same thing most parents did, and here we are... don't expect miracles from massively underpaid profession which should be the opposite, literally the way to prepare the future of the nation, or fuck it up

▲

echelon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Frankly, our liberty and privacy do not deserve to die because of children.

They are going to track everything everyone does, and the next generation will turn that tracking into coercion and control. This is everything we were warned about in 1984.

Kill products that advertise to kids before you kill privacy.

Make it illegal to advertise to children instead of making people submit their state-issued ID.

Fine parents for letting children online instead of tracking adults in databases.

All of this moral hand-wringing is a lie anyway. They do not care about children. If they did, the kids would get $3 school meals for free instead of 30 million of them going into nutritional deficit.

What hurts a kid more - not getting the necessary nutrition, or them being exposed to porn? I know my friends sent me shock sites when I was a preteen - that didn't turn me into a murdering lunatic. Whereas if I hadn't eaten and grown up healthily, perhaps I wouldn't have made it into a stable career.

▲

kakacik 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Look, I'll do my part with my kids (as in no social e-life before 16, which anyway somewhat aligns with various state bans flying all around the world, if there will be peer pressure then so be it new Commodore flip phone looks ideal for that), I know what sort of cancer to young developing defenseless mind screens have. I can see it all around. Child psychologists all agree, but few parents want to hear that.

But its unfair to kids who have shitty weak lazy parents, and screens are like fentanyl to young mind, there is literally nothing more attention-grabbing in the world for them. Their potential lost to... nothing worth mentioning, just empty dopamine kicks one after another. Its a miniscule fringe situation you say? More than half of kids before 2 are exposed to hours of screens (I see similar articles almost daily these days). This is mankind's future, your pensions, the society that will be taking care of you (and trust me you will need it, the only way to avoid that is to die young). But this isn't about selfish take-care-of-me situation, I just care and worry about how subpar lives such addicts have, spread across whole mankind. Compared to life filled with nature, hobbies, passions, physical social interactions.

I've seen it personally many times, I had kids in my early 40s so most of peers are a solid decade ahead. What began as boasting of having 'digital kids' when younger is now just a sad story of hard addictions thats actively avoided in any conversation, after few drinks parents end up 'what should we do when we have bad kids' sort of questions. When I look at given parents the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, how could it, after all its just genes and parental upbringing that define people's personalities more than anything else.

	▲	PinkSheep 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> But its unfair to kids who have shitty weak lazy parents, and screens are like fentanyl to young mind, there is literally nothing more attention-grabbing in the world for them. As much as I generally agree with your comment, it's not "the screens". It's the entire industry hyperoptimizing every bit out of their social networks/media for attention; gambling mechanics in live-service games. In other words, not a "handful" of apps, but too many of the apps and websites you come across. You'll surely remember the numerous attempts at edu software/games of the 90s. Instead, the current attention monopolies won and have been perfecting their addiction mechanics for the past 20 years.