Hacker News Reader

Comment by elzbardico | Hacker News Reader

This is the easy way out of the problem, but I am afraid, not the correct one.

My kid has had his own tablet since 6, his own PC since 8, and his own cellular since 9.

So far he hasn't turned into a domestic terrorist, and neither is he selling heroin for crypto on the dark web. Also, he has specific times when he can use his devices аnd limits on how much time.

All modern OSes have some sort of parental controls built-in, and when the native controls are not enough to your liking there are plenty of third-party software in the market.

Technology is what allows my kid to connect and play with his friend from the former place where we lived, is also the source where he learned about black holes and watched the Space-X and China's Shenzou launches. Yeah, there's quite a big amount of trash on the web, just like we had on TV.

But the solution is not pretending it is not there and hoping they won't become absolutely fascinated at the magic age of 14.

We are supposed to parent. Part of the parenting stuff means supervising and guiding in all environments your kid has contact with, including screens.

If your kid is addicted to screens, it is on you. Just delaying their first contact to the age of 13/14 won't magically guarantee they will be able to navigate it responsibly. This is just magical thinking born out of laziness.

View on HN

> So far he hasn't turned into a domestic terrorist, and neither is he selling heroin for crypto on the dark web. Also, he has specific times when he can use his devices аnd limits on how much time.

I think this sort of hyperbole is unhelpful. What people are worried about is more mundane: whether the hyperconnectedness will make their kids less happy in the short or long run. There is some evidence that the age of first smartphone negatively correlates with these outcomes. [1] For my daughters, I worry about social media use, body image issues, and the like.

> Just delaying their first contact to the age of 13/14 won't magically guarantee they will be able to navigate it responsibly. This is just magical thinking born out of laziness.

I don't think most parents think this would be a magic bullet. They just think that it is one (important) tool in the toolkit. We understand that parents (noun) are supposed to parent (verb). It's not lazy to say that we think our children would be better served if their brains were a bit more developed before they are confronted with the world of addictive apps and always-on social media.

I'm glad to hear that things have worked out well for your kid. There are of course a variety of outcomes for different kinds of kids. No one knows whether their kid would have been happier (or would have grown into a happier adult) had they done something differently. We are all just trying to figure out how to do our best, and for some people that means slowing down the rate of change from one generation to the next.

1: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/sapien-smartphone-repor...

To add a data point regarding early access to internet, I know of a <14yo kid who was learning digital art from yt, using iPad apps to draw, and sharing them on fora, and finding community online when they felt unable to connect with their peers in school. There were negatives to that experience too, and it could have turned out much worse. But completely prohibiting mobile usage is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As a person who had difficulties relating with other kids back in school (and that also had his first phone later than many other guys) I think that in my case having a smartphone and unrestricted internet access already in elementary school could have made things worse for me, as I would have been even less incentivized in learning how to relate with other kids. Sure, I could have been happier in the short term, but I think my social skills would have been worse long term. Of course this is just my opinion and in my specific case, but I generally agree that waiting until middle school is a good idea. And of course this doesn't mean that parents don't still have to do their job at informing their kids about potential issues of social media and the Internet on general, but I think that an older kid is better equipped to deal with those. At such an age, even 2/3 years make a big difference in maturity.

this was me too

The pledge is about smartphones, you can access the internet and use it for learning, communicating, etc with a PC/laptop.

Completely prohibited is not what they say is it? Is it not wait until 8'th grade to get your own. Meaning you can borrow your parents or similar.

What you've described doesn't appear to depend on usage of internet-connected mobile devices. The research in this area looks at cellular-connected devices, not just access to a laptop/Chromebook/tablet that requires wifi. Was this kid using a smartphone to engage with these communities? I would think this would be unnecessary, and that s/he could have participated via computer and gotten much of the same value (with fewer issues related to FOMO). But I don't know what the situation was. Can you share more?

The idea of waiting till a certain threshold is a lot like how Europe doesn’t have the “18-22 binge drinking” problem because they are conditioned to understand alcohol isn’t just a “I’m at a party, gotta get my monthly intake in one night” because they’re around it all the time rather than just once a month at a party.

