Hacker News Reader

Comment by omginternets | Hacker News Reader

I think they were probably just asked to be as accurate as they could, and no more. There's no clear and compelling reason for a blanket recommendation to avoid social media altogether.

But I'm largely with you. As a practical matter, it's easier just to avoid it entirely.

View on HN

Kids may be socially isolated if they’re not present online.

That doesn't happen in a vacuum. Parents are responsible for enabling their childrens' social lives, it's part of their duties as parents.

Friends live far away? Organize with other parents to drive kids back and forth, or go home together from school. You live in SFZ suburbia? Well, that requires a more drastic change but it's doable.

I think the downsides outweight the upsides. If they're doing sports and clubs, the social isolation will be minimal, other children will have phone bans too, and they won't be at risk from a load of horrendous stuff online.

I’ve experienced a lot of exasperation recently as the sports and clubs that my kids are involved with only communicate the practice schedule and meeting times over WhatsApp.

If a parent takes the intervening effort to limit time online, they can take the intervening effort to ensure their child takes part in social activities. The connection is not lost on them.

Social media is addicting in large part because kids are addicted to each other. It's often used as a substitute for hanging out. That barrier doesn't need to be there all the time. Adults get complacent with tech and will bias towards the convenience of staying at home versus going out-into-the-world to do things - if we want to lead by example, changing our own lifestyle helps, but simply accommodating a kid's extra-curriculars will get you out of the house too.

And really, if you prevent a kid from watching 3 hours of television, are they going to do "nothing" instead? No, they'll figure something out to keep entertained. By the same token, they'll want to satisfy their social needs.

One problem is that opting for online chat can be a defense mechanism against going out and being vulnerable in front of other people.

Are you pro or anti Remote/Work From Home?

Pro do what you want. Personally I end up working from a coffee shop once a week, I'd be alright with flexible hybrid. I do get some social needs met from family, but I clearly benefit from getting out of the house. With kids, it's easier this way than having your own weekly extra-curriculars (though I try to set time for some). Friends in this city are few and weekends get repetitive.

That's true only if the majority of kids spend the majority of their time online. It's a circular argument. And while one might argue that that is indeed the case today, the question is SHOULD it be the case, tomorrow?

I think it's just an objective fact: given the way social media sites intentionally try to grab and hold onto our attention at any cost, the cons far outweigh the pros and we all (not just children) would be better off consuming less social media. Once the media companies restructure their business model and make their platforms more ethical and sustainable for society, then I have no problem with widespread adoption again.

Yet, this argument doesn't seem persuasive to the creators of such technology.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-screen-time-child...

Maybe. And maybe you can work around that.

It's a judgement call.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com