5 ms·

The Chinese gov't has limited their equivalent of TikTok—which is purely educational content—to 40 min a day and zero access for kids between 10pm and 6am. Tha

The Chinese gov't has limited their equivalent of TikTok—which is purely educational content—to 40 min a day and zero access for kids between 10pm and 6am. That's not a bad start. Overexposure is literally giving users dementia, aka brain atrophy. eta: if anyone was spending 4.8 hours a day playing the slots, we'd call that a serious addiction, let alone kids whose brains are still forming.

hunglee2 3y ago
do we agree with this authoritarianism? I wonder whether we should just let the kids access to all information, we actually don't know whether this will lead to good or bad outcomes.
- doggerel 3y ago
  No, children should not have access to "all information". The world is full of information and media that would traumatize them. For example, murder videos from a brand new war. Radicalization content would also go on my "not for children" list. There is plenty of material that children lack the tools to understand and digest without trauma or ideological absorption. Most adults lack those skills too, to be fair. There should actually be ways to choose for your children what kinds of content you would like them to have access to until they're mature enough to decide for themselves. If you want to limit it to educational content, that's up to you as a parent.
  - bracketslash 3y ago
    who gets to decide how "radical" is defined and what is classified as "radical"? I certainly agree with leaving it up to the parent.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      Like the parent of the dude who just cut the throat of that French teacher ? It's a family of radical islamists but who are we to say they're radical ? Maybe we just don't understand them ? maybe we are the problem ? Is antisemitism radical ? Are islamists radical ? Who knows right ? Such a tough question!
      - master-lincoln 3y ago
        For you the world seems to be black and white (assuming your comment was sarcasm). Radical means favoring extreme changes. So depending on where you live and in what part of society the things you mentioned above might not be seen as radical or they might be. I for example would have liked to not give children access to a bible too. That might be seen as radical in some christian societies...
      - bracketslash 3y ago
        Is wearing a burqa radical? Are books that have inappropriate language radical? Are transgender rights radical? It’s a slippery slope. Banning access to information is dangerous.
        shoulin 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - willvarfar 3y ago
      Was the recent John Oliver segment on home schooling hyperbole? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsZP9o7SlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsZP9o7SlI
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago
  Is being alcohol consumption for minors authoritarianism? Is heroin being illegal authoritarianism? Crystal meth? It is clear by now that social media are terrible for the individual, and for society. And so much more for kids.
- lm28469 3y ago
  Ah yes, let them access the hamas video I saw last week, surely it won't cause any harm. And porn too, porn is good for kids. > do we agree with this authoritarianism? Yes? Do you agree with your kids getting blasted/manipulated by foreign content coming from an app controlled by an authoritarian country ?
  - sojournerc 3y ago
    Parents can deal with that, not the government. Why do people want the government to solve all problems? Why do you want more authoritarians?
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      Because parents often don't want to raise their kids anymore because they are too busy with making money or fulfilling individualism. Can you really not understand why some people favor authoritarian systems? Can you not imagine that some folks just don't want think critically themselves? Live is often dull but easy if you follow along in authoritarian systems. Some people prefer that
      - sojournerc 3y ago
        Ok, but do you think that's a good thing?
    - lm28469 3y ago
      > Why do you want more authoritarians? Why do you want foreign apps made by authoritarian countries to have root access to your kids brains ? > Why do you want more authoritarians? > Why do people want the government to solve all problems? I know it's 2023 and people believe "laws = authoritarianism" but come on. We decided to live in organised and hierarchical societies for a reason, and the reason isn't "I want to do whatever I want whenever I went even if it's detrimental to myself and my community"
      - hunglee2 3y ago
notamy 3y ago
> Overexposure is literally giving users dementia, aka brain atrophy. Genuine question: Are there any studies/etc showing this? If there are, why aren’t they the focus of articles like this?
- doggerel 3y ago
  Totally fair question. This is the first thing I could chase down. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044619/ My guess would be that the sample size here is small and therefore it's not a completely iron clad study. Maybe there are bigger studies out there, I don't know. This one would be easy to gainsay and/or maybe the publication doesn't think its readers respond to scientific research. I guess this is like the early days of research showing smoking was bad. Long way to go until everyone is convinced.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    If instead of "eta:" you'd written "added:" you probably wouldn't've had to write out an explanation.
Ruthalas 3y ago
What does "ETA" mean in this context? I've only seen it used for "estimated time of arrival", which doesn't make sense here.
- doggerel 3y ago
  Here it means "edited to add". It's a way to signal it wasn't part of my first post, and I think it's polite because if someone replies and then the OP edits but doesn't mark what they've added, it can make the reply look weird and out of joint. Which sometimes people do on purpose.
  - Ruthalas 3y ago
    Ah! That makes sense, thank you.

