Comment by Apocryphon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Apocryphon | Hacker News Reader

I’m going to head the likely discussion off the pass: like articles on nutrition or fitness, discussions on screen time inevitably devolve into share-fears where everyone is describing and possibly advocating their own lifestyle approach, and it’s very subjective.

And that extends to responses to TFA. Personally, I think this article does a fine job dispelling some of the hysteria around screen use. But on the other hand, it probably goes too far towards minimizing the effects of ubiquitous hyper-stimulation. Part of it is segments like this:

> A popular view is that screens are like cigarettes—the less you consume the better. That simply isn’t true. A more nuanced comparison would be that screens are like food—it depends on what you’re consuming and how much.

But that’s a straw man. No one is talking about the dangers of Khan Academy or Duolingo. They’re talking about the addictive nature of social media and other infinity pools of content and engagement. That’s what the danger of screens is about.

I disagree.

While I agree that I haven't seen specific criticisms of Khan Academy being dangerous, I absolutely have seen both pervasive media messaging as well as real people in my personal life express and stand behind unconditional unqualified statements like "Screens are bad for kids; one way I keep my kids safe is absolutely minimizing all exposure to screens. Screens are bad and harmful for children."

This really is a meaningfully different message from "I'm concerned about social media use specifically. I try to limit the amount of passive content consumption my child is exposed to, and I try to shift the passive content to forms that are less of a superstimulus and more intentional, like novels."

I agree with you that the addictive nature of social media and other infinity pools of content and engagement represent a lot of the real danger of screen time, but I disagree that this article is arguing against a straw man.

If you're lucky enough to never encounter these ideas, congratulations on cultivating an excellent social environment! The rest of the world hasn't all made it there yet.

> No one is talking about the dangers of Khan Academy or Duolingo.

Isn't this why the author's food analogy is more communicative than the popular cigarette analogy?

True, though "screen time" is definitely a euphemism for unfulfilling entertainment.

I suppose the distinction is still useful since everyone's favorite dispute to "screen time should be minimized" is to invoke the hypothetical case of a person who spends too much time doing something constructive with their phone/computer.

I remember using that argument with my parents who would force me off the family computer for spending too much time in MUDs/MMOs. My dumb parents don't realize they're kicking me off a learning device! —I'd say as I spent 99% of my time fighting kobolds ingame.

That's kind of the point. Calling it "technology addiction" or "phone addiction" is reductive to the point of being completely false. Internet connected devices are tools at the end of the day, and any problems result through the ends those means are used to access or interact with, not the means themselves.

> No one is talking about the dangers of Khan Academy or Duolingo. They’re talking about the addictive nature of social media and other infinity pools of content and engagement.

Some people, sure. But there are indeed plenty of people who feel that self-administered screen-based learning is a questionable substitute for the personal attention of educators and a losing trade against the constructive, social, or physical activities performed offline.

Definitely not a straw man.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com