Hacker News Reader

You might have an exaggerated sense of what kind of control parents can have over their children, and an underestimation of how pervasive Internet tech is among preteens.

My 12 year daughter, for example, is one of only a few kids in her class that don't have their own phone. And it's been like this for a couple years. Her friends think we're dragons for restricting her and her brother to 1 hour a day. Throughout the school day she is getting access to school iPads for 'free time' where it's open season on YouTube and the like.

The ages 11 and up are when parents get a harsh education in just how little 'control' they can (or should?) have over their kids. The best bet is to make sure there's open channels of communication and enough mutual respect that your kids will come to you when confused or upset, and maybe even listen to your advice. Trying to clamp down on them and control their access to the Internet (in an era where most of their peers have almost unfettered access) doesn't encourage that trust. We've learned the hard way.

It seems crazy that the school allows that. This is sort of what I mean though, society in general doesn't recognise the danger. No school would just allow strangers into the school to chat with the kids during their free time, or get some flat earth loon in to speak with them, but quite happily expose them to YouTube without supervision.

Lots of schools, though, would allow 12 year olds to read books written by unknown authors or flat earthers. In a world where content is increasingly online, how do you draw the line between protecting preteens from dangerous interactions and preventing them from exploring interesting ideas?

I doubt they'd stock books on Flat Earth in the school library. Maybe it'd get a mention in a book on kookie conspiracy theories alongside Elvis being an alien. There wouldn't be enough material there to get a start then... just keep going indefinitely, like there is on the Web.

Our (allegedly very good for our state) elementary school gives the Kindergarteners iPads. Not to take home—I think they wait until 3rd grade or something for that complete fucking nonsense—but during much of the school day. Their free time in lower grades is iPad shit. Mediocre edutainment games. Having the iPad read books to them. That ends up being quite a bit of their day. Meanwhile they have under half an hour of recess. Talk about screwed up priorities.

Do you know what occupies kids really well so you don't have to do your job? Ding, ding, ding.

In all honestly knowing how harmful those devices are to development of kids this should be banned. Do your job and take care of kids that were trusted to you.

> But one thing not mentioned in this article is why an 11 year old would be on the internet at all.

Because she wants to expeirience and learn society where it happens.

Internet is main space for human interaction. Asking why 11 year old would be on the internet is like asking why would she be in the mall or on the street or anywhere really except home, school and inside of family car.

She should be on the internet and she should be expeiriencing it because that's the only way she can learn to tolerate it and find her way around it. She won't learn it at school or from parents that barely have any clue what's internet outside of their email accounts.

When children access internet you need to keep an eye and explain parts of it you yourself do understand. Same as with TV or people in the streets. You can't ban things till children become adults because you are stealing from them opportunity to learn when learning is easiest for them.

If they have your support internet won't break them.

> Internet is main space for human interaction.

For an 11 year old, absolutely not.

It shouldn't even be the main space for adults.

> learn society

Calling what happens on the internet "society" is just leading us down the darker path.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. Internet is the future of human interaction.

Look at how people learn now or how they find their peer group or their life partners. Where they discuss issues. Where do they go for help.

Internet is the society. Your family is there. Your fellow villagers are there. Your sages are there. Your support network is there. And your village idiots and villains are there too.

You might not like it but that's reality and there's no comming back because internet is the best way of interacting with people thanks to its speed, memory and safety (when compared to any other form of interaction with exactly same people).

> Look at how people learn now or how they find their peer group or their life partners. Where they discuss issues. Where do they go for help.

Sure, it's a tool. That doesn't mean it embodies society.

> Internet is the society. Your family is there.

No, my family is in their physical community, houses, work places, places they go for recreation, etc. That is society.

> internet is the best way of interacting with people

That is highly opinionated. And absolutely wrong if interacting with people means being able to talk in person, go somewhere together, shake hands, hug, high five, etc.

> speed, memory and safety

It seems you're thinking of interaction in the context of, e.g., a work environment where efficiency is of capital importance. This is one kind of interaction, yes. But there are others.

Why would an 11 year old be on the internet at all?

Homework, from a surprisingly young age, often expects and requires internet use. Personally I would have preferred a reasonable mix of all sources, including using a library, and when and why to choose - the internet often lacks depth, or is wrong, and kids often go through a stage of "it's on the internet, it must be true". I'm not convinced they all get past that, as if they do it's self-learnt. Adults too.

Guided use is for younger than 11 as they'll use the net in class and for homework, as well as socially well before high school these days. You'd better have tried to give them the tools and skills to try and judge, be suspicious etc before then. Considering most people really aren't that tech aware, how is a non-tech parent meant to judge when is the right moment? My peer group isn't even slightly representative as there was a heavy presence of router rules, firewalls, non-admin access and so on. None of which is there the moment they hook up to coffee shop or friend's wifi. So, just like walking to school, best you can do is give them the nudges to fend for themselves, and hopefully know when to yell for help or advice from parent or teacher. (Teach would probably be non techie, and not much use either).

