds. They can't even notice that their tablet or phone is even talking to them. Communication from an adult is background noise.

I think there isn't a truer SciFi short story out there then Ray Bradbury's "The Veldt."

Leonard Nimoy's reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPTGS5DqtR4

Deadmau5 song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvtNS6hbVy4

There are three certainties in life: death, taxes, and the next generation is going to hell in a handbasket.

Every generation believes that the next generation is doomed. Every generation is wrong.

Or is it hell in a handset ?!

Except whatever generation preceded the black plague. They were right.

The prediction they made wasn't "the next generation will be wiped out", it's always "the next generation is lazier, more narcissistic, less moral than us... and this will lead to them being 'worse' than us somehow".

I don't think that regular sterilisation was a moral choice of the prior generation...

I didn't say they were right for the right reasons

Yes, people have a tendency to think like that, but this in itself provides no evidence about what'll actually happen with future generations.

I am not arguing that I think there's a problem with this generation. Given my current state of knowledge in this topic, I'm agnostic about it.

This article spends more time discussing observable differences with the next generation and less on deeming them doomed. The majority of articles out there fit your statement, but I think this one is worth the read.

Yes, this idea is old enough that Socrates was known to complain about the next generation. However I find it far too dismissive to invoke this to downplay the damage that persistent internet use may be doing to youth. It is not about morals or character, it's about access to previously unprecedented levels of novel entertainment often being a surrogate for time spent on relationships.

Every generation is wrong.

Except the elders in the late Roman empire who complained about how citizens would rather cut off their thumbs than fight in the Roman army. Their decadence did actually doom them.

In general in history, decline and an increase in decadence is the norm, reductions in decadence are the exception. So many elders are in fact correct when they complain about the next generation. But the decline can often continue slowly for many generations before an outside tribe is strong enough to come in and conquer the decadent people.

There are no outside tribes today. Unless somehow space aliens show up.

No, they didn't.

This article could be written about children in 90s hanging in malls staring at TV and computers, they would talk to each other on the phone or in person.

So what's different? TVs and computers were replaced by smartphones, voice calls and talking in person was replaced mostly by always accessible instant messaging. Is it really worse to be able to chat with your friend anytime and not just when you see each other in person or when your parents allow you to block phone line?

IM and text in general is terrible at conveying emotions. Part of the reason why platforms for sharing pictures went so popular lately.

Many of the problems the author speaks of are likely caused by things other than smart phones. Young people are facing an increasingly dim future, the prospects of being able to find a good job or own a home keep getting worse. All that stuff filters through family relations, friends.. etc. and its not like social pressures to be accepted did not exist in the past. It is easier to find friends and fit in today using social media. Isolated people can more easily find groups they identify with if they have more uncommon personalities than in the past. It does not matter if young people get less screen time, they are still going to be thrown into and economic and cultural disaster society. Big government destroyed a generation, not smart phones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com