I fear my children are overexposed to technology. Experts say I’m right to worry
Sophie Brickman
The status quo puts the onus on parents to monitor what their children are engaging with when they log on – which puts a lot of strain on us mortals
A significant reason that it’s your job is that your views on what your children may get up to is different from that of other parents.
Thankfully, help is on the way. Last month, the US Department of Health and Human Services granted $10m to the American Academy of Pediatrics to establish a National Center of Excellence on Social Media and Mental Wellness. It is part of the Biden administration’s strategy to address an alarming national mental health crisis and has a mandate, according to the press release, to “develop and disseminate information, guidance, and training on the impact – including risk and benefits – that social media use has on children and young people, especially the risks to their mental health”.
Instead of government deciding what your children may see or do. You know, that freedom to raise your children as you, not they, see fit?
“…your views on what your children may get up to is different from that of other parents.”
Indeed, for example, some would consider government ‘information, guidance, and training’ profoundly unsuitable:
Stay away from other disease vectors. Words are harmful. Fat is fit. Self-reliance is unhealthy toxic masculinity. Etc.
’Thankfully, help is on the way. ’
Ronald Reagan had a pithy comment to make about this sort of situation, didn’t he?
I fear my children are overexposed to technology
Technology? Like plumbing, books, electricity, bricks, woven material for clothes, purified metals? OK, back to the Serengeti.
“You know, that freedom to raise your children as you, not they, see fit?”
Only available to Muslim parents, I’m afraid. Sorry.
WTF has this got to do with government? The government does not care for your child as an individual. If YOU do, sort it out for yourself.
Here’s a question for the netwizzards read this blog. Would it actually be that hard to institute a separate, childsafe internet? I’m thinking of something similar to the S in https:// Call it httpc:// if you like. Getting it requires certification. O/S set on childsafe then only install childsafe browsers & apps which can only access childsafe domains. The cost of certification gets distributed around the users the same way that security certification does.(?)
Although one barrier would be getting parents to expend the minimal exertion needed to use it. They all seem to regard the safety of their children as someone else’s responsibility & that someone else should pick the tab up.
Not hard at all..
Now… deciding what goes on it…. oooohhh that’d require Official Nannying. And agreement on what would be suitable for children. And what constitutes a “child”. And what would be “age-appropriate”, and…
You trying to start WW III? 😛
BiS, good idea, but Grikath is right too. Right now I can’t imagine the paedo/transmutilation/grooming agenda being kept out.
Now… deciding what goes on it….
I don’t give a monkeys’ what goes on it. Just that it puts the problem in the hands of those think they have a problem, not everyone else’s. The sensible answer would be; if you’re concerned for the safety of your spawn don’t give them unrestricted access to the interweb. And what exactly’s hard about that? But apparently too difficult for those think they have the sense of responsibility to raise kids.
Doesn’t the protection thing exist already? Software can block a PC/router/user’s access to “non-safe” (often subscription services offer this stuff). Problem is the same one, a parent has to be motivated to put it in place.
What pisses me off is that this was something being discussed 30 years ago at the dawn of the interweb. And the conclusion then has turned out to be exactly we have now. That parents are too lazy & irresponsible to accept responsibility for their own kids. That peer group pressure combined with the kid nag & whine factor would end up with rug rats infesting every corner of the web. And the result would be calls for regulation of something it’s almost impossible to regulate.
The analogy is 20mph speed limits on motorways because you can’t expect children not to play on them.
“a National Center of Excellence on … Mental Wellness”: will it be allowed to conclude that Mental Wellness would have been well served by not closing schools in a fit of hysteria about a virus to which healthy children were effectively invulnerable?
Hypocritical twats.
Yes, the technology can create a httpc protocol. Now, how do you stop little Justin typing https into the browser bar? Or using Mummy’s computer? Or Tarquin next door’s computer? Or the one in the library without crippling that cinputer for everybody else?
a National Center of Excellence on … Mental Wellness
…and what do you think they would have to say about Creepy Joe?
Now, how do you stop little Justin typing httpc into the browser bar? Or using Mummy’s computer? Or Tarquin next door’s computer? Or the one in the library without crippling that cinputer for everybody else?
The first is addressed because the settings on the O/S of Justin’s computer won’t allow an install of any browser will load a non httpc site. Jeez, it’s not as if every library in the country didn’t have a children’s section & children didn’t have access to the adult shelves.
And this & rest is to enable concerned parents to exercise some fucking responsibility. What is it about responsibility you don’t like?
Technically, it would be trivial to have a separate children’s Internet. The problem is deciding what should be on it. Do you allow violence, like Tom & Jerry? Non-cartoon violence showing no consequences, like The A-Team? Women who don’t wear a hijab? Scary subjects, such as mathematics? Scheming and murder to seize a throne, like The Lion King? And, of course, depiction of torturing a man to death, like a crucifix with Jesus Christ? Encouragement of credulous belief in censorship, such as the idea of a separate Internet for children?
If you tried setting up such as system, you’d find that very large numbers of people each thought that the appropriate rules were perfectly obvious, but violently disagreed with one another when they compared their opinions.
a National Center of Excellence on … Mental Wellness
…and what do you think they would have to say about Creepy Joe?
Isn’t he the main reason it was set up?
@ Undoubtedly you’d be correct. But then the interested parties would be arguing amongst themselves. Not trying to enforce restrictions on the rest of us.
I’d be interested what the commentariat think those “interested parties” would be as a proportion of all internet users? (Excluding the kiddywinks of course, who we’re presuming don’t have the maturity to have a say).
Hmmmm BiS. As I remember it, there was no problem about me reading any books I could find around the house when I was young. And I don’t think they were to blame for the way I turned out.
Such kids as I’ve seen infesting the local libraries don’t seem to be suffering from excessive exposure to adult literature. Or even from any rubbish they might look up on the internet.
Kids just naturally like to run around shrieking, no matter where they are.
To answer your question, I don’t think there’d be too many people interested in setting up a censorship system on the net for kids. Only the usual ratbags who’re always wanting ram their crap down everyone else’s throat. And they’d want to extend the censorship to everyone!!
@bloke in spain – “the interested parties would be arguing amongst themselves. Not trying to enforce restrictions on the rest of us.”
The whole point of censorship is to impose restrictions on others, so I think you have a very rosy view there. As soon as the general principle was established, we’d face demands for more separate Internets – where the Mary Whitehouse types wanted no porn, no advertising of whatever they dislike (typically, starting with alcohol, tobacco, gambling).
@Boganboy – “there was no problem about me reading any books I could find around the house when I was young”
That’s because the Big Lie of censorship is that knowledge is harmful. As you have discovered for yourself, it isn’t. What is harmful is censorship, because that allows lies to go unopposed. For example, the people who benefit most from keeping children ignorant of sex are those who want to have sex with them, exploiting their ignorance to keep them from telling anyone.