Hacker News Reader

Comment by LitFan | Hacker News Reader

This comment is only my own opinion:

I believe you're teaching your children to be children instead of teaching them to be people. You're creating an advertisement free bubble for them to live in - once they're living on their own, they'll lack experience dealing with exposure to advertisement.

You see benefit in the teaching opportunities in the times your kids are exposed. I'd argue you would have more teaching opportunities if they were exposed more often. The sooner they see it's a part of every day life, the sooner they'll be equipped to handle it on their own.

That said, maybe this is hypocritical. I stop my daughter from doing things I know will harm her (using knives, seeing scary things), maybe I'm just not being cautious enough about what I shield her from.

View on HN

At some age you are correct, but I don't think 5 or 7 is it. Kid's reasoning skills just aren't developed enough yet at 5 to really understand what advertisers' motives are. Exposure will do little more than desensitize them to ads and instead let their subconscious absorb the message.

I'd rather my kids find ads jarring when they are exposed en masse to them rather than be too comfortable around them.

There are a lot of things that 5 and 7 year olds shouldn't be exposed to yet, not just ads.

> Exposure will do little more than desensitize them to ads and instead let their subconscious absorb the message.

Good point. I guess helpings kids to learn to think objectively in general is the key to helping them think objectively about the things we shield them from when they're young.

Agree there a lot of things kids don’t need, and the teenage years are a better time to expose them.

>Exposure will do little more than desensitize them to ads and instead let their subconscious absorb the message.

This isn't how it works. If a kid sees ads repeatedly then it initially increases their preference for them, but later lowers that preference again. Overabundance of ads will desensitize kids to them and will make them less interested in them. You shielding your kids from ads will likely make them more affected by ads when they get a glimpse of them here and there.

Ads that affect you subconsciously are not the type you see on TV or on a poster. The subconscious effects of ads come from things like your kid repeatedly seeing you using tide pods to wash their clothes.

I get your point, yet I'm not sure it reflects the (nuanced, as always) reality.

They're not really in a bubble: they're exposed to ads outside of home (TV at other places, Cinema, street boards, on city buses...).

I hope that this clear separation between "no ads/home" and "ads/outside" is sufficient to cross a threshold in their mind which makes them thinks "Ads are not meant to be ubiquitous".

And when I notice that this threshold is being crossed, then I'm here to tell them "looks, choosing if we're exposed to ads in on us!".

And I hope that this low-age learning will help them later in life (more or less >12/15, imo).

> I hope that this clear separation between "no ads/home" and "ads/outside" is sufficient to cross a threshold in their mind which makes them thinks "Ads are not meant to be ubiquitous".

This helps me understand. You've convinced me of your approach - thank you. :)

Disregarding everything else, ads are a waste of time.

I'd rather my kids be reading than sitting thru ads.

They are a waste of time, but they're everywhere. If your kids don't understand the basics of ads, or advertisers' motives, they'll struggle to respond to ads in a healthy way.

Ads are literally everywhere. If it were easy or possible to prevent kids from seeing ads, then I'd be able to avoid ads myself, but that's basically impossible. Nearly all manufactured products have logos on them, and that's literally just the beginning.

It's not like OP was saying he kept his children deliberately unaware of what ads are, he just limited exposure as much as possible. I'm sure if OP's kid saw an ad, he would explain it to them / advertiser's motives.

But the idea that "more exposure" to ads makes you somehow more resilient to them is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Does Facebook make people more well-adjusted? Does instagram make people less inclined to be shallow? Does increased time on Twitter make people less vitriolic?

When digital networks have an adverse effect on the human psyche (mainly ad networks and social networks), the solution is very demonstrably not "just watch more and you'll become inoculated against them".

If old enough teach her how to use a knife instead of shielding. 5-6 year olds can and do use knives under supervision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com