I turned out perfectly fine without a phone until age 15, and I’m 17 now, I don’t really use social media other than reddit, Lemmy and YouTube on my phone and I barely use it, since I’m more likely to use my iPad at home exclusively.
I feel as though more parents need to do the same mine did, restrict access to smartphones until ages the kid is more likely to explore the world more, specifically for safety, but still teach them to concentrate on stops while on public transport, on where they walk, etc. and not use their phone on the go apart from when time is able to pass and be stationary.
I cringe at the fact kids a third or less my age are allowed phones, I shouldn’t even be allowed since my brain is still developing, i cant imagine the levels of braindead these children will be when they get to my age, since people my age are already horrific enough…
I was given a phone quite young but completely discarded it after I bought myself a thinkpad. No need for it when I can be comfortable on my Arch setup. I think the amount of brain damage could be severely reduced if they only had access to a family PC or something. Most kids probably wouldn’t even touch the PC until way later.
Socialization is a slow process. Many people who have good families and rich environments still have problems learning how to have face to face conversations. Look how many people on this site talk about not wanting to have a conversation over the phone or talk to a stranger in a shop.
What does this have to do with smartphones and the internet? The internet is a means of gathering information first, and a form of communication second. I don’t get what socialization has to do with the first one. If you want people to be comfortable communicating on the internet (or via phone or whatever) then presumably they need to start earlier.
As for people struggling with phones, that’s because a) lots of people here are autistic, and b) voice phones are not an ideal form of communication anyway. Either way the answer is practice, not shying away from the problem.
Okay first who said eight hours? I am not saying there shouldn’t be limits, just that banning the internet completely is a bad idea. Second communicating with technology is an essential social skill in itself, and being able to use technology and apply critical thinking to things you read is absolutely essential. Lots of people work from home using technology. Almost everyone will have to use technology to do research e.g. in college.
Socialization is a slow process. Many people who have good families and rich environments still have problems learning how to have face to face conversations. Look how many people on this site talk about not wanting to have a conversation over the phone or talk to a stranger in a shop.
That’s my original comment. Never said anything about banning the internet.
well since social media can affect attention spans negatively, as I’ve observed with myself recently, I don’t think the effects of such would translate positively into social or educational circumstances, arguably the most needed situations in a child’s life at that time, even if they are almost an adult.
sure, alcohol and drugs do still affect a child quite intensely, though I’m saying that, is social media and the endless dopamine harvesting NOT a drug? if you think about it, it extracts, makes a person want to come back for more, causing addiction, further extracting more, losing its effectiveness and making it almost impossible to quit from there.
people may say it isn’t addictive, but its just that it isn’t as noticeable since it is a society-wide phenomena which is seen as positive.
sure, alcohol and drugs do still affect a child quite intensely, though I’m saying that, is social media and the endless dopamine harvesting NOT a drug? if you think about it, it extracts, makes a person want to come back for more, causing addiction, further extracting more, losing its effectiveness and making it almost impossible to quit from there.
I don’t think you understand what drugs are or can do. They don’t all just blindly increase dopamine. They have many other effects on the mind and body that social media does not. This whole concept of dopamine detoxes and addiction = dopamine needs to die too. It’s not based on solid scientific understanding as addiction is far more complex than this and comes in multiple, separate forms. Even drugs like amphetamines that primarily interact with the dopamine system don’t always lead to addiction (ask anyone with experience of ADHD meds). Thinking dopamine is only about addiction and vice versa is like thinking electricity is only for heating and that all heating must be done using electricty.
Raising children without access to the internet is both backwards for their education and actively dangerous. The internet has allowed minors in bad situations to escape or get help multiple times. It’s also made people realise their parents or guardians are insane or abusive including those who are members of dangerous religions and cults, are homophobic, or are abusive for other reasons. School in some countries is also packed full of propaganda, and even when it isn’t they can’t always help and are sometimes a source of abuse themselves. Restricting access to information isn’t a good thing.
no, I’m not confused at all, I am meaning that the smartphone is the most accessible way to utilise social media, meaning due to its formfactor, it is the most convenient way to access it.
are you more likely to use a desktop PC using android x86 (just an example) or use a smartphone? its almost like using a smartwatch to use Photoshop, its not the same as using a desktop, you know what I mean?
except they don’t have the same software. Phones use ARM, not x86.
(amusingly, if you had just said “Android”, you would have seemed less insane. still insane, since you could have just said ‘linux’, but less. But even saying that would still make you insane, since the operating system isn’t the social media, and isn’t what you were talking about.)
I do understand that fact, but I used it as an example since you can utilise android apps with the same or similar user experience as a smartphone, I’m more using it as an example of form factor compared to chip architecture, as the latter wouldn’t be fitting at all. Apologies for the confusion.
If you were in any way correct, we should be banning cars and trucks from the USA, because they’re the most accessible way drugs are transported. To stop drugs, we should ban cars. Cars are making it far too easy to get that nose candy.
Yeah, no. Hardware has nothing to do with this.
(I’m not even going to start with how insane your mentioning android x86 is; like somehow that esoteric version of an OS has something to do with social media. I’m guessing you think everything uses apps, and social media doesn’t run through web pages?)
I turned out perfectly fine without a phone until age 15, and I’m 17 now, I don’t really use social media other than reddit, Lemmy and YouTube on my phone and I barely use it, since I’m more likely to use my iPad at home exclusively.