Early exposure and proper regulation is key, and the hyperboles he used,IMO are very relevant and astute

That's cool you, a tech-savvy HN poster, has managed to wield technology to find a high-reward/low-risk way to parent using devices, but perhaps your 'correct' solution may not work in all contexts for all people.

Perhaps you just have a kid who has the right temperament to handle devices when young.

Perhaps you work few enough hours or have the resources necessary to parent in a way to make this work.

Perhaps the kids around your kid are generally a good influence.

If there's any truism to parenting (and education) its that there's no one size fits all solution. We're in a moment in time where devices are not exactly great for children given the tools and understanding available. Socializing less device use in a society saturated with addictive devices and experiences doesn't seem that bad an idea, right?

well, I am not telling everyone should do the same as me. I just don't want someone telling me that I should not do it.

Because that's the final goal of such movements: start with "voluntary pledges", move into social stigmatization of dissidents, capture organizational rule, and then, finally, the law. The same script as the prohibition. It is an inexorable and fairly predictable movement, probably a cultural heritage from Calvinism.

This is a fair concern. I have thought about bringing this to the attention of our school board, so that they can publicize it. But I wouldn't want it to be done in a heavy-handed way that implied that 'good parents' wait until 8th.

We need to recognize that different kids may have different needs based on how they get to/from school or extracurriculars, for example. But in the US, I don't see there being much of a risk that kids having smartphones would be stigmatized...the current rate of adoption is quite high, and it's seen as a sign of wealth/status.

I respect that you want to make that call for your kids, I'm not in favor of one size fits all solutions.

What you're describing here tho is a textbook slippery slope argument [1] in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet.

Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem.

Personally, I see this as 'antithesis' to the smartphone's 'thesis', and we will probably find a synthesis somewhere in between as the dust settles.

fwiw, "If your kid is addicted to screens, it is on you" and (paraphrasing) 'this is not the correct way out of the problem' is what you said, which sounds a lot like you're implying others should do the same as you. You wrote a long and thought out enough comment to add nuance but you didn't, so its hard not to assume thats what you meant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

> Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem.

Actually, "we" have banned all of those things, and continue to do so.

Do you know about promise rings? Kids kill themselves because they get raped after being told their whole life that being impure means their parents love them less. This is just another thing parents get together and organise -- see, it doesn't need to end in prohibition to cause harm, it just takes parents organising to define wrongly what wisdom means to a child.

> in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet.

That's not what I see. I see a group of people, some well-intentioned but some others who are not, and they are organising to restrict the ability for children to learn things and to communicate with others. The well-intentioned need to be made aware that their intentions are not good enough and that children will be harmed and the future made worse because of this.

Sure, some of those people just want to ban "addictive games" or "targeted feeds", but others want to read and approve every message in and out of the house so they can behave differently in public than they do in private, and you can't let them do this.

Don't you see? It's slippery on both sides! That's why there needs to be a better way.

I don’t read that as implying that conclusion, but rather closer to “if you’re not getting the outcome you want, you should change something” versus “you should do what I’m doing”.

> Because that's the final goal of such movements: start with "voluntary pledges", move into social stigmatization of dissidents, capture organizational rule, and then, finally, the law.

This is the first I've heard of voluntary pledges ending in prohibition via law.

Do you have any examples?

They gave one - the US Prohibition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...)

I think that’s a bad example because it’s 100 years old and was reversed and, hopefully, is the last time the US does this.

There are tons of “virtues” that aren’t resulting in laws- exercise is good, sugar is bad, coke is bad, etc etc

Saying we shouldn’t encourage voluntary pledges to help our kids because it might be mandatory is probably not a good idea. The tangible benefit from the pledge seems more likely than the low risk of some future mandatory regulation.

Easy to find in the context of child rearing. Beating children was common, started being socially stigmatized and finally became considered child abuse.

