Hacker News Reader

Comment by zachlatta | Hacker News Reader

I deeply and thoroughly don't understand this mindset.

Whether you like it or not, technology is part of growing up in the 21st century. It's not just an "outlet" or a place to waste time on YouTube, it's interwoven into everything in their lives. Their ability to gather information depends on it. Their social lives depend on it. Just as yours does. If you restrict access, you're pretending like a very crucial part of living today doesn't exist -- or isn't as important as it actually is.

At the end of the day, I'd imagine your goal is for your child to have a happy and healthy life. As part of that, you probably want them to have a healthy relationship with technology. Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did.

View on HN

I don't think it makes sense to lump all of uses of technology into a single conceptual bucket any more than it's useful to say, "Kids will use things that are made of plastic when they grow up so we shouldn't restrict access to plastic things." Watching unboxing videos on YouTube, posting selfies on Instagram (and getting judged by them), programming a videogame, compulsively clicking notifications and skimming social media feeds, reading articles on Wikipedia, playing some pay-to-Win addiction-optimized phone game, and writing a blog are completely fundamentally different activities.

Restricting "screen time" is the simplest way to reduce access to the harmful things in that list, at the cost of also filtering the nice stuff. A more sophisticated approach is probably to control which apps kids have access to and for how long, but that's a lot harder to pull off effectively.

They pulled it off effectively with the personal computer of the early 90s.

Edit: Unwittingly.

Maybe, but then when you turned off the computer, you might have gone to sit in front of the TV with your family, or played a board game, or talk on the phone with your friends. All of those things can happen online, and so I don't know that it's fair to compare computer usage of the 90s with computer usage today.

It's fair to say computer's of today can turn off as well as the computers of the 90s.

Better really, my computer turns itself off when I shut it down now. I used to have to do it manually once it was "now safe to turn off your computer."

In the early 90s, your friends hadn't necessarily all moved their social lives to the computer.

I absolutely agree with this. I think that this "all screen time is unproductive" mindset can actually deny some kids the opportunity to develop technical skills and interests that could significantly benefit them later on.

I'll use myself as an example:

I grew up with parents who restricted my time spent on video games and internet use (I just spent more time playing video games at friends' houses). They did however allow me to have computers in my room that weren't connected to the internet.

I spent a lot of my early teens tinkering with my computers and learning to code. When I was around 15, I finally saved up enough money from my summer jobs to buy an iMac (and a wifi router that I convinced my parents to let me replace theirs with). I then had unlimited internet access and continued to learn IT and programming.

A few months after graduating high school, I moved cities and applied for a dev internship at a local ad agency. I had started at a community college but dropped out to accept a full-time position. Now four years later, I've held 2 lead positions at two companies and am earning a senior-level salary.

Without a doubt, I wouldn't have had that level of opportunity if I wasn't allowed to have computers growing up. I think parents are doing their kids a potential disservice by placing all forms of 'screen time' in the same category. Restricting (leisure) internet use and video games is very understandable, but I think there is real value in allowing kids 'screen time' if they have any level of interest in technology.

> Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did.

I think restricting screen time is part of building the healthy relationship. We're not an all digital society, so kids still need to interact with the outside world - this includes people.

Think about how vile people can be on the Internet when the person they're shouting at is a faceless username. Breaking this immersion to have your kid run up the street to watch YouTube videos with a friend is a bit different than doing it alone. You can explain that your child's friend is also online behind and anonymous username, so if they intend to say something mean to someone, you can say that the child may be hurting their own friend's feelings without even knowing it.

Restricting access doesn't have to be a "back in my day!" spiel. Sometimes it's exploring other avenues of entertainment. Sometimes it's partial restriction like reading for 30 minutes. Sometimes it's just making sure that the child still has a foot grounded in reality. I'm a huge advocate for a connected world, but even as a developer, I still have to talk to my colleagues to my left and to my right.

Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. Saying "no screen time" for an arbitrarily large amount of time seems anathema to growing up today, but saying "no more than N hours a day" (where N depends on age and kid and what the kid does for the time) seems quite reasonable.

This isn't just about screen time imho, it's about ensuring balance when kids don't yet know what's best for them. A "healthy relationship" doesn't mean "free to do as much of it as they want to the detriment of other aspects of being a healthy human being."

Anecdote: My best friend growing up was super into soccer. So much so that other parts of his life were suffering and he had little life outside of it. So his parents set a weekly limit on the number of hours he could practice and play. He hated it at the time. But during his down time he found programming and now he's a programmer and soccer isn't nearly that important to him anymore.

