I respect that you want to make that call for your kids, I'm not in favor of one size fits all solutions.
What you're describing here tho is a textbook slippery slope argument [1] in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet.
Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem.
Personally, I see this as 'antithesis' to the smartphone's 'thesis', and we will probably find a synthesis somewhere in between as the dust settles.
fwiw, "If your kid is addicted to screens, it is on you" and (paraphrasing) 'this is not the correct way out of the problem' is what you said, which sounds a lot like you're implying others should do the same as you. You wrote a long and thought out enough comment to add nuance but you didn't, so its hard not to assume thats what you meant.
> Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem.
Actually, "we" have banned all of those things, and continue to do so.
Do you know about promise rings? Kids kill themselves because they get raped after being told their whole life that being impure means their parents love them less. This is just another thing parents get together and organise -- see, it doesn't need to end in prohibition to cause harm, it just takes parents organising to define wrongly what wisdom means to a child.
> in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet.
That's not what I see. I see a group of people, some well-intentioned but some others who are not, and they are organising to restrict the ability for children to learn things and to communicate with others. The well-intentioned need to be made aware that their intentions are not good enough and that children will be harmed and the future made worse because of this.
Sure, some of those people just want to ban "addictive games" or "targeted feeds", but others want to read and approve every message in and out of the house so they can behave differently in public than they do in private, and you can't let them do this.
Don't you see? It's slippery on both sides! That's why there needs to be a better way.
I don’t read that as implying that conclusion, but rather closer to “if you’re not getting the outcome you want, you should change something” versus “you should do what I’m doing”.
What you're describing here tho is a textbook slippery slope argument [1] in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet.
Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem.
Personally, I see this as 'antithesis' to the smartphone's 'thesis', and we will probably find a synthesis somewhere in between as the dust settles.
fwiw, "If your kid is addicted to screens, it is on you" and (paraphrasing) 'this is not the correct way out of the problem' is what you said, which sounds a lot like you're implying others should do the same as you. You wrote a long and thought out enough comment to add nuance but you didn't, so its hard not to assume thats what you meant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope