Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's accurate to call this a form of Luddism, when the whole point of the article is that it is specifically Silicon Valley technologists that have come to the conclusion that this tech is a net negative for children.

The first 3-4 people mentioned in that article were connected to Facebook and Youtube, so "no shit" comes to mind when you think about them having a questionable relationship with tech and their own decision-making. Part of an education for anyone should be to understand why those two sites specifically can be problematic even if sometimes useful.

It's not Luddism, because the "tech" in question here isn't technology but consumerism via consumer technology. When everything is abstracted how it is nowadays, the technological aspects are hidden from the end user. Teaching your kids to tap on a touchscreen doesn't constitute technology. Neither does knowing how to use an online search engine, or resource like, say, wikipedia. All of that an abstracted package that just happens to utilize technology on its backend, which the end user doesn't require to know or understand. All that is required is memorization, to familiarize oneself, mostly of UI elements and how all this abstraction links and works together. To be against the growing societal trend that fosters a dependency on these resources and the habits that form with them isn't to be against technological advancement.

And how are you supposed to teach kids about privacy when most consumer technology from the get-go is privacy harming? If you buy a child their first smartphone, do you tell them to not use SMS because it's plaintext, to not use any of the popular communications apps because they're owned by FB or whoever else, or to not use their phone at all because of cellular location tracking? How to you explain to them they can't watch Netflix on the TV, because the TV isn't allowed to connect to the internet to prevent it phoning home? No, convenience trumps all, and we all know the current state of things is that even if people are made aware of privacy issues, they'll disregard them if even slightly inconvenient.

There is no responsible way to "teach" consumer technology, at least not the way you mention. I mean, how exactly is the generalization "too much tech isn't good" relevant to technology? This is just common sense, it applies to everything. If kids are staying up late reading comic books and subsequently performing poorly in school, this is no different than the habit of staying up late on your phone. And, I reiterate, the latter has nothing to do with technology but with consumption. You either foster a (ever-growing) dependency in them, or you don't. And as you write, the former is inevitable, but then so is a lack of privacy, and so are the bad habits that are inherent to consumer technology.

I agree with you that consumerism is at least one of the important issues, which is why generic "tech is bad and scary" articles are still a form of Luddism. It's not addressing the actual issue, as you said. You're sort of making this either/or case rather than a connected whole.

Your kid is eventually going to have a communication device. You have to embrace the dangers of that and teach them about the issues they'll face and the compromises they'll have to make when using it. That doesn't mean you disable Netflix, but that does mean you can teach them about how the internet works, how companies make money off advertising and data, and that there are still ways to protect themselves to reduce risks. Your 2nd paragraph is all things I cover with my kids.

"No, convenience trumps all"

No, this is not what we should teach our kids. Compromises may be acceptable, but that doesn't mean convenience trumps all. One other avenue to explore is how our government can and should do more to make it harder for companies to abuse people in the name of convenience. That's not something that they do a good job of now, but hey, better education for people is part of the point we're discussing. Luddites don't even know the right questions to ask.

"There is no responsible way to "teach" consumer technology"

I disagree, but also don't think we have a choice. Either you learn better ways to teach your kids about tech, or you'll continue to have a system that abuses tech.

"This is just common sense, it applies to everything."

Tech risks are not common sense though outside Silicon Valley. I agree some of the tech problems are more about consumerism, in general, but there are plenty of issues that aren't just that. Avoiding tech won't stop those particular issues.

"And as you write, the former is inevitable, but then so is a lack of privacy, and so are the bad habits that are inherent to consumer technology."

There will always be risks and compromises with interacting with tech. Going back to my sex-ed analogy, there are also risks with sex, but we learn to wear condoms and practice safe sex to minimize those risks. This idea that we can't teach safer risk mitigation strategies for tech also is silly: ad blockers, privacy blockers, better password and identity management, how and when to share personal information, government and legal interventions. All of these are things that affect tech use and should be taught.

You're suggesting more or less what people are doing.

Yet you sneer at it, calling it Luddism.

You missed the point. It's not that there's FUD around tech. It's that the people who understand tech the most (see the headline) are restricting children's access to it more than you (the general reader) might realize.

We try and do all this - the hard thing I find is what limits to put in place and how when they do find stuff that feels less worthwhile or on the addictive side, which they obviously do. It's actually harder than it sounds I have found to set time limits - particularly with siblings as they play together, look over eachother's shoulders etc. and if your daily schedule isn't completely regular due to other activities. We've gone for making one day at the weekend screen-free but it often feels like that isn't enough.

I use a food analogy when talking about tech consumption with my kids, so I'm fine with occasional junk food so long as they're keeping a well rounded diet and getting exercise. It takes some work to get there, but so far, so good.

We have a pretty standard schedule:

- Tech off at 6pm every night and during dinners

- After school till 6 is basically free for all time if they don't have other obligations, which I count as decompression from the day. They hang out with neighbors too.

- Weekends we allow tech, but only if it's educational programming or they're creating something (arts, crafts, stop motion, game programming), so it's a bit more strict.

YMMV, of course.

I agree, although I wouldn't recommend much tablet/pc screen time until they have learned how to read and write.

This has always been a form of Luddism. Tech is inevitable.

it's been proven that if you do abstinence only education then bad things happen

How about driving technology? Children receive abstinence-only education on driving until they turn 15 or 16.

There's plenty of precedent for young children being unable to safely & responsibly handle certain things.

Was it Luddism that I wasn't allowed to operate a table saw when I was eleven?

I mean, you still have to go and actually learn how to drive once you turn 15-16 before anyone actually gives you a license/their car. People put a lot of time into that. There's also the fact that too small of a child physically can't see out of the front window.

Driving is a much smaller scope than technology. If you restrict the development of technology skills, when you eventually reintroduce technology it will take months or even years to catch up to peers that have been using technology for their entire life.

Introduction to tech should still be age appropriate and have constraints. That's different from avoiding it completely. Some apps should be limited and it should be pointed out why to the kid so they understand the dangers.

We know there are problems with ads, privacy, and subtle ways our "free" apps try to gain our attention. Kids are more capable than you may realize of understanding those issues too, and the sooner you work WITH them to learn those issues and how to counter them, the better.

Having said that, if a parent doesn't have a healthy relationship with tech themselves, they're going to have a hard time teaching their children.

> Children receive abstinence-only education on driving until they turn 15 or 16.

Nonsense. It is commonplace for children to be introduced to driving gradually, from a young age. They are made familiar with it in an observer capacity from approximately the time they are born. Children typically learn to manage unpowered vehicles like tricycles and bicycles within the first few years of their lives—often as soon as they're physically capable of riding them. There exist low-powered electric (toy) vehicles specifically designed for use by young children; for those a few years older, bumper cars and go-karts are popular amusements. There are even places where one can go (with parental consent and supervision) to practice driving real vehicles on private property.

The one thing they aren't permitted before age 15 or 16 is legal permission to drive proper vehicles on public roads. However, adults who haven't passed the driving exams are subject to exactly the same restrictions. Those restrictions are in place not because it is felt that driving is harmful for children but rather because their lack of experience would pose a safety risk for other users of the roads.