| ▲ | ikiris 3 days ago |
| “Devices or accounts they should not have” Just because you think your kids should be limited to the Bible or no phones or no social media or no d&d or whatever arbitrary limits / moral panic you impose, does not extend those limits to other kids in any moral fashion. Those kids have full rights to have whatever they have and you are indeed the bad guy for your arbitrary limits if they are not common or inhibiting socially. |
|
| ▲ | ericmcer 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| What there is 100% a precedent for prohibiting certain activities from minors because their brains are undeveloped. In the future we will view a child spending hours a day on Tiktok how we currently view a kid smoking cigarettes. It is creating an entire generation of anxious, ADHD addled kids who struggle with school and focused work of any kind. |
| |
| ▲ | ikiris 3 days ago | parent [-] | | [citation needed] for evidence that somehow TikTok is at all responsible for causing adhd | | |
| ▲ | ekianjo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It may not cause ADHD but it is certainly not doing anything good to their brains | |
| ▲ | snovymgodym 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Infinite feeds designed to learn the user's preferences and then show them endless content are bad for your attention span. Doesn't have to be TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, etc. are all the same thing. | |
| ▲ | kridsdale1 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bruh we have a decade of Research on this. Go type some words in to Google Scholar. | | |
| ▲ | ikiris 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The closest thing I can find is in the floods cause rain sense, so please post the links To put this in perspective, people said the same moral panic about tv and that has also been rigorously proven false yet disagreed with by laymen. | | |
| ▲ | speakfreely 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Radio was the original moral panic. Then television. Then video games. Now we're on to social media. But this time feels different. Why? Because even the adults are noticing they can't control themselves. Their attention in other things is suffering. Our brains are being trained to seek short dopamine hits from reels instead of entering a real flow state that solves fulfilling challenges. Social media reel scrolling creates a "potato chip" kind of flow state... it seems to satisfy you in the moment, but even after you've consumed more than you thought you would, you're still unsatisfied. The introduction of a new medium is not novel, but the magnitude of the effect is. | | |
| ▲ | ozim 3 days ago | parent [-] | | TV and early computer games were not designed to drive addiction. Well tv was looking for ways to attract people and also game makers. But it wasn’t like it is with social media YT specifically designed to suck as much attention as possible. Games nowadays are include much more addictive mechanics like loot boxes. |
| |
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | TV is vastly different, it’s tailored to demographics of watchers and at the time the understanding of psychology when it comes to marketing and retention was substantially less developed than it is now. | | |
| ▲ | jacobgkau 3 days ago | parent [-] | | These days, it also serves to encourage people to build worldviews around fictional scenarios much the same as social media encourages building worldviews around fictional information. | | |
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Implying it wasn’t always that way? | | |
| ▲ | jacobgkau 3 days ago | parent [-] | | As you said, the psychology of marketing and retention is far more widespread today than it was when TV was invented. Would you agree news stations today report differently than they did 50 years ago? That's a very obvious transition. The transition of how fictional programming has changed is less obvious, but still there-- and the amount people watch (and allow it to shape their personalities) has changed, too. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | aczerepinski 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ADHD is a real neurological condition that people are born with; not something learned via an app. Post links to research please. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | randunel 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No, those kids can't have whatever they have if they're under 13, 14 or 18, depending on what it is that they have. |
| |
| ▲ | iugtmkbdfil834 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They can.. if one of the following is true: 1. Their parents are doing exceptionally bad job
2. Their parents are doing exceptionally good job Sadly, there is no way to tell, because not all kids are created equal. I know my parents had to basically remove our PC from our home ( how many parents have that option today? ) to put me and my siblings in line. Unfortunately, this only adds to the problem, because bad parents tend to think they are great and vice-versa. |
|
|
| ▲ | stephenhuey 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Do you have children? We are not bad parents just because we prohibit our children from doing something that is a "common" practice for many other kids in our circles. As for inhibiting socially, do you realize that multiple major publications have just been putting out articles in the past month about adults isolating more than ever? If anything, social media is a contributing factor to that social decline. I'm grateful my kids are young, and were not born a decade earlier because many kids I know that were born around that time have suffered with smartphone access. These are not arbitrary standards--it is a widely understood problem. |
