If you think this is a good idea, please tell my why, happy to discuss.<p>I have nothing else to say rn.
doing devil’s advocate here, because it does look like a nightmare.<p>IF my kids were to have access to a tablet, I would prefer it be a tablet specifically desgined for kids, rather than a commodity all powerful generic computing device and OS
[flagged]
The original comment invites discussion, yours is just a pointless sarcastic response and will most likely be flagged or killed for being as such.
> If you think this is a bad idea, please tell me why, happy to discuss.<p>There are several reasons. The most important one is that children (ab)using highly stimulating devices don't learn to be absorbed by or find reward in less stimulating ones (most importantly, books). It's exactly the same risk as giving addictive drugs to adults.<p>This is not theory. Just look at children whose parents give them mobile phones/tablets as pacifiers - they become easily restless.<p>The intellectual argument is also important. Gamified learning is nice on paper, but one can imagine what children are actually going to play.<p>Related to another post: the difference between a child and an adult who plays videogames is that the latter has (hopefully!) learned "slow" skills, so they can choose pastimes like this deliberately.<p>Having said that, I'm for forbidding children from using this type of thing, but it's a very dangerous slippery slope, and there's lots to work on before that step.
I see your points, and I kind of agree. I'm trying to express outrage.
They're going to use a device anyways because mom or dad are going to want to avoid parenting. Might as well give them something designed for them.
That's no reason to design devices that enable this parent behaviour. We should move in the other direction. Shaming parents who overly rely on giving kids devices for adults can be somewhat effective.<p>I know there's no hard leverage.
> Shaming parents who overly rely on giving kids devices for adults can be somewhat effective.<p>I'd like to hear more about the results you've gotten with this approach. How do you approach is this with your kids?
> How do you approach is this with your kids?<p>Regarding my kids: high priority, wide/curated choice (not in terms of restriction, but in terms of actively finding things they may like), accompanied learning, and, crucially, starting from a very young age. It's pretty much standard parenting, that is, one gets out what one puts in.<p>By the time children start to pressure for this type of devices (say, 10/12), they will have learned to enjoy books and more creative activities.
I don't have data, I don't run a study. Are you saying that shame is an ineffective mechanism of social cohesion?<p>With my kids, I oversee everything they do (they are under 6). They average 15min daily for two episodes of a kids show.<p>I'm not saying go to zero. But definitely not over 3 hours and definitely not a dedicated device for them.
So.. stop producing smartphones / tablets? TVs? What's your other option?
Stop marketing to them to kids or normalizing kids using them?<p>This is really not that hard. Modern app culture is highly addictive and provably poison for our brains over time. Adults can choose poison if they wish but when they give it to their kids it is called child abuse.
I'm not saying go to zero. But definitely not over 3 hours and definitely not a dedicated device for them.
Most of us live in reality land.
Our kid has certainly not had access to tablets/phones the first years of her life and only rarely until she was 9 or 10 or so. We have also banned phones from the dinner table, etc. from the beginning.<p>Parenting takes time and focus. Putting 0-6 years olds behind a tablet screen is just absolving yourself from your responsibility as a parent.
It's a such a shame that it's impossible to parent children without a screen in reality land.
What? My kids have never ever had a screen of their own. They sit still in restaurants and flights like well parented kids have for decades. Anyone who thinks screens are required for bringing up children is ignoring countless research projects which prove otherwise, and are actively hurting their childrens development.
Reality is nobody forced you to have kids.<p>If you cannot raise your kids properly, please dont have kids.
parents will do it anyways, so products that have child safety features are being developed
My only possible counterpoint in agreement is whataboutism. Companies make lots of devices designed for "negative" behavior.<p>Not an excuse but an explanation perhaps?
Enabling the avoidance of parenting incentivizes parents who would otherwise be parenting to also avoid parenting. I agree with OP, hard to see how this is a good thing.
Demand for products comes from the consumer, not the producer. This trend happened a long time ago, with parents giving their kids a tablet to avoid actually parenting.<p>Maybe it's making the best of bad parents
Not always. AI is being pushed on plenty of people. Let's just say that not all products serve consumers and there's room for regulation.<p>Even if I want to buy uranium, I shouldn't. And if I want to buy a chair, I shouldn't be seeing only uranium chairs.
I mean uranium can be a hazard to people around you, so I don't think that's an equivalent scenario.<p>Drugs could be a good analogy as it (mostly) affects yourself. A safe route for people to buy those would fix the #1 leading cause of death of young adults today (fentanyl)
Amusingly, I totally bought Uranium off of Amazon ~7 years ago when I wanted to test my Geiger counter. Doesn't seem to be available anymore though? Sad!
I thought that people don't know what they want until you show it to them? They thought they wanted faster horsies but Amazon gave them noxious cars?
The demand was for transportation, not any specific product.<p>Amazon's target market here, wants to parent their kids without parenting their kids. Whether that's a TV with cartoons 20 years ago, a tablet 5 years ago, or a "digital pacifier" today nothing has changed. It's just being fulfilled differently.<p>My point is that the responsibility is on parents, not companies who will inevitably get the blame and nothing will change. See the other commenter here who said their kids don't even own a tablet.
This is also a great argument for low-tar cigarettes for children.
Do you have a strong argument against them?<p>The group of parents who let their kids smoke might get those instead, improving their health<p>The parents who don't allow it would never consider them<p>I suppose it depends how many of group 2 could be converted to 1 if they were "low tar!".. my intuition is close to zero
The drop-proof design is good selling point even for adults. Few phones and tablets come that rugged from the factory. The long battery life/playback time too. Might see some use among adults if wasn't stuck with the $9/month subscription.
IMO even parents who use digital devices to pacify their children know they are making bad choices, but just choose to anyway out of convenience. This choice mirrors a lot which adults have to make these days, and fighting convenience requires strong will and sticking to principles. This is not something which comes naturally or easily to humans unfortunately.
Somebody should study whether giving a smart device to a toddler increases their chances of getting ADHD diagnosis and medication at later age. Probably the answer is yes.<p>If shitty parent's don't care about well-being of their children, they could at least consider the cost of future medication, not to even mention likely worse performance in school and job market.
From the article,<p>> While observing 422 children ages 3 to 5, a 2022 study led by Radesky found that mobile device use for calming — in other words, a digital pacifier — was associated with “decreased executive functioning and increased emotional reactivity.” (Executive function refers to memory and problem-solving skills needed for everyday life. Emotional reactivity refers to poor impulse control in response to stress, pain, and other negative feelings.)<p>ADHD is a type of executive function disorder.
It's funny how those same billionaires who sell these devices, do not give their children devices until the age of 14.<p>PS to parents: give you child a toy or a book not a tablet ffs.
I agree for age of 3-6 years, but until age 14 is <i>ridiculous</i>.<p>Not all devices are equally bad.<p>I've been happily learning to code my own video games on Intel 486 PC in QuickBasic since late elementary school (age 10), and yes, I played outdoors with other kids too.<p>Before I had PC of my own, I was making them on paper (game design and mechanics, not literal code).
> One product design that concerned me was the handle — like it’s intended to be carried around like a briefcase<p>Has the extra benefit of getting them ready for the workforce. /s
[flagged]
Adult video game player here, happy to discuss why you think that's a problem.
Worse, as these are key developmental years for children, who themselves are not yet equipped to responsible decisions for themselves.
Why does this attitude still exist?
And what kind of entertainment do you enjoy in your 30s and 40s?
Worse. The adults have to take the responsibility. The children need to learn first what is and isn't right.