The problem with this "no more than N hours a day" is that

- For parents it is hard to implement N hours/day on long term basis ( parents may be able to do for a week or month)

- The parental control tools are too narrow in scope, good ones cost $10/month

- on top of all this, you do not know what they are doing in those N hours/day , using 50% time for FB/Snap etc..

- It is ironic in this day and age of ML/Deeplearning software and open source github thousands of projects, we do not have a open source Parental control that really works.

- The solution is to build an Open source Parental control on Iphone/Android/Mac/PC in an integrated way to enforce N hours/week screen time and smart enough to account all non-school work related screen time across devices.

- To have a small regulation( to force device manufacturers ) stating above mentioned kind of "high quality" open source Integrated Parental control software pre-installed on all devices .

> Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. Saying "no screen time" for an arbitrarily large amount of time seems anathema to growing up today, but saying "no more than N hours a day" (where N depends on age and kid and what the kid does for the time) seems quite reasonable.

Max n hours a day is significantly easier then unlimited time. Mostly because they can't regulate themselves which basically means that they act out when playing you much. It is not just that parent would dislike abstract idea of kid playing etc too mu ch, it is largely behavior the kid displays when it is playing too much.

You don't need high quality expensive software either. There are sufficient free ones.

Good points. But personally, I wouldn't use software to enforce any rules. (I would have felt extremely patronized by such software at any age.)

But I may add some tech to see if the rules are being followed. I think that problem may be more tractable tech-wise. And (at least if I were the kid) it would be a lot less insufferable since it would give the kid the freedom to "break" the rule when he/she legitimately wanted/needed to and enables a conversation rather than serving as a dictator of policy.

I'm not a parent so I can't really comment on how easy it is, but I think if you're automating it you may be losing out on a key parenting moment and that's enforcement and inviting conversation about the rule and why it matters.

(Personally I remember many of the occasions where I broke a rule and then got "the talk" about why the rule was important - quite valuable in retrospect. If there had just been a software-enforcer I likely would have rebelled and/or tried to find a workaround.)

I've got kids in upper primary school now, and trying to think through all this carefully.

Our current rule is that you can have an hour of screen time for every hour of reading, music practice, etc, and after certain chores are done. Plus the screen time has to be at an appropriate time - for instance first thing in the morning and last thing at night are no-gos. They're currently on a ban until the end of the week because they went significantly over, but that's only happened twice in the year we've been doing this.

I'm thinking through what our approach to phones will be... at this stage I'm going with them getting phones for the start of high school and pondering what guidelines we'll use.

As a kid I hated chores and rewards that were focused on time because it didn't encourage me to use my time well - it was all about manipulating the clock ("if I actually master the piano piece in 30 minutes I won't get my hour of TV so better not master it").

I think your thinking is right, but I'd instead focus on goals and rewards that are tied to discrete actions in the activity rather than just time. E.g. master the piece => one WoW raid or something. That worked marvelously on me as a kid and is actually something I still do for myself (although not with WoW thankfully).

I'm not a parent, so I'm sure this is quite hard to do in practice. But I'm sure your kids themselves may have good ideas! (I loved making my own rewards as a kid lol.) Food for thought.

Here's my anecdote. My parents tried to limit video games (but not tv, they weren't very rational) to some amount of hours a day. Only result was that I hated it, it made me resent them at the time, and I'd do what I could to get around it. I don't think I'm an iota better off for it. They'd try to pull the same nonsense with the computer too which ended up being what got me a successful career. It was detrimental if anything and made me not respect them because I could tell all along it was unsubstantiated BS that somehow video games and computers were "bad" for you. I highly recommend just letting them sort out what they want to do with their time. A restriction of a half hour before bed maybe, to not disrupt sleep, fine, but what does the morning have to do with anything?

We have a morning restriction on school days because it's nigh on impossible to get the kids to school if they start playing games! (We also have an evening restriction so doesn't interfere with bedtime or disrupt sleep but are otherwise easy-going. Still not sure if we are doing the right thing or not)

> Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time.

I think that's the center of the problem. In the current times online media and mobile apps are designed to maximize the participant's screen time by being as addictive as possible.

Even grown-ups face problems self-regulating with regards to an "adversary" that invests huge resources in getting our eye-balls (and data and ad views).

Restricting screen-time becomes more and more difficult the more kids grow up, I do not think that this is a very scalable solution.

I think it's more important that kids are made aware and learn how to deal with this "adversary". Make them aware how the TV (or smartphone) "catches" them when they actually had planned to do other things. Make it a game to find out, together with your kid, how a device can have this kind of control over a person. Kids are curious, they will want to know about mechanisms and incentitives of the system and I think this can be explained even with the vocabulary of a 6 year-old.

