[atoav]

This is not what needs to be argued. What needs to be argued is that the form of socializing and learning that can only can come through phones/tablets is worth the negative aspects.

As someone who grew up just before smartphones became a thing, I kinda also managed using books and shit.

[HDThoreaun]

no, the claim was that phones and tablets make it easier to learn and socialize, not that you can't without them.

[atoav]

Yeah, and doping makes it easier to win the school soccer game — still few would consider letting their kids do it. That is because the trade offs involved are not worth it at all compared to winning by just training harder.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dogmatically against smartphones/tablets for kids and I understand the pressures parents operate under, but if you want to figure out whether it is good to let your kids do X vs not doing it, you should probably take into account:

- what are the benefits? (claimed: easier learning and socializing, but also: parents don't need to deal with their kids)

- what are the downsides? (there are man studies linking e.g. depression to excessive smartphone use in kids, also: parents don't deal with their kids, smartphones are mostly used for consumption, hard to monitor where the algorithm takes them)

- are there any alternatives that have similar advantages while having less of the bad stuff? (I mentioned books, but of course it might be even feasible to limit the amart phone use to certain times of the day etc.)

And then you weigh those for yourself and decide. This was the point of my post before.