A more recent example: the ban on plastic straws. Lots of restaurants were shunning them before they became illegal in several jurisdictions

Yeah, “don’t beat children” seems like a pretty good thing to have advanced as law.

So the argument against is “that’s for me to decide!” and “some people are beaten and turn out fine!”?

I mean, going with your 'it is bad so let's stop doing it' examples, we could add slavery, death penalty for heresy...

> probably a cultural heritage

There's also a cultural heritage of using manufactured fear of top down rules to prevent good things from taking shape.

This is the perfect reply. You said it better than I could. This parent has the three "perhaps" and hardly knows it. This is another good example of HN exceptionalism.

It is ironic that the Silicon Valley millionaires made rich by the attention addicting apps also work very hard to limit their own children's access and screen time.

> It is ironic that the Silicon Valley millionaires made rich by the attention addicting apps also work very hard to limit their own children's access and screen time.

When people work in or adjacent to the sausage factories, they don't want any of it at home knowing how it's made.

At my Silicon Valley area elementary school, none of the kids have a phone.

+9000

"Irony" kind of implies it was unexpected...

> If there's any truism to parenting (and education) its that there's no one size fits all solution

So a pledge to try to enforce a one size fits all solution is dumb as hell yes?

I think it makes sense here because of the peer pressure effect of middle school aged kids. It’s hard when your kid is the only one in 5th grade class who doesn’t have instagram and Snapchat and everything else.

So definitely not dumb as hell. Also, this isn’t one side fits all as there’s lots of room for variability. It’s no more “one size fits all” than not allowing drivers younger than 16.

In the same way as the bans on smoking or drinking alcoholic beverages under 16/18/21/whatever, on voting etc. etc. are dumb too?

> Perhaps you work few enough hours or have the resources necessary to parent in a way to make this work.

This is a rational statement. That we live in a world where this /can/ be a rational statement is troubling.

But the parents are too addicted to screens to parent.

Jokes aside, it doesn't help that many parents are not great with technology (not everyone out there posts on HN) so that even relatively straightforward settings changes like placing usage constraints on your OS may not be clear to parents. I bet many parents don't even know the extent to which they can do that, let alone how.

The general point is, our overall management of consumer technology in society is a complete mess thanks to the fact that its solely driven by profit seeking.

> But the parents are too addicted to screens to parent.

I think this is actually the key to getting kids on board with waiting on a smartphone. If the schools told the kids that smartphone addiction isn't good, and that their parents may be addicted, that would empower the kids to chastise their parents when they're using their phones too much or ignoring people right in front of them.

Then a couple years later, when the kids are thinking about wanting a smartphone of their own, it's already become ingrained in them (by having chastised their parents many times) that smartphones can be addictive, even for adults. They would then be more understanding that perhaps it's not in their best interest to get a smartphone so young.

I would welcome having my kid chide me for being on my phone too much if it meant I could hold off on giving her a smartphone for an extra year or two.

A fair point, but in that case, I think that an activist campaign focused on educating parents would be far more adequate.

The problem with those kinds of pledges is that, like the prohibition, what starts with voluntary pledges ends up becoming a social taboo, then administrative rule, and finally, law.

You can give your child access to technology, allow them to play with their friends, watch space launches etc. without handing them over to corporations who are only interested in exploiting and manipulating them.

It's great that your kid isn't a terrorist. It's a shame, that at age 6 there's already a collection of dossiers being stuffed with data about your child which will follow them for their entire life. It's a shame that they've been being manipulated by lies at an age when they literally can't always tell what's real or not. It's amazing how we failed to learn our lessons there when it was just TV, but advertising now is so much worse than anything we were exposed to on television.

Kids should have computers and they should have access to the internet, but that doesn't mean they need a cell phone and their interactions should be carefully monitored and supervised.

Pretending technology and social media doesn't exist isn't any worse than pretending that children have the capacity to handle social media and the companies who are only looking to take advantage of them. Denying your kids 24/7 access to a cell phone and a facebook account seems a lot more grounded in reality.