hunglee2 3y ago

do we agree with this authoritarianism? I wonder whether we should just let the kids access to all information, we actually don't know whether this will lead to good or bad outcomes.

doggerel 3y ago
No, children should not have access to "all information". The world is full of information and media that would traumatize them. For example, murder videos from a brand new war. Radicalization content would also go on my "not for children" list. There is plenty of material that children lack the tools to understand and digest without trauma or ideological absorption. Most adults lack those skills too, to be fair. There should actually be ways to choose for your children what kinds of content you would like them to have access to until they're mature enough to decide for themselves. If you want to limit it to educational content, that's up to you as a parent.
- bracketslash 3y ago
  who gets to decide how "radical" is defined and what is classified as "radical"? I certainly agree with leaving it up to the parent.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    Like the parent of the dude who just cut the throat of that French teacher ? It's a family of radical islamists but who are we to say they're radical ? Maybe we just don't understand them ? maybe we are the problem ? Is antisemitism radical ? Are islamists radical ? Who knows right ? Such a tough question!
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      For you the world seems to be black and white (assuming your comment was sarcasm). Radical means favoring extreme changes. So depending on where you live and in what part of society the things you mentioned above might not be seen as radical or they might be. I for example would have liked to not give children access to a bible too. That might be seen as radical in some christian societies...
    - bracketslash 3y ago
      Is wearing a burqa radical? Are books that have inappropriate language radical? Are transgender rights radical? It’s a slippery slope. Banning access to information is dangerous.
      - shoulin 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - willvarfar 3y ago
    Was the recent John Oliver segment on home schooling hyperbole? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsZP9o7SlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsZP9o7SlI
4gotunameagain 3y ago
Is being alcohol consumption for minors authoritarianism? Is heroin being illegal authoritarianism? Crystal meth? It is clear by now that social media are terrible for the individual, and for society. And so much more for kids.
lm28469 3y ago
Ah yes, let them access the hamas video I saw last week, surely it won't cause any harm. And porn too, porn is good for kids. > do we agree with this authoritarianism? Yes? Do you agree with your kids getting blasted/manipulated by foreign content coming from an app controlled by an authoritarian country ?
- sojournerc 3y ago
  Parents can deal with that, not the government. Why do people want the government to solve all problems? Why do you want more authoritarians?
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    Because parents often don't want to raise their kids anymore because they are too busy with making money or fulfilling individualism. Can you really not understand why some people favor authoritarian systems? Can you not imagine that some folks just don't want think critically themselves? Live is often dull but easy if you follow along in authoritarian systems. Some people prefer that
    - sojournerc 3y ago
      Ok, but do you think that's a good thing?
  - lm28469 3y ago
    > Why do you want more authoritarians? Why do you want foreign apps made by authoritarian countries to have root access to your kids brains ? > Why do you want more authoritarians? > Why do people want the government to solve all problems? I know it's 2023 and people believe "laws = authoritarianism" but come on. We decided to live in organised and hierarchical societies for a reason, and the reason isn't "I want to do whatever I want whenever I went even if it's detrimental to myself and my community"
    - hunglee2 3y ago

notamy 3y ago

> Overexposure is literally giving users dementia, aka brain atrophy. Genuine question: Are there any studies/etc showing this? If there are, why aren’t they the focus of articles like this?

doggerel 3y ago
Totally fair question. This is the first thing I could chase down. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044619/ My guess would be that the sample size here is small and therefore it's not a completely iron clad study. Maybe there are bigger studies out there, I don't know. This one would be easy to gainsay and/or maybe the publication doesn't think its readers respond to scientific research. I guess this is like the early days of research showing smoking was bad. Long way to go until everyone is convinced.
- hollerith 3y ago
  If instead of "eta:" you'd written "added:" you probably wouldn't've had to write out an explanation.

Ruthalas 3y ago

What does "ETA" mean in this context? I've only seen it used for "estimated time of arrival", which doesn't make sense here.

doggerel 3y ago
Here it means "edited to add". It's a way to signal it wasn't part of my first post, and I think it's polite because if someone replies and then the OP edits but doesn't mark what they've added, it can make the reply look weird and out of joint. Which sometimes people do on purpose.
- Ruthalas 3y ago
  Ah! That makes sense, thank you.