Hacker News Reader

Comment by toasty228 | Hacker News Reader

I've seen hundreds of kids watching screens, none of them were reading an encyclopedia, most of them are consuming some form of low quality youtube brain rot

View on HN

Sure but is that evidence that content type does not matter?

I'm just saying the original question doesn't make sense. The content watched by the vast majority of them is trash, we don't have to ask ourselves "what if" they were reading an encylopedia, they're not.

You're right, my original question was poorly worded.

My point is to distinguish what young children do with their screens: they could be learning things through educational games or videos for example.

But if you're interested in the science of it, it makes sense to distinguish screen time in the abstract, like using a screen for any purpose, from engagement with specific content.

Me, I'd hypothesize little if any difference between the rare encyclopedia-reading 4-year-old and the drivel-watching 4-year-old, as my personal unscientific belief is that it's about socialization with family and peers, not content.

But I'd be super interested in science teasing apart those effects.

If your position is just "most parents suck, who needs evidence?", that's valid too, but IMO less interesting than understanding what's really going on.

Apple TV is an available option though. Saying "screen time" vs "low effort stimulating content" muddies the conversation around it being the screen itself and not the contents of the media.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com