Smart Phones are computers, in a different form factor. Giving you kid an smartphone doesn't mean you need to give him access to facebook, twitter, instagram or tiktok.

So is your car and your microwave and your router. All computers in different form factors. The form factor - and associated culture of use - is all that matters. For smartphones, social media is unfortunately inherent part of the experience - the hardware and the OS have been continuously optimized for that use for the past decade.

Smart phones are poor computers. They also come with social media apps preloaded (the last cell phone I bought prevented deleting or uninstalling facebook) although that doesn't mean you can't order your children not to create accounts. They're also difficult to lockdown and monitor, and they continuously broadcast copious amounts of data about your children to third parties. Children would be much better served by having a real PC they can play with and learn on.

Spoken like someone in a bubble. Most people don't care for any of that - they want their TikTok, YouTube, Facebook dopamine hits. They want to "Like" the latest picture Granny posts of their kids.

Not to fiddle with things and learn something new.

For the vast majority of people, computers are just very expensive entertainment devices. That's why Smartphones are so successful. Not because they are great at computing, but everyone has their own personal slot machine. It's always with them. It's always connected.

iPhones don't come with social media apps pre-loaded (unless you count Facetime/iMessage).

> Not because they are great at computing,

Sounds like you agree with me. Smart phones are poor computers but they sell well because they're designed to be easy to use devices for media consumption and data collection. I've written programs on a cell phone (perhaps that's just a much less popular type of slot machine) but I wouldn't recommend it, or expect a kid to develop a love of coding by handing them a cell phone. A PC on the other hand could easily spark that interest in them.

I think kids naturally want to fiddle with things and learn something new. Maybe most grow out it eventually, but it's innate to them. We can't expect kids to know or care about the massive amounts of data collection in smart phones or the sophisticated types of manipulation they'll be subjected to on social media, but as adults we should know better and be very careful about giving kids access to either. Giving a kid an old computer or laptop instead of a cell phone seems like a much better option. Having one set up and available to them in a shared space like an office or living room makes it easy to keep an eye on them while they explore and monitor their usage.

I've never seen an iPhone that didn't have social media apps on it, but I've never seen one at factory defaults either, so I'll have to accept that you're right about pre-loaded garbage being an android specific problem.

> I think kids naturally want to fiddle with things and learn something new.

I have two kids. I can tell you that it's not necessarily true, and kids spend an ungodly amount of time silently comparing themselves to their peers. It's always "My friend has this", "My friend does that". It takes a special kind of kid to have the patience, attention and time needed to want to fiddle around with a computer. I've tinkered with computers, smartphones, etc, all my life and shared as much as I could about it with my children - they have zero interest.

Of course, they don't know about the data collection and they're growing up in a world that normalizes that kind of behavior. When looking back, they'll go-- well as a kid I had that, so I guess that's ok. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, et. al. wants that- they know it's just a matter of time.

My kids have had cell phones since 12 for 'necessary' purposes, but they were not allowed to use it except for that. Otherwise, kept in the public space, in view and must ask to use it. My oldest is halfway till 17 and hardly uses their phone now. I have been thanked for this because they notice how their friends are addicted. The goal here is to avoid priming your kids' brain to be addicted to phones, not necessarily avoiding tech.

What the hell phones have you been buying?

The only ones I’ve seen preloaded with social apps are ones where cell carriers have preloaded them with trash.

probably the kind that a vast number of people buy.

I just overheard someone talking about how they buy cheap phones on Amazon because they don't need all the bells and whistles. Except they don't know that's not the only reason why that phone is cheap.

That's true, though it's harder than it looks to keep the kid off those services. You can block the app, but what if they go in through the web browser. Maybe there's a way to block certain websites on the device, but who knows if kids use proxies or alternate browsers to get around such blocks. It seems like a cat-and-mouse game that's hard to win because kids are highly motivated to get around parental controls, and once one kid discovers a workaround it would be widely shared.

> If your kid is addicted to screens, it is on you. Just delaying their first contact to the age of 13/14 won't magically guarantee they will be able to navigate it responsibly.

