in terms of speech development, TV was found to be a massive benefit in increasing vocabulary - how are you so sure the internet (nebulously defined as that is) is detrimental to communication abilities, arent they on there talking to their friends?. And if we are talking about the internet in general and not just twitter/tiktok, then its largely NOT doomscrolling and ragebait. Hackernews (heck, every single news organisation EVER) has an "algorithm" for "increasing engagement", books are written to increase engagement, its been going on for centuries but only since social media appeared do we suddenly dislike it.

▲

cdfsdsadsa 2 days ago | parent [-]

> TV was found to be a massive benefit in increasing vocabulary

By who, and for who? My kids (ages 5+7) watch significantly less TV than their peers (as well as currently almost zero internet access), and are frequently complimented on their command of vocabulary and ability to express themselves.

>And if we are talking about the internet in general and not just twitter/tiktok, then its largely NOT doomscrolling and ragebait.

By amount of time that people spend on the internet, it is mostly doomscrolling and ragebait. If only we could take that part of it away.

▲

skeezyjefferson 2 days ago | parent [-]

>By who, and for who?

ages 0-6, increased vocabulary with increased screen time https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.13927

> My kids (ages 5+7) watch significantly less TV than their peers (as well as currently almost zero internet access), and are frequently complimented on their command of vocabulary and ability to express themselves.

Compliments are nice I suppose, but theyre a poor metric when regarding vocabulary size.

> By amount of time that people spend on the internet, it is mostly doomscrolling and ragebait. If only we could take that part of it away.

"most" people I assume doesnt include you? Youre too smart to fall for it, obviously.

▲

cdfsdsadsa 2 days ago | parent [-]

Have you read the paper you linked? It indicates at best a slightly positive outcome on average, with many caveats (video is worse, the younger the kid the worse the effect, removing educational content results in a negative correlation, etc). It also links to another metastudy that covers a larger age range, and indicates a negative correlation.

>theyre a poor metric when regarding vocabulary size.

I'm talking about school reports, among other things.

>"most" people I assume doesnt include you? Youre too smart to fall for it, obviously.

It's something I struggle with daily, and have put a lot of thought into what I want from my use of online technology. Eg, I don't have a smartphone. How can a kid be expected to make good choices if I can't?

	▲	skeezyjefferson 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>It indicates at best a slightly positive outcome on average Follow the science bud. The science is telling you to give them screentime >I'm talking about school reports, among other things. well yeah, you are now. > It's something I struggle with daily, this actually explains a lot