[DanBC]

You deny your children's autonomy because you wish to impose your values on them.

I find that deeply disturbing.

Your choice to ban a fun relaxing game because your children enjoyed it is as weird to me as people who ban rock music because SATANIC SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES or people who ban Elvis Presley because JUNGLE MUSIC or the Scottish cult who banned calculators not because they wanted to improve mental math but because SATAN TALKS TO YOU THROUGH SCREENS.

Children have obsessions - see lists of dinosaurs for one example. And of course they're competive - "zx spectrum is much better than vic 20". It's probably a good idea to remind them that they're not infallible and to encourage a few other interests.

But, your children your choice, I guess.

[seanmcdirmid]

My wife and I are planning to have children soon. We have thought about this heavily and have considered a non-digital household at least until they are 9 or 10 specifically so we can encourage them to express their individuality. This isn't an easy choice: it is much easier to entertain a kid with an iPad than with a box of Lego's.

My problem isn't so much that digital devices can't be used creatively (we know they can), just that they are too easy for kids to slip into deep passive consumption modes (like say TV).

[wiredfool]

I'll just point out that a large percentage of my kids' screen time is taken up using the iPads to look up lego instructions online.

[seanmcdirmid]

That is reassuring. I'm really ok with them having access after early childhood.

[Filligree]

It's very hard to do passive consumption with things like Minecraft, and there are definite advantages to learning about computers early.

Instead of blocking off the computer entirely, why don't you instead limit what they can do on it? No, or very limited website access; very few AAA-type games, more sandbox-type games, etc.

[sdegutis]

> because you wish to impose your values on them.

Yes, we impose our values on them. I call that "responsible parenting".