I always loved the time argument, especially since it so often comes from people who don't do anything worthwhile with their time. In the end, the strongest argument they could drum up was "it wasn't like this when I was young!", and then they returned to their TV slump. I wasn't particularly impressed with people's social skills when I was young either - if anything, technology not allows shy and awkward people to connect with people much more easily (and often follows with in-person contact). We didn't exactly get sheltered from inappropriate content either, despite having no internet.

As for physical dangers, you're comparing to "traditional" activities like climbing trees, throwing stones at each other, riding bikes... Eyestrain doesn't quite compare to a concussion. And I'm pretty sure the screams of my kid do more damage to my auditory capabilities than headphones ever did :D

@Luaan "technology" includes TV, of course. As to the way in which technology gives a way for shy people to communicate, I'd say that's exactly the point. It provides a shelter rather than allowing you to fight your fears. Also, saying "X can be dangerous" does not mean "anything that is not X is not dangerous". You are comparing an "average" use of technology with the absolute worst outside of technology

I know that's your point. I just think it's completely wrong :) It's weird that we've learned over time that providing a healthy, safe place for learning new things is a good idea, but suddenly, that turns off when talking about "social skills". Are you really trying to say that bullying is awesome, because it makes the victim "fight its fears"? I also challenge the claim that "technology includes TV". I don't think people think that way at all - it's only "technology" if you didn't have it (or understand it) when you were young.

Just because an argument works in a situation, it doesn't mean it should work in all other situations. Social skills are more valued than ever precisely because they are more scarse than ever! "It's weird that we've learned over time that providing a healthy, safe place for learning new things is a good idea" that's just too abstract to be applied. Anyway, if you think having your kids 10+ hours a day in front of a screen is great, good for you. I wish you the best

What other people think is not relevant to my opinion. I just expressed mine. You cannot say "you are wrong because other people who think something else have a different opinion" as a valid argument. I'll add that technology includes TV, so people like you don't get it wrong

Please do not infer what my argument is based on what other people have argued to you before

I didn't say you are wrong, I said I thought you are wrong :) That's my opinion.

But in any case, you're still claiming that "technology" is anything special in any of this. It isn't, unless you include everything humans ever did under "technology".

In what way is a book fundamentally different from a TV? In what way is an oral story different?

@Luaan you seem to be taking the post personally, is there a specific personal experience or belief that is threatened by David's answer? I think his answer is on point and relevant. While the same list of issue may plague other activities or mediums that fact does not negate the reality of their impact in technology. Neither does it diminish the listing of them as a valuable tool for parents and young adults to use personal rules and regulations to minimize their impact.

@AdamHeeg You didn't address any of the things I've said, so I'm not sure what kind of response you're expecting (beyond "you're entirely right, it's just my bad personal experience that makes me be this way").

But let me try anyway: saying technology is bad because it's addictive, takes time, changes the way we interact socially, allows exposure to inappropriate content, and has physical dangers, is exactly the same as saying excersise is bad because it's addictive, takes time, changes the way we interact socially, allows exposure to inappropriate content and has physical dangers.

Both are true, but that's clearly besides the point :)

Also, just because kids you and I knew had no social skills doesn't mean we should just hand our kids technology to shut them up and ignore the fact that this will diminish their ability to socialize and emote with other human beings.

Your point seems to be people are already messed up, why should we care if technology continues the issue? My point is that we can do better and the whole topic here is about how to go about it! If I am misunderstanding your point please excuse me.

Shouldn't the fact that you have more control over the dangers with technology make you feel like it's less dangerous?

As for the social skills thing, this would only work if you assume "people + technology -> lower social skills". But people are actually socialising using technology. They use it to find interesting people to meet up with, they use it to break the ice in a comfortable environment. I didn't do much socialising, because there was noone I could talk to. Technology would have made me socialise more, not less.

My point isn't that there's no point in trying to fix people. It's that you're automatically assuming that the change is for the worse - as if spending your nights in a pub or watching football was the pinnacle of social activity, and you could do no better.

You have some strange ideas. A parent wanting the best for their children and trying to understand the pitfalls related to technology is not an equivalent to "technology is change for the worse" or an idealization of hanging out in a pubs.

In fact, we're talking about parenting and young children, there is absolutely no connection to your comment about pubs or football. I believe you are arguing against some invisible straw man you created in your mind.