I completely agree with the latter, but to achieve the former, it will have to be delayed to at least 18. 12-14 is the age at which they start getting interested in social media, fitting in a group, sexual attraction, etc., which is what makes social media nefast. Prior to that age, many will simply only be interested in cartoons and dinosaurs. It isn't magic, it's just how development works for many (in our environment, at this moment). Hopefully, by delaying it to 18, they will be conditioned less by the instantaneous attention call of whatsapp, tiktok, etc., although many (younger) adults seem quite addicted as well.

> We are supposed to parent. Part of the parenting stuff means supervising and guiding in all environments your kid has contact with, including screens.

That's your interpretation of the parenting role. It might be agreeable for a lot of people on this forum, but that's mostly because we're all a self selected group.

Historically speaking, children were free to learn unguided and parents only interfered if the kids didn't do their jobs, which was literal work on a farm or similar.

I'm not advocating for child labor, but your opinion that it's your job to literally supervise your child learning is also a quiet extreme position from my point of view.

> Historically speaking, children were free to learn unguided and parents only interfered if the kids didn't do their jobs, which was literal work on a farm or similar.

First of all, we have lower levels of child criminality, violence, alcoholism, you name it then they had back in periods you are trying to reference.

Second of all, this is not even historical. Historical parents cared about values they children grow in. They cared about what kind of people they will be. And the classes who could afford education and supervision, did paid those money. It could actually get quite controlling.

I dont recognise that it is so easy to apply these limits, even though I work in tech. When trying to block through Windows, I get lost in a dark patterns maze of microsoft online family accounts, where I ended up with corrupt windows user accounts - I could no longer log into my own admin account with my written down paasword, and had to reinstall windows. When I try google/android instead, I end up with account/app limits that my child can easily circumvent just by watching videos through the browser instead. What I currently have resorted to doing, is dns blacklisting youtube through the router, and then using alternate DNS where youtube should work.

and this is not even to block my kid from youtube, it is just to keep her usage under/at 1 hour per day. meanwhile I have to fight with her misguided mother, who considers giving her a smartphone (she is 8, sigh). I am strongly against giving them to kids, given that not even adults can handle them responsibly.

the bit about windows is that the feature is exploited by ms to get you onto online accounts, but not really to help YOU.

recently, we couldnt launch mineceaft, because windows was missing a windows update.. wtf.. like when pokemongo wont run jntil you apply an android update, sigh

Smartphone <> social media

It's disingenuous to pretend watching some documentary on planets is the same as scrolling on tiktok. These devices have two faces: one is excellent and you can learn a lot from it, the other is pure crystal meth and messed you up.

I think delaying the crystal meth part is fine, but delaying access to education feels rather shortsighted.

> It's disingenuous to pretend watching some documentary on planets is the same as scrolling on tiktok.

It’s disingenuous to pretend kids are only watching documentaries on planets. Especially when YouTube recommends “boobfest2023” ad a follow up. I removed YouTube from everything but the main tv because everyone my kids were watching something “normal” it went into crazy town of violence, conspiracies, and just giant assholes within a few videos or watching the next recommendations.

And there’s no way in YouTube to fix this. Even “YouTube Kids” ended up in garbage after a few bits.

So now I watch with my kids and work to teach them what’s worth watching. But it’s hard because YouTube is working to draw more attention and crazy stuff gets attention.

Also, it’s infuriating to keep having ads on education. I have school assignments that keep get interrupted with ads that aren’t applicable at all. I feel sorry for the company that pays to show an ad in Spanish for progressive auto insurance to my 8 year old. Is it terrible ad targeting tech or just fraud? Beats me, but no one in my house speaks Spanish or drives.

All of this kvetching... You're killing yourself psychologically.

And you're so addicted to YouTube that you'll make all these complaints yet keep it on your main TV? Let me help you:

>And there’s no way in YouTube to fix this. Even “YouTube Kids” ended up in garbage after a few bits.

It's called "YouTube Premium" and removing the channels you don't like from YouTube Kids.

