Guidelines also stipulate teenagers should have no more than three hours of screen time a day
  • Green@lemmy.caEnglish
    31·
    2 months ago

    I wouldn’t say that screens themselves damage attention spans or anything, but when the screen is the tool to deliver the lowest consumable content imaginable, cutting out the screens is the way to go.

    This recommendation is understandable, but as with anything moderation is key. Not just in terms of how much screen time you allow, but the type of content they interact with.

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      12·
      2 months ago

      Yup.

      I’ve got two kids, the amount of time they get consuming content is limited, the content they have access to is only from my media server (so very curated), and occasional extras like crafting/drawing/etc when we are sitting next to them. And even that I’m moving to the media server due to the ads, which are impossible to really curate and can be very, very odd…

      The physical presence of a screen being on is not an issue. Using it as a replacement for parenting is an issue. Especially under 2.

      I just wish it wasn’t so much effort to manage content that other parents could do it more easily.

      • Green@lemmy.caEnglish
        5·
        2 months ago

        We also have a media server, and I too wish it were easier to set up so more parents could have more control over the content viewed. As it is, I’m thinking to upgrade our machine so it can handle multiple streams both locally and from other houses.

        The other parents we interact with like the concept of limited curation, but they lack the technical experience to get it set up and so they rely on Netflix, Prime, and Disney+. Maybe I’ll get around to it this winter haha.

        • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          3·
          2 months ago

          That’s what I do, nieces and nephews. They are a bit older than my kids, and their parents are not tech savvy.

          I basically have a kids library for anything under PG, and I grab common sense media ratings for a decent estimate on appropriate age, and let them go from there. Then I use tags for what we find appropriate for our kids.

          Some of them still use other things I wouldn’t go near (YouTube kids, ffs that place is wild and weird), but that’s their decision not mine.

          FWIW I run mine off an 8th gen Intel, igpu for transcoding (though mostly I don’t need to transcoded), on a little lenovo tiny workstation I picked up on the cheap. Storage is on my NAS.

          • Green@lemmy.caEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            We have a Nvidia Shield so transcoding isn’t needed for us either. Our server is on an old NUC with a fifth generation i3. Started overheating a year ago so I removed it from its case. It’s running Windows though so now that the little one is back in school I might upgrade it to Mint and see if I can prolong its life.

            Regarding YouTube, we have Smartube on the Shield, and have it configured to open to the playlists page, with our son having his own profile. This lets us set up playlists for him to watch that don’t include any attention whoring videos and are (at least in part) vetted by us beforehand. Lately I’ve been considering adding the YouTube content to our server. Smartube is pretty tweakable though, I like it.

            • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              2·
              2 months ago

              With no server-side transcoding, yeah the nuc is plenty, but I also run my media server (JF containers, to be specific) on Debian.

              If you do end up needing transcoding, the newer Intel stuff is great. I’m considering arc actually for other reasons, but ideally anything skylake (for HEVC) or Kaby Lake (hevc 10 bit) on up is a rock solid choice, no external GPU needed.

              • Green@lemmy.caEnglish
                2·
                2 months ago

                I appreciate the advice, I’ll keep that in mind should I want server transcoding in the future.

  • iterable@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    17·
    2 months ago

    All time with tech as a child should be limited and parents need to watch what they are doing. Just like the tv generation it is easy to let it babysit but it comes with a cost.

    • Plopp@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      All time with tech as a child should be limited

      Akshually a house is also technology, and so are wheels and toys. You want to limit children’s time with those? Hm??

      /s

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    11·
    2 months ago

    Three hours for teens? Does that include doing homework and such? At that age I was tinkering with C++, does that going as screentime?

  • UnpledgedCatnapTipper@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    6·
    2 months ago

    If I was limited to 3 hours of screen time as a teenager I probably wouldn’t be alive today. I used video games as a coping mechanism to dissociate from my gender dysphoria and (at the time) unsupportive family that I was hiding in the closet from. It wasn’t what I would call healthy but I didn’t exactly have a lot of other options.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, as teenagers high amounts of screen time is a symptom of other stuff, whether it’s an abusive home situation or mental health issues, or something else

      In addition to… What else is there to do as a teenager these days? Especially in a car-centric place?

      Kids however probably should have screen time limited, and try to be engaged in other ways, especially their parents, however, many parents are not good parents

  • Marthirial@lemmy.world
    5·
    2 months ago

    Is a TV in the background playing Baby Einstein considered screen time? My daughter is 17 MO and she gets interested on the songs but then goes back to playing. Is she ruined? 😭

    • CluckN@lemmy.world
      13·
      2 months ago

      It’s over, her first words will be, “we need to stop the Rizzler from flushing charged lemonade down the skibidi toilet” and you will be the sole blame.

  • huginn@feddit.it
    5·
    2 months ago

    Not the first time in my life I’ve changed position based on evidence. Not the last.

    The only reason to ask questions is to listen to answers, rhetorics be damned.

    • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
      36·
      2 months ago

      Not sure how this is fear mongering. It’s common knowledge that increased screen time is detrimental to the mind.

      This is a health office issuing a guideline, not imposing a law to jail parents that don’t follow it.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        1·
        2 months ago

        “common knowledge” usually means no scientific evidence right?

        I really don’t give a fuck what the “common knowledge” about something is. “common knowledge” is that Vitamin C helps when you’re sick and that carrots improve your eyesight.

        The reality is neither has any statistically significant impact.

        I don’t have kids so I haven’t read up on screen time and it’s effects but if you have scientific studies about this I’d love to see them.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            8·
            2 months ago

            RE: Vitamin C has been found to have very little evidence in other studies. The evidence is mixed at best, against effectiveness at worst.

            But it doesn’t make things worse so who really cares? Some people waste their money on useless products.

            RE: Screen Time, thanks for that meta analysis. It seems like there is solid evidence for detrimental effects of screen time. It also seems like those effects might be socioeconomically correlated but I haven’t gone through all the cited sources to check if they controlled for status.

            The impact of screen viewing is predominantly influenced by contextual factors rather than the sheer amount of time spent watching

            I think this line was the one that particularly made me want to look into the articles. If screen time is serving as a proxy for parental engagement then it seems obvious that it would have negative effects, but I’ll need to read the additional articles.

            The sources help prove your claim, and have changed my view. Thanks again

            • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 months ago

              Good on you for being opposed to a concept, then taking in the research and adjusting your viewpoint. Not often are people willing - or capable - of this shift in opinion.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      33·
      2 months ago

      A two year old isn’t a ‘minor.’ No two year old can be trusted alone for any amount of time. In fact, leaving a two year alone to their own devices is considered child abuse.

    • corroded@lemmy.world
      4·
      2 months ago

      Children can have phones, tablets, etc when they are old enough to purchase them with their own income.

      Before that, a desktop with parental control software is more than enough for schoolwork.