[hans1729]

>I would like to say that we can teach kids to have a healthy relationship with the internet and social media but sites like TicTok are engineered to be as addictive as possible so that would be naïve of me to say.

I don't think so. Don't underestimate the intelligence of kids. If your kid actually understands the way dopamine works (on a sufficient level), they will cultivate their own way of attention-management. That's perfectly doable, kids just soak up knowledge. They have to learn it anyway, so the later you start, the worse the consequences of both social isolation and bad usage-culture will be.

/edit:

to add to my original point, when your kids decide for themselves that they want something, and they feel that you are unfairly restricting their access to it, the consequence will be that they demonize you. Where that leads, for them, for their relationship with you, for the other points you're trying to get across, is never a good place. Be very careful about it.

[mathieuh]

Why do you think children will be more successful at outwitting nefarious companies' behavioural scientists than adults are? It is widely acknowledged that companies are successfully applying methods of grabbing and retaining our attention in order to sell us things, so I'm a bit cynical that children, already not renowned for impulse control, will be any better than adults in ignoring that.

[hans1729]

The earlier they make their experiences, the earlier they can develop a mature response to abusive stimuli - if taught about the nature of those stimuli. I'm not advocating for giving developing brains blind access to predatory products. I'm advocating to teach them a healthy-as-possible relation with them.

And the reasons adults suck at this is just that: because we were never taught to deal with it, because our schools curriculae are in complete disconnect of the world we've built within the last 40 years. The mechanisms of attention are by no means rocket science, and kids are not braindead. Those who are generally able to understand and then recognize the dangers will have the ability to do so from young age, and the ones who don't have that skillset early on will never develop it anyway.

[thr0wawayf00]

> And the reasons adults suck at this is just that: because we were never taught to deal with it, because our schools curriculae are in complete disconnect of the world we've built within the last 40 years.

Some companies see this as “innovation”: coming up with new ways to advertise, target, and stick to consumers. The problem with the “schools are behind” argument is that this is how the system is designed and it will always be this way.

Computer Science is a good example of this. It takes years for newer technologies to get into CS curriculum. By the time curriculum is updated to educate kids on phone addiction, there will already be a newer and more insidious method to target kids that didn’t make it into the curriculum.

[rglullis]

> It takes years for newer technologies to get into CS curriculum.

The problem is not the technology. The problem is how they are used, and ethics is something that does not change - or at least changes at a much lower pace.

[thr0wawayf00]

If there's a profit incentive to misuse a particular technology, it will be misused. Ethics is always secondary to profit in a market system. If ethics superseded profit, capitalism never would've taken off.

[rglullis]

Ethical violations happen no matter the economic system, and capitalism (market dynamics) at least provide a mechanism for self-correction.

Your response may help you jerk off to your righteousness, but it does not give anything actionable and it does not provide any type of solution to solve the problem. Can you try again, please?

[BlueTemplar]

I don't know why you would expect schools to do a better job than parents for something like this ?

This is fundamentally a parenting question - and from my limited knowledge of it, pre-teens need a radically different approach than teenagers : for the first (whom we are talking about) you need to be a model, for the second you need to walk a fine line of not antagonizing the likes and values of the tribe they ended in, lest you completely lose any influence you might have too early on.

It's the transition between the two that seems to be particularly hard to pull off here...

[erybodyknows]

Addiction has very little to do with knowledge (or lack thereof), and everything to do with feelings/emotions and their management.

[antisinguIarity]

>because our schools curriculae are in complete disconnect of the world we've built within the last 40 years

I'd be very curious to know if any of the tech-based education programs being rolled out at a rapid rate include any material on the dangers of technology and social media addiction.

[b112]

Those who are generally able to understand and then recognize the dangers will have the ability to do so from young age,

<sarcasm>Which is why heroin addicts, quit when they choose, and have zero issues staying off the above.

Which is why after even a few doses, they never become horribly addicted, and end down a path of self destruction.</sarcasm>

Addiction means logic, and choice go out the window.

[bryanrasmussen]

>Why do you think children will be more successful at outwitting nefarious companies' behavioural scientists than adults are?

because kids don't use Facebook?

[rglullis]

Is TikTok/Snapchat/Instagram/whatever-is-fashionable-today any better?

[giraffe_lady]

I truly do not have a settled opinion on the correct course here.

But the idea that mere education can disarm these tools is incredibly naive. It's not powerless against it but not sufficient alone.

Intelligent people who are deeply knowledgeable about the physiology and psychology of addiction still get addicted to drugs, for example. Or. We all know how advertising works, and yet it still works. Do you think it doesn't work on you?

Intelligence and knowledge can be part of a defensive strategy but they're not a complete one. And even the best strategies executed flawlessly will fail sometimes or against some opponents.

This is not a matter of intelligence, and I find that framing chilling. It carries an implicit judgement that those who find themselves captive to these powers were merely too weak, undisciplined, or unintelligent to prevent that through their own agency. It's not the agency of individuals that is the problem here though.