this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
163 points (93.1% liked)

Technology

58131 readers
4063 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Ah, that's down to content control. The same way my dad had to bust my ass if I was watching skinemax too much, parents have to be aware of such and take steps to both monitor and educate.

Unfettered access is risky. Unsupervised access is risky. But cooperative, communication driven access becomes a very, very powerful tool for a parent. You start using YouTube to teach things, give them the critical thinking skills to parse bullshit for themselves.

But fuck Facebook. It's usefulness is long gone, so I just block that are the router and have done with it.

Also, I have read studies about social media risks. The studies showing harm are dubious. That's why I emphasized good data. When the study doesn't involve good control participants, it's almost meaningless. When a study pulls from a limited group, it's kinda sketchy. Worse, when a study completely disregards other issues, it's junk from the beginning.

[–] pop@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Also, I have read studies about social media risks. The studies showing harm are dubious

So the studies are only good when it conforms to your "good data" biases. got it.

Unfettered access is risky. Unsupervised access is risky. But cooperative, communication driven access becomes a very, very powerful tool for a parent.

Then why block facebook, oh so "communication driven parent"? Or you're kind of parent that buys themselves "#1 Dad" hat and start lecturing other parents on how your kid made it for you.

Was your dad also busting your ass as you read 100 different annecdotal "parenting tips" from strangers on TV? Was your TV in your pocket 24/7 for supervised access and did your parent supervised and communicated about every nook and cranny of the internet?

Technology has well surpassed what differentiated you and your parents. If you think you've got it all figured out, you might be in for a big wake up call.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Go fuck yourself if that's the way you're going to be

[–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

That sort of impatience really doesn't bode well for your parenting skills.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

OK..... Good parenthood doesn't invalidate the idea that the modern internet is bad for some/many kids.

Smoking is bad for kids, even if you don't let your kid smoke, smoking hurts the health of kids who do. Right?

[–] Nima@leminal.space 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

with a bit of teaching what to avoid and having the proper perspective, I don't see why it's a terrible thing.

I certainly wouldn't compare it to smoking, however.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not comparing it to smoking.

If someone's response to "social media is bad for kids", then to me "I keep my kids away from it, easy peasy" is not a response that invalidates the original argument. It actually supports the idea: social media is dangerous, therefore I intervene as a parent.

[–] Nima@leminal.space 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I didn't say to keep kids away from it. I said teach them how to be safe while online. The internet can be a fantastic resource for kids in most circumstances.

by your logic, walking down the street is dangerous for a child so obviously the solution is to never let them walk down the street ever. rather than walking beside them and teaching them how to be smart and avoid dangers.

the phrase "social media is bad for kids" is too broad for it to really mean anything without context anyway.

if you want to look at it that way, most things that exist are bad for kids.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Scroll up and see what Southern Samurai said

[–] Nima@leminal.space 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] neptune@dmv.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

OK, so what does what happens in one person's family have to do with all children?

Again you might teach your kids to walk safely on the sidewalk, but if something changes and ten of thousands of kids just start walking off the sidewalk..... Wouldn't that be an issue worth considering?

[–] Nima@leminal.space 2 points 7 months ago

I don't think it's quite the world ending issue you do. That seems to be the basis of our disagreement.

Do whatever you feel you need to do to protect your children from whatever.

But the intensity of your argument for a simple clickbaity article is a bit too much for me to want to continue talking about it in this manner. sorry, bud.