Humans are very adaptable, maybe kids growing up in our current environment will just acquire skills that the older generation does not have and has difficulties to imagine.

The most sophisticated adtech in the world doesn't hold a candle to the engagement/addictive power of user-curated sites like HN and Reddit.

Or 4chan

I don't like to generalize it into the term "screen-time". There are so many things you could do there. It's like if you would limit "desk time", no matter if they are doing homework, crafting or fixing something, doing some puzzle,...

In my view there are four main categories, of screentime.

* Research

* Passive entertainment (watching videos, playing "pointless" games)

* Active entertainment (playing "real" games where you need to make decisions and other skills)

* Socializing (Messengers, Facebook, ...)

Point 2 is probably the most toxic for people. Since you waste lots of time, lose other hobbies and probably get deeply influenced by the things you watch.

Point 3 might be the next on the list, since you might get stressed from constantly socializing... All that matters is raising your "social" status, and you start neglecting other things in your life.

On the other hand, 24 hour screen time is not healthy either. Sitting there hitting that dopamine all day every day is not going to lead to success, especially if they are participating in more passive activities like youtube or mobile gaming. Even going to a friends house to watch youtube is probably better than sitting at home, as a social activity rather than an individual one. Additionally, being bored and or having downtime is beneficial for ones mental health.

I played video games 24/7 as a young child, and while I played sports in high school and college as well, my main love was always, always video gaming, coding, and using computers until 5 AM.

I am a parent now and I get restricting screen time for the sake of planning/scheduling, but not out of some utopian ideal. That never existed. Not when we were young and not when anyone else was, either. They just restricted reading the newspaper and books back then.

There is no real skill involved in watching YouTube or even in operating an iPad. Modern gizmos are filled with apps that battle each other for your kids attention and they play on their weaknesses. All the time a kid spends staring at a screen being passive (watching low IQ vloggers praise the latest soda, watch hours of other kids gaming, watch other kids unpack Kinder Eggs, etc) is time spend learning the brain that this is the way to relax. All that time is not spend in social situations, in nature, playing outside, using fine motor skills, learning what is feels like to actually make something of value to yourself or someone else.

A healthy relationship with technology is not that of a consumer in my view, but that exact relation is most profitable to technology producers in this age. Tablets, chromecasts, smartphones and gaming consoles are consumption devices designed to elicit ever more desire to consume. Being a good consumer is not an important part of life imo and that is a message I want to thoroughly imprint on my kids. While they are to young to self regulate I'm right on top of it.

That sounds awfully just like the TV time of the previous generation is being replaced with passive tablet time, and in both cases it's a manifestation of apathetic parenting that's always been around.

Personal anecdote: my kids are really getting in to mountain biking. Their screen time is more likely to be looking up tips for how to ride better, and then every once in a while we all sit together and watch MTB fail videos (100x the content of the old 'funniest home videos' shows, and more relevant, and I hope it's making caution sink in). Then they go outside and have been building jumps out of logs and dirt...

Assuming GP means "limit screen time" when they say "restrict screen time", then you can still have a healthy relationship with technology. A child with limited screen time will still know how to use a computer, phone, etc. Like most of us, the kids I know gravitate to tech. junk food. So unrestricted/unlimited access to screens would probably lead to an unhealthy relationship. And GP wouldn't be in bad company.[0]

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-... - Steve Jobs, Chris Anderson, and Evan WIlliams limit/limited kids' screen time [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/apple-ceo-tim-cook-dont-let-... (Speaking at Harlow College in the U.K., Apple CEO Tim Cook warned against “overuse” of technology, and said he didn’t want young members of his own family to use social media.)

Depends on the age.

I avoid/restrict almost all screen time for my almost 6 year old. Why? There is unlimited content and you can essentially never get bored, which means you don't need to think about what you want to do.

In my experience kids are the happiest in self-directed play.

Once they've learned self-control/having balance (which not even most adults can handle), then I have no problems introducing technology.

Technology is fine if used as a tool, but for me, has no part in entertainment for my kids (up to a certain age)

I had a computer at a young age in the 80's and started programming in early elementary school.

I also have a young child who is absolutely absorbed in computers, youtube, etc. I understand how much their collective social lives revolves around it. But even all the time I spend on computers, I still find the experiences vaguely disturbing. The effects on mental health are immediately obvious -- a few hours of "screen time" has very obvious negative implications. There is also a quality of addiction to it all. The computer/smartphone is all.

