30% of Children Ages 5-7 Are Watching TV
> People nowadays are letting their TVs be nannies instead of caring about their children.
> This is fundamentally different from the last thousands of years because <some bullshit>
> People nowadays are letting their TVs be nannies instead of caring about their children.
> This is fundamentally different from the last thousands of years because <some bullshit>
People were worried about computer security 30 years ago therefore computer security is nothing to worry about today.
Russian aggression was a concern throughout the 20th century yet we are still here, Ukraine shouldn't worry so much.
What is this general form of argument called? Appeal to nothing-ever-happens?
People aren't getting addicted as a side-effect. Addiction is the primary-effect of the way the companies have designed these experiences, and addition (or the more harmless term "customer engagement") is a direct measure of success at these companies.
So the analogy breaks down pretty quickly.
They're more like Slot machines, which are highly regulated and age-gated.
At least I believe so. It is just a gut feeling though.
Like, it is poison due to the manipulative algorithmic feeds, or something. Like how Facebook turned into a genocide enabler in 2013 something when they added their crappy non chronological feed.
The format in it self is probably OK, as in, short amusing videos.
Moving the goal posts all the time is a terrible means to form an argument.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
> A 5-7 year old kid having access to certain thing is just awful parenting.
Sure is, but what do you want a system where we have to license people before the can have kids? Because there have been quite a few dumb, irresponsible parents that have birth brilliance.
Comparing this to Tipper Gore is so ridiculous. It's as to write off potential concerns because she was against video games and rap music, then applying that logic to an algorithm that is specifically designed to draw you in and make you consume. Forums and Newsgroups were also much harder to find. Google didn't even exist at that point (or at the very least wasn't popularized); it took minutes to get a single "explicit" image to load. Not only that, but the idea of a "filter bubble" didn't exist, because generally speaking information was harder to find, but also more diverse once you found it. That isn't true once you're sucked into an algorithm. I said in another post, I think you could let a kid explore around the age of 13 on these platforms. It's still probably not healthy, but 5 years old? That's insanity, and for the numbers to be near 30% is outrageous.
>but what do you want a system where we have to license people before the can have kids?
Weird jump in logic here. I was never suggesting this. You can be concerned about something and not want such drastic measures. That is usually how adults operate. Teenager logic deals in absolutes like this.
Social media is tailored to the individual and also two-way. Completely different.
A book doesn't give you access to the content produced by billions of people instantly, neither music, refined apps where people that earn more than six figures work daily to ensure you spend more and more time on them. Neither does a TV.
They are not the same.
Candidly the current landscape is a drop in a long full bucket, printing press, papers, radio, film, television, music, the internet, video games all of these things were going to "destroy the children" and yet somehow we managed to survive.
You like all those before you a prognosticating our doom because the world is not the one you grew up in.