Then you have peer pressure. It's hard to resist too early smartphone or social media use when your kid is the last in class without, and it's their main form of contact. They don't call round houses or phone like we did in my, pre-internet schooldays. Facebook et al say you shouldn't have an account before 13, but there is precisely no enforcement of that. So what to do? As you say children can be quite cruel, often especially to those who don't conform. We judged the right moment was around 12-13 - high school is when kids get properly cruel. We were amongst the last of the very late adopters as far as we can tell...

Critical thinking is one thing that is markedly absent in education, it's far more checking the boxes of giving them a tech education, and schools using "modern stuff", like those mostly pointless interactive whiteboards all the schools got at great expense. No evidence of teaching them to think, to judge, to differentiate between ads and SERPs, or which SERPs might be potentially trustworthy, how to judge a source's credibility, etc, etc. Course critical thinking might have some of them questioning the system... :)

It's sickening that schools sign agreements that basically let third parties collect data on students... I'm guessing there's a loophole somewhere where that date can be used after they turn 18...

When I went back to school for my Master's degree, I had the highest confidentially settings I could set. If I wanted to ask questions on a homework or project, the school required I gave my name, email, and course information, along with the content of my post to Piazza.

The argument and agreement was that they can't use my information unless I also am a member on their website outside the context of Piazza... Funny enough, I used LinkedIn... So since I want to use LinkedIn, my school information privacy is violated.

I imagine there's a similar goal with high school students. As soon as they turn 18 and claim that on LinkedIn, they can go back and mine their high school and middle school data.

Lots of high school classes use Piazza.

Do you have any examples of classes is in critical thinking that might be appropriate? Maybe online self guided lessons or ready-made lesson plans that parents could go over with their children directly? Seems most material in this area is geared towards adult self-improvement

Not sure I can help here - while we did find a few online resources that were useful, our kids are in their twenties now so I can't remember much of what we came up with ten or so years ago. A lot was what might be considered "HN common sense" or pedantry. Looking at a site, article and author and deconstructing their bona fides, playing spot the flawed reasoning, appeal to authority or whatever.

And an awful lot of encouragement to question their beliefs, assumptions, and the spin of any particular article, or the motivations and intent, and change their own perspective at will. In short trying to encourage them to stay in the awkward squad who are constantly questioning...

If a bank leaves its vault open to the street and unguarded, it's possible for the the thief and the bank to be simultaneously and fully in the wrong, without the negligence of the bank being somehow compensated for or compensating for the guilt of the thief.

We don't expect children to be perfect; in fact, we expect that they need to make mistakes to learn from.

The bank in your example is beyond negligent, as it provided the opportunistic thief the opportunity to abscond with customers' money the bank exists to protect.

In this case, the bank is the parents of children who are obligated to supervise their behavior online, not the children themselves.

Right, the bank is the parents in this analogy. The parents have a duty to protect their children, because they've been entrusted with them.

You have no clue how parenting works.

I'm a parent and I'm not sure why the idea that parents should protect their children is somehow controversial.

In this case it should not be necessary - the world should be a better place, without these sick assholes preying on children. However it is not a better place and so parents need to be aware.

Are you a parent? Have you even babysat as an adult?

The great boon of the internet is that it allows the small voices to be heard much more loudly.

The great bane of the internet is that it allows the crap voices to be heard much more loudly, too.

There's a combinatorial naivety about anything as free form as internet. There will be whatever, good or bad, and everything in between.

About child cruelty, I can remember how mean we could be. And how innocent it was at the same time. It's all a game of loud teasing, we were all calling each other names to make everybody laugh; it's just that sometimes some people get too much and sometimes some people already have too much on their plate. I was as much a victim as a perpetrator.

>This is accurate, first and foremost before what I say could be interpreted as shifting the blame from these perverts. But one thing not mentioned in this article is why an 11 year old would be on the internet at all.

You're not shifting the blame so much as directly blaming the victims and their parents.

I would question why an 11 year old would remain on the internet, if the situation really is that bad. So if there are 11 year olds on the internet for a prolonged amount of time, it seems likely to me the situation is not really that bad.

It's almost like human beings who haven't finished brain/mind/social development make irrational decisions.

The irrational decision to return to a environment where they get burned, again and again? Why?

I am not talking about signing up for Instagram. I am talking about staying on Instagram after a flood of sexual harassment, as described in the article.

>The irrational decision to return to a environment where they get burned, again and again? Why?

You'd have to ask a psychologist, but I'm sure the dopamine hit that comes from all the attention plays a role.

So the abuse is not actually a "pain" that outweighs the dopamine hits?

I'm not a medical expert and neither are you. You're trying to apply broad logic to a situation that is illogical and nuanced.

I don't think so. The story here is "horrible things happen to underage girls who hang out on Instagram". So I don't need to be a doctor to evaluate "horrible things". Either horrible things happen, or not.

In the real world, what if somebody would be beaten up in a certain part of town, every time they go there, and they keep returning. You wouldn't have to be a doctor to ask "why does he keep returning".

>You wouldn't have to be a doctor to ask "why does he keep returning".

No but you need to have domain expertise to understand the mental and emotional processes that lead to decisions being made, especially by people whose brains are still developing.