[cacois]

Respectfully disagree - their peers often make an unhealthy environment on the internet. Kids need in-person communication and interactions, its necessary for healthy development. The internet looks like it provides social interaction, but it actually does not provide what kids need. They should interact with their peers elsewhere, synchronously.

[fwip]

I feel like interacting with a moderate-sized set of real peers is workable - like chat rooms on AIM with the kids you know from school. Kids have always had unsupervised time with their peers.

Where it breaks down, is when you get a whole ecosystem populated entirely by kids and those trying to make money off of them.

[cacois]

I agree that AIM was fine. Not as good as in-person interaction, and no real substitute for it, but as an augmentation it caused no real harm. Chatrooms could be in the same boat, but had more problems.

However, social media ever since feeds and the "like" button are an entirely different beast which is addicting, dehumanizing, and antisocial - preventing kids from developing socially.

[mrguyorama]

No, most of the problem with internet interaction is how the human brain considers the username saying things to you on AIM is NOT the same as the dude you hang out with every day in real life, and more importantly, the usernames you don't know in real life are just vague spirits your brain is much more willing to demonize. This exact same effect is the main cause of roadrage and why everyone is such an asshole when you put them in steel boxes and have them interact on the road.

It is NOT SOCIALIZATION to talk to people on the internet. Your brain simply does not treat it the same way.

Kids are fine interacting in person at school and other public places. They don't need this social media bullshit, and even private messaging systems like AIM or MSN aren't really that great.