[cdfsdsadsa]

Have you read the paper you linked? It indicates at best a slightly positive outcome on average, with many caveats (video is worse, the younger the kid the worse the effect, removing educational content results in a negative correlation, etc). It also links to another metastudy that covers a larger age range, and indicates a negative correlation.

>theyre a poor metric when regarding vocabulary size.

I'm talking about school reports, among other things.

>"most" people I assume doesnt include you? Youre too smart to fall for it, obviously.

It's something I struggle with daily, and have put a lot of thought into what I want from my use of online technology. Eg, I don't have a smartphone. How can a kid be expected to make good choices if I can't?

[skeezyjefferson]

>It indicates at best a slightly positive outcome on average

Follow the science bud. The science is telling you to give them screentime

>I'm talking about school reports, among other things.

well yeah, you are now.

> It's something I struggle with daily,

this actually explains a lot

[cdfsdsadsa]

>Follow the science bud. The science is telling you to give them screentime

If I see some science that says this, I'll think about it.

[skeezyjefferson]

you just did but ignored it