Hacker News Reader

Does it? These kids are going into a world saturated by the Internet. Does it make sense to disallow Internet access and prevent them from participating in culture, education, entertainment, and pretty much everything else in life while their peers are getting ahead and they're left behind? This is one way to prepare kids for almost certain failure in our increasingly technology-based society.

View on HN

Neither of us have any data here, but I really doubt this is true. I suspect that any deficiency in technical skills at, say, age 12, can quickly be overcome. But the downsides in terms of problems with social, emotional, and behavioral development from being exposed to technology 24/7 from a young age seems like it might be much more difficult to overcome.

My position is that moderate and supervised technology use from a young age probably is the best path, but if the choice was between two extremes of “unrestricted access from 0-10 years old” and “no access from 0-10”, I think the latter is the choice that I’d make. I highly doubt my kids would be at a long-term disadvantage.

All of this stuff is accessible in real life, and in a fuller way. I don't think missing out on 1000s of hours of Instagram consumption is a particular disadvantage, especially if those 1000s of hours were spent actually hanging out with friends or playing sports etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com