That same 2 hours at 5-8 seems to me to steer towards something like: toxic wish fulfillment, materialism, inappropriate slang & behavior models, “pranks” (ptuh)
Now they did not specify in the freely accessible portion but especially non-interactive stimulus is thus problematic as I understand.
As I recall there have been studies on this regarding toys that flashes lights and makes sound without interaction causing it, and the babies have a markedly different brain response to those, compared to toys which only blinks and sounds in response to direct interaction.
The other reason is that simply playing with the baby using wooden blocks, small dolls and such toys is in my experience plenty to keep them engaged.
A buddies toddler is about a year and just managed to place two cubes on top of each other without toppling them, and was is excited he cries with joy each time he does it. That's learning motor skills and experiencing reward you don't get with at least passive screen use.
Maybe those kids with such massive exposure are more used to it, never did that experiment with our own kids. I may fail them later in life somehow but I certainly didn't do such basic mistake, screens are toxic to young mind on many levels, active ones quadruple so.
I've heard all the excuses from the parents, but in reality it mostly boils down to 'we are tired, we are lazy, I don't care anymore' from people glued to screens themselves. As parents do, so children follow. its hardly ever a 'good' content, cheap dopamine kicks is what works best.
I wonder when will society wake up, and starts treating these actors in similar fashion as say pedophiles. Active harm to kids is harm to kids, fucking up our future is one of worst crimes out there.
they tune out Mr. Rodgers and BBC News pretty quickly, and it's on to biting daddy or the dog, etc.
At one years old, 2 hours is massive percentage of their "awake and aware" time, considering how much time they sleep and eat at this age.
Kids, especially kids that age, don't learn from screens. They learn from interactions with people and the real world. A screen just mesmerizes them, and distracts them from higher value activities.
And you shouldn't be trying to teach 1-year-olds counting and ABCs, it's totally inappropriate. They're learning things like speaking, how to move their bodies, etc.
I'll disagree a bit, although arguably its mostly the audio. Good calm shows with wide vocabularies are similar to reading. Watching Stillwater is quite a bit different than watching Paw Patrol.
1 is quite a bit different than 2 though. It's good this differentiated between 1 and 1.5.
I have 2 kids under 5 and we have ~0 screen time (unless we are having some sort of crisis and need a distraction for a few minutes). We spend time with similar families, and those with more screen time. I'm not trying to sound superior when I say there is a VAST difference in ability between the two groups.
But why. Why are we stimulating with mindless color movement, like a modern lava lamp?
You can tell which kids shows care and which dont by how much unnecessary movement they introduce into the background plate. Some have a breathing and swaying so every element is in motion, others have stillness so your eyes and attention are drawn to the actual action.