I feel as though more parents need to do the same mine did, restrict access to smartphones until ages the kid is more likely to explore the world more, specifically for safety, but still teach them to concentrate on stops while on public transport, on where they walk, etc. and not use their phone on the go apart from when time is able to pass and be stationary.
I cringe at the fact kids a third or less my age are allowed phones, I shouldn’t even be allowed since my brain is still developing, i cant imagine the levels of braindead these children will be when they get to my age, since people my age are already horrific enough…
…which starts with P which rhymes with T which stands for trouble.
Mothers of River City is your son starting to buckle his knickerbockers below the knee?
I was given a phone quite young but completely discarded it after I bought myself a thinkpad. No need for it when I can be comfortable on my Arch setup. I think the amount of brain damage could be severely reduced if they only had access to a family PC or something. Most kids probably wouldn’t even touch the PC until way later.
Why would using a phone affect brain development negatively? We aren’t talking about children sniffing Ketamine or drinking a fifth of vodka here.
Socialization is a slow process. Many people who have good families and rich environments still have problems learning how to have face to face conversations. Look how many people on this site talk about not wanting to have a conversation over the phone or talk to a stranger in a shop.
What does this have to do with smartphones and the internet? The internet is a means of gathering information first, and a form of communication second. I don’t get what socialization has to do with the first one. If you want people to be comfortable communicating on the internet (or via phone or whatever) then presumably they need to start earlier.
As for people struggling with phones, that’s because a) lots of people here are autistic, and b) voice phones are not an ideal form of communication anyway. Either way the answer is practice, not shying away from the problem.
There are only so many hours in the day. If a child spends eight hours a day glued to the phone, they aren’t going to learn social skills.
Okay first who said eight hours? I am not saying there shouldn’t be limits, just that banning the internet completely is a bad idea. Second communicating with technology is an essential social skill in itself, and being able to use technology and apply critical thinking to things you read is absolutely essential. Lots of people work from home using technology. Almost everyone will have to use technology to do research e.g. in college.
That’s my original comment. Never said anything about banning the internet.
Yes in a thread about banning kids from having smartphones, which are the main way people access the internetwork nowadays.
Just for my own reference; which part do you read as ‘banning the internet’?
well since social media can affect attention spans negatively, as I’ve observed with myself recently, I don’t think the effects of such would translate positively into social or educational circumstances, arguably the most needed situations in a child’s life at that time, even if they are almost an adult.
sure, alcohol and drugs do still affect a child quite intensely, though I’m saying that, is social media and the endless dopamine harvesting NOT a drug? if you think about it, it extracts, makes a person want to come back for more, causing addiction, further extracting more, losing its effectiveness and making it almost impossible to quit from there.
people may say it isn’t addictive, but its just that it isn’t as noticeable since it is a society-wide phenomena which is seen as positive.
I don’t think you understand what drugs are or can do. They don’t all just blindly increase dopamine. They have many other effects on the mind and body that social media does not. This whole concept of dopamine detoxes and addiction = dopamine needs to die too. It’s not based on solid scientific understanding as addiction is far more complex than this and comes in multiple, separate forms. Even drugs like amphetamines that primarily interact with the dopamine system don’t always lead to addiction (ask anyone with experience of ADHD meds). Thinking dopamine is only about addiction and vice versa is like thinking electricity is only for heating and that all heating must be done using electricty.
Raising children without access to the internet is both backwards for their education and actively dangerous. The internet has allowed minors in bad situations to escape or get help multiple times. It’s also made people realise their parents or guardians are insane or abusive including those who are members of dangerous religions and cults, are homophobic, or are abusive for other reasons. School in some countries is also packed full of propaganda, and even when it isn’t they can’t always help and are sometimes a source of abuse themselves. Restricting access to information isn’t a good thing.
social media isn’t the phone’s fault.
it seems like you’ve confused hardware and software.
no, I’m not confused at all, I am meaning that the smartphone is the most accessible way to utilise social media, meaning due to its formfactor, it is the most convenient way to access it.
are you more likely to use a desktop PC using android x86 (just an example) or use a smartphone? its almost like using a smartwatch to use Photoshop, its not the same as using a desktop, you know what I mean?
You don’t need to run Android x86 to access a social media site on a computer. What are you talking about?
im just giving an example that has the same software, im not saying its better or that you need it.
except they don’t have the same software. Phones use ARM, not x86.
(amusingly, if you had just said “Android”, you would have seemed less insane. still insane, since you could have just said ‘linux’, but less. But even saying that would still make you insane, since the operating system isn’t the social media, and isn’t what you were talking about.)
I do understand that fact, but I used it as an example since you can utilise android apps with the same or similar user experience as a smartphone, I’m more using it as an example of form factor compared to chip architecture, as the latter wouldn’t be fitting at all. Apologies for the confusion.
You are not a clever man.
If you were in any way correct, we should be banning cars and trucks from the USA, because they’re the most accessible way drugs are transported. To stop drugs, we should ban cars. Cars are making it far too easy to get that nose candy.
Yeah, no. Hardware has nothing to do with this.
(I’m not even going to start with how insane your mentioning android x86 is; like somehow that esoteric version of an OS has something to do with social media. I’m guessing you think everything uses apps, and social media doesn’t run through web pages?)