“should be allowed”, in practice, means “should be forced”, since it means saying no to the huge collection of devices (TVs, computers, tablets, nintendos etc) that prevent boredom.
In reality, things are never so black and white. When I tell my kids “no youtube, no gaming, but you’re allowed to use Scratch” there’s a risk they’re just browse scratch’s endless catalog of games made by others, plenty of which are impressively fun. So then I gotta say no to that too. But then my youngest wants to use Scratch with a youtube tutorial. That’s fine right? Well yes it is but it also means there’s the addictive recommendation cycle right there on the screen too. He’s not allowed to click on them but that’s hard to resist etc etc. It’s all solvable but it’s all very nuanced and makers of apps and platforms (including MIT) actively work against you at every step.
My theory is that every person in this thread who thinks this is simple doesn’t have children. It’s simple in the abstract and super messy in reality.
As always. "Why don't you just..."
Minecraft has been great for my 6 year old, learning fluent English etc, but I have to be very active in enforcing rules, especially around Minecraft YouTubers (only British, they tend to build advanced machinery and explain well).
But anything can turn into an addiction. Recently he wanted to do Duolingo to learn intermediate English, but now I get the sense he does it to get "allowed" screen time and doesn't actually learn much.
It's very nuanced. I want to provide screen time because we're nerds and you need to spend time with technology to learn about it, but there are way more distractions than when I was a kid, and our home computer didn't even have internet.
It is not just a question of perspective. It is quite literally a question of what word means.
Agreed - it's not forcing. Not all things that are bad are forcing.
There may be more obvious stimuli like established hobbies, or peer pressure, but ultimately a lot of the desire for a new belonging is likely driven by marketing from the companies selling it.
And kids who have seen marketing to find nintendo or tv fun. If they seen it in their friends house, they found it fun.
And yet, much money is spent marketing things to children. What a waste this must be!
> Likewise, kids always wanted what they seen adults to have (phones).
While a mobile phone may be a simple and useful (even vital) tool, huge amounts of money is spent on marketing to drive desires for particular brands, or new models/features. This influences adults, and also probably children in turn.
> If they seen it in their friends house, they found it fun.
So where did those kids discover or get the desire for the item? And/or where did their parents get the idea to buy it for them? Why (e.g.) Playstation rather than Nintendo, or vice versa? At some point, it likely tracks back to marketing, creating the desire.
"The desire for a new belonging" is present in kids who dont see ads nor have access to screens. They see what other kids have, they see what adults have. Kids wanting the same thing as other kids is nothing new or revolutionary.
Trying to pretend that kids wanting things is somehow a change against any time before is absurd.
> Playstation rather than Nintendo, or vice versa? At some point, it likely tracks back to marketing, creating the desire.
Small kids do not know playstation vs nintendo. They still want games. They want same games as their friends have.
Now, the kind of device I would provide is another story. Unfettered access to the Internet at large, including social media, is probably not well advised - access to Wikipedia probably is. Questions of degree.
There are adults that can’t handle slot machines. Many more seem to be unable to handle social media. I’m very seriously recommending friends and family to limit it. With children it’s more hands-on, so as a parent it wouldn’t just be recommendations.
If you lived in a farm 200 miles from any kid in rural Nebraska maybe. And even there there would be tons of adventures to have on one's own.