I agree, but this stuff is like crack-cocaine. Until you've tried to
separate kids from deliberately addictive tech it feels easy to just
say "parents should take responsibility". They should. And as a
parent I do. But parents need help.
I watched a documentary about China where they have technology
addiction boot camps. I supposed it would be biased toward "see what
fascists the Chinese are...locking up kids for gaming too much", but
within 5 minutes I changed my mind and could see a very different
side.
If parents give their kids smartphones and let them go wild on social
media - because they feel unable to help their children against highly
addictive behaviours - then they need societal backup and education to
be better parents. It's hard enough just clothing and feeding those
little ones.
This stuff is destroying the lives of young people. And we made it!
In my opinion, social media (and always-on smartphone culture) is bad
for _everyone_ and should be treated as a public health issue like
tobacco and alcohol. That way, governments can take a... like you
know... _ACTUAL_ _MORAL_ position on it.
Schools can be funded to message kids early and proprietors can feel
emboldened to ban people from using technology in places (as in the UK
where some pubs and gyms ban phones). We can get doctors and
counsellors on board and fund public health awareness.
The _real_ problem is governments are conflicted. They want social
media. It's a useful surveillance and control mechanism. And to some
degree a suppressant. I wrote a fair bit about here [1]
> In my opinion, social media (and always-on smartphone culture) is bad for _everyone_ and should be treated as a public health issue like tobacco and alcohol
I personally wouldn’t go that far but agree with your logic. If we come to the conclusion that something is bad for every member of our society, the course of action shouldn’t be to shield children from it but to straight regulate at a seller level.
For lighter approaches, I think there should be higher barriers to pay money virtual goods in game, and dark patterns should have more protection (automatic refunds on proven bad behaviors of an app could be a thing for instance)
Tobacco regulation worked exactly the way govs wanted it to work: keep making money while putting the blame on the buyers.
On alcohol, I think current policies are decently balanced. There could be more education on its effects and work around the driving part, but we’re in an better place than when there was no gov. intervention at all I think.
Looking it up, 60% having "at least one drink" by 18 (33% by 15) seems surprisingly low. It probably explodes in the 18-20 range because of college, however.
I watched a documentary about China where they have technology addiction boot camps. I supposed it would be biased toward "see what fascists the Chinese are...locking up kids for gaming too much", but within 5 minutes I changed my mind and could see a very different side.
If parents give their kids smartphones and let them go wild on social media - because they feel unable to help their children against highly addictive behaviours - then they need societal backup and education to be better parents. It's hard enough just clothing and feeding those little ones.
This stuff is destroying the lives of young people. And we made it!
In my opinion, social media (and always-on smartphone culture) is bad for _everyone_ and should be treated as a public health issue like tobacco and alcohol. That way, governments can take a... like you know... _ACTUAL_ _MORAL_ position on it.
Schools can be funded to message kids early and proprietors can feel emboldened to ban people from using technology in places (as in the UK where some pubs and gyms ban phones). We can get doctors and counsellors on board and fund public health awareness.
The _real_ problem is governments are conflicted. They want social media. It's a useful surveillance and control mechanism. And to some degree a suppressant. I wrote a fair bit about here [1]
[1] http://digitalvegan.net