| >
When all my peers were using AIM, and Yahoo instant messenger on Windows, I was on Linux communicating via online forums and IRC learning from mostly adults willing to mentor me as an anonymous username on the internet. Right, and that was before all the kids were on facebook, or twitter, or whatever. You're talking about a time when the only online-networking being done, was being done on a desktop computer. IME, less than 1 out of every 100 children in 2000 were actually using desktop computer. We are now in a time were 95/100 children are using some sort of portable personal computer that is with them all the time. > I was homeschooled and moved every 3-6 months growing up and in spite of all these "handicaps" I still learned to make several IRL friends within a week or two of every new city I ended up in. Which was perfectly possible when almost none of the kids were on computers. Now they all are. > Stop worrying about making kids popular and making them conform in ways beyond basic manners and respect. The roads less traveled are more likely to kelp a kid develop atypical skillsets which will give them an advantage in the job market later. I'm afraid you're not a good example: you appear to lack some important skills wrt to the world as it is. Think about it this way - there are people who didn't bother putting up with the hardship of a reduced social network, and they ended up more successful than you. I don't think you have any interaction with children. I do. |
Also, I used to be a kid.
Not every kid needs to conform to social norms.
To your point, plenty of kids will be successful with and without smartphones, but I would argue those that don't will likely be less prone to endless hours of doom scrolling on apps literally designed with casino-like dopamine drip algorithms to keep them addicted.
I choose to believe someone is not a shitty parent for trying to delay a child from having constant in-pocket access to addictive and harmful things.