This is interesting: the difference in 'screen time' a few decades ago versus today. Is the incredible productization of screen time a recent phenomenon? Could we improve screen time by restricting the access large social media companies have to our brains? Can we convert, or perhaps return, the computer from an interactive television to a digital canvas for hackers?

> a few hours of "screen time" has very obvious negative implications

Can you elaborate more specifically?

I think where we can agree to disagree is we both want them to have a healthy relationship with technology, but we're disagreeing on what that healthy relationship is.

At the end of the day, the job of the parent is to protect. As a part of that, if i read and believe that technology is rewiring their brains for reason X, Y, Z then that's what i fix. Not if it makes them happy or not; I'm not their friend first.

> At the end of the day, the job of the parent is to protect.

I disagree. At the end of the day the job of the parent is to prepare. That involves a mix of protection, education, and other things, including refraining from protection, at times.

> I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did.

Be careful of using yourself as the sample of why or why not people should do something.

I was also given hard time limits of video games, hard times on television and my brother and I balanced it with playing basketball outside, biking around the neighborhood, going to a friends house (social interaction), and finding other things to do.

Never felt restrictive, just the rules.

> Their social lives depend on it. Just as yours does.

It definitely isn't true that my social life depends on this sort of technology, and I suspect it isn't true for most adults. I suppose you may be using a broader definition of "technology" than me, but my social life would be unaffected if I had a text-enabled phone and a computer sitting at home all day while I'm at work or out doing stuff on the weekends. I don't do that, but not because of my social life.

Having said all that, insofar as it comes to kids, I think your point about the may be a good one! But the fact that this isn't the world many or must adults live in may give you insight on why they don't view this in the same way you do. I think it is hard to come to terms with the fact that your kids live in a different world with different requirements than yours.

Eventually, we may be able to develop single-ride autonomous flying vehicles that will at a moment's notice be able to take you from point A to point B and no one would ever have to walk from anywhere to anywhere again outside. That doesn't mean I would be happy in that world with my child never having learned what it means to hike up a mountain and see the vista by earning it.

Did you drive to the mountain to start the hike? People from 200 years ago might say, "I can't believe this person has never learned what it means to load up your horse, ride 50 miles to the mountain, climb it, and earn the view of the vista"

I am not saying there isn't value in outdoor activities and climbing, but I find it interesting that we set the level of technology that we had as a kid as the 'baseline' for a normal experience. All those things you said about self-driving flying vehicles could be said about cars in general, but you don't think of that because cars are just 'normal' to you.

Point taken. I'll bite the bullet and admit that there is indeed probably something lost when I have to use a modern machine to get from where I live to the experience of pristine nature I crave. Something almost tragic, as if my "normal life" is unnatural or lacking in something primally good for me, which I have to "visit". But to not have experienced it at all, like not being unplugged from technology for a long stretches, would I think be stunting in a far worse way.

Wanting to view pristine nature makes total sense, and is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. However, I think your idea of your 'normal life' being unnatural is a construct you make.

Being in a beautiful landscape isn't any more 'natural' than being somewhere boring and bland. Visiting different areas and seeing natural wonders is certainly enjoyable, and can improve your health and well being.

But that would be true even if you lived a primitive hunter gatherer lifestyle; most people aren't going to be living on a mountaintop, or living in a forest.

A big part of what makes visiting the pristine nature such a cathartic experience is that it is different from your day to day life. Novelty is a strong desire in humans. If you lived on an isolated mountaintop, you might feel that same good feeling visiting the city that you get visiting the mountaintop.

Kids may need help in controlling themselves. Spending time with phone or computer provides certain satisfaction, just as browsing social media does for adults. But those things don't necessarily make us or the kids happy. It can be like an addiction, they would like to quit, but they can't. Parent enforced screen time may be a way for them to escape this and do something that really gives them pleasure.

The GP said "I restrict screen time"

I take this as limit rather than ban. Which I think is a good thing. Screen time is addictive, especially for kids. We all know it. Try and pull your 4 year old away from the TV to get them ready and come back with your results.

It is like restricting (but not banning) sugar, and for older kids (depending on your country etc.), caffeine and alcohol.

Get them ready and THEN plonk them in front of the TV and you can get ready in peace. We learned this quickly... ;)

Then you have to prize them away when you want to leave the house.

Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube.

When you limit screen time to x minutes per day, that should include screen time outside the house.

I'd much rather have my kid watching YouTube with a friend than sitting in his room watching YouTube by herself. Watching content with friends is a form of (minor) socialization.

Anyway, "restricting" is not a synonym of "banning."

A healthy relationship with technology is a balanced one, but I don’t know how I’ll enforce it with my kid when I’m on my phone every second of downtime and so is my wife.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com