I’m not sure you’re using the word “addicted” properly. It’s a tool that is used sparsely. It’s on my main tv because the only way to moderate is manually. This actually makes us watch it way less.

My problem with YT isn’t the ads. It’s the recommendation engine that shows bad stuff. If I remove a specific channel, there are many more to take its place.

It’s just not a very good product for kids as there is poor moderation.

I think YT is on the crystal meth side actually. Strangely perhaps I find Netflix more appropriate for my kids. I just let them watch a specific episode and there are no ads and the content is adequate. There is at least some moderation.

Edit: I think you are on to something with “ads”. Hate them with a passion. Those especially I regard as pure heroin being intravenously injected.

I agree. Netflix is pretty good with this and their “kids” profile is actually pretty acceptable and I’ve never seen anything crazy in it. They also allow removal of specific shows (eg, 13 Reasons Why) and are pretty kid friendly.

> So far he hasn't turned into a domestic terrorist, and neither is he selling heroin for crypto on the dark web.

So you think. I for one have greatly enjoyed subscribing to your kids’ onlyfans where he relentlessly mocks about how clueless they are to his terrorism and heroin business.

Joking aside, it’s hard to know what our kids are doing and reminds me of a friend who swears that their kids don’t need controls because they don’t do anything bad. And the kid literally has a YouTube channel with them vaping, getting arrested, tagging buildings. They literally said something like “I talk with my kids and know them and they would tell me if they were doing this stuff.” And there’s a weird cognitive dissonance when they watched the video where they said that it wasn’t them, but their friends. “They were holding that vape for their friend, they don’t use it.” People love their kids.

I struggle with having useful controls and use a mix of Apple, Microsoft, google and third party tools like bark. None of them work well. Some do a good job blocking, but not unblocking for things like school.

A simple example of Apple’s, that I think is best, you can set a screen time limit like “one hour a day” and then set some apps like those used for school as unlimited. But the unlimited time apps consume the one hour limit and block the “fun apps.” So my kids would wake up early to use their one hour before school and have no time after school. You can approve extended time, buts by clock time, not actual usage. So if you approve an hour at 709, then it’s allowed until 809, even if they only use the app for 30 seconds.

It’s a usability pain in the rear end and I can’t expect anyone actually uses it.

Not to mention how buggy it is. At least a few times a day it takes 60-120 seconds to open the screen time app because it syncs usage before letting you approve requests.

So really, it’s easier to just block devices altogether. If I could do it again, I would wait until 8th grade.

> But the solution is not pretending it is not there and hoping they won't become absolutely fascinated at the magic age of 14.

In fact, 14, sort of the peak of puberty, strikes me as one of the WORST possible ages to first expose one's children to the Internet. Either let them practice earlier at the shallow end of the Internet pool, or lock them up until they are at Rumspringa age.

"14" also sounds suspiciously like something cooked up in an Anthroposophic thought bubble. Rudolf Steiner was a big believer in 7 year developmental cycles, so "14" is self evidently the correct age to make a deal with Ahriman, if one must. The team running the pledge does not mention any connection to Anthroposophy, but Waldorf schools seem to be endorsing the pledge.

> If your kid is addicted to screens, it is on you.

This is wishful thinking. You can be truly the best parent in the world with unlimited time, wisdom and attention span but in the end you are competing with corporations who are dedicating billions of dollars and thousands of people to make very sure their apps as maximizing addiction. You can't compete with that.

Sure you can limit screen time but that doesn't do much. It's like saying the old days that I only let a child smoke from 10am to noon, so it's ok they won't get addicted.

> Just delaying their first contact to the age of 13/14 won't magically guarantee they will be able to navigate it responsibly.

There are no guarantees in life (except death (and taxes?)).

It's about playing the odds/probabilities to achieved the desired outcomes (presumably happiness, or perhaps Aristotle's eudaimonia).

100% agree. Whatever you decide, supervision and guidance is the best you can do to your kids. I guess it's easier to remove the plug and pretend kids are safe when disconnected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com