> This is no different to our parents generation that used to tell us to stop watching TV or get off the games console (like a Gameboy).

Yeah, except for the part where it’s engineered to be as addictive as physiologically possible, it’s exactly the same!

> This is no different to our parents generation that used to tell us to stop watching TV or get off the games console (like a Gameboy)

Yeah, but they were right though?

Honestly, I respect different approaches for disabled kids. Must be very hard, I can't even imagine.

Other than that, movies and games are less destructive than algorithmic feeds, especially short form video. It is preferable to move outside or read a book. But I think we're comparing vegetables to candy to cigarettes.

> Although this isn't a phone, it's a device designed for kids with hopefully some apps that have a little more educational value than the typical phone apps.

HAHAHA no its not. Amazon Kids+ is an endless stream of product tie in mass market commercial junk content.

The quality has gone down over time (amazingly), curation doesn't exist, and discoverability of the little bit of good content that is there is pretty much impossible.

My wife and I are working parents. This is nightmarish. We know screen kids and they are not good around other people.

Our kids use tech - Nintendo Switch, tv, raspberry pis, and yes, even a tablet for things like train or plane rides. But they absolutely did not get this as a toddler. Yes we were tired. Yes it was hard. Parenting isn't easy.

> The talk in this thread indicates absolutely no empathy for dual working parents and just repeats tired talking points.

I am a dual working parent. We dont own a tablet and our kids never get handed phones. The kids occasionally watch Bluey and Peppa pig on the TV (live not apps).

Your Apple 2 days were very different to the algorithms and feeds of today. Giving a kid a phone loaded up with the Youtube Kids app is literally like feeding them crack.

> criticizing from the sidelines

You dont even have kids, why do you have such a strong opinion on what real parents are saying about bringing up their own? You are the one criticising from the sidelines whilst us parents are making the tough choices in bringing our kids up.

In agreement, and I'push another point:

The dual working parents part is a red herring.

Single working parent families were still busy as hell in many circumstances. Even with a single kid there has always been a social push to control (historically)women's time and make them try hard to be good wives/mothers. I include socializing and engaging with their community to be part of it.

Nobody ever had the time or energy to watch after a kid 24/7 while dealing chores, paperwork, the rest of the family etc.

I am a dual working parent. It is hard. I am not saying zero screen time.

This is still a terrible idea.

I think it's better to give them a movie rather than an algorithmic feed.

> The talk in this thread indicates absolutely no empathy for dual working parents and just repeats tired talking points.

My kids get no more than 10m of tablet time a day each. Both of us are working full time. When they ask for more I point them to their toys/books/etc, or play with them.

So, being dual working doesn’t mean you have to allow your kids to have lots of screen time.

Parenting before the age of tablets and phones was a thing that seemed to work fairly well overall.

The problems are tablet and phones. Apps are really bad, even the ones made for kids.

I am sure there are exceptions, but if you are a duo working parents, you don't have time to dig through children apps to figure out which are good.

Overall tv in common space is better (occasionally), you can keep an eye on what the kid is watching and how is affecting their behavior.

You realize when they are done watching tv way earlier than they are (if ever)

The arbitrage will show up when kids raised without screens compete for the same college / job spots as kids raised by screens.

Did you read the article? It clearly references many research projects which show detrimental behaviour, bad temper, and poor attention spans undeniably linked to screen time in under 6s.

Do notice that the big all powerful computer doesn't come with games and it's way more complicated to use, challenging the kid from the get-go.

Also they have to learn to use a mouse and a keyboard to do that. You probably forgot how hard it was to learn to use both. Double clicking was really hard for me as a kid

I've personally tried to do use a tablet in a productive way for the child, and it's all about the apps rather than the tablet itself. Tablets for children (Android knockoffs, essentially) provide what's needed, that is, account controls.

Problem is: there is a limited amount of apps that are genuinely fun and educative. If Amazon wanted really to do something truly educative for children, they'd build a whole market for it, the marketese I see in the article doesn't support that.

You are the parent, you can start at the IF. I'm attacking the premise, not the conclusion.

And I do respect the disclaimer, but lately my experience tells me the devil's advocates help the devil (and I'm an atheist!)

a big tech device/platform designed and algorithmically optimized to hit/increase corporate metrics with small kids as the subjects... hard to imagine anything more dystopian

maybe it'll help us raise good docile consumers and workers tho /s

The original comment invites discussion, yours is just a pointless sarcastic response and will most likely be flagged or killed for being as such.

I see your points, and I kind of agree. I'm trying to express outrage.

> If you think this is a bad idea, please tell me why, happy to discuss.

There are several reasons. The most important one is that children (ab)using highly stimulating devices don't learn to be absorbed by or find reward in less stimulating ones (most importantly, books). It's exactly the same risk as giving addictive drugs to adults.

This is not theory. Just look at children whose parents give them mobile phones/tablets as pacifiers - they become easily restless.

The intellectual argument is also important. Gamified learning is nice on paper, but one can imagine what children are actually going to play.

Related to another post: the difference between a child and an adult who plays videogames is that the latter has (hopefully!) learned "slow" skills, so they can choose pastimes like this deliberately.

Having said that, I'm for forbidding children from using this type of thing, but it's a very dangerous slippery slope, and there's lots to work on before that step.

Not always. AI is being pushed on plenty of people. Let's just say that not all products serve consumers and there's room for regulation.

Even if I want to buy uranium, I shouldn't. And if I want to buy a chair, I shouldn't be seeing only uranium chairs.

This is also a great argument for low-tar cigarettes for children.

I thought that people don't know what they want until you show it to them? They thought they wanted faster horsies but Amazon gave them noxious cars?

That's no reason to design devices that enable this parent behaviour. We should move in the other direction. Shaming parents who overly rely on giving kids devices for adults can be somewhat effective.

I know there's no hard leverage.

Enabling the avoidance of parenting incentivizes parents who would otherwise be parenting to also avoid parenting. I agree with OP, hard to see how this is a good thing.