HN Reader

Ye and Zuckerberg plugs the laptop mic with a dud cable.

I guess most parents try to limit screen time. But some have a hard time doing it since it is a great babysitter.

I try to do a total blockade of YT at home for kids. Watching other kids be hypnothized by the feed years ago was enough. The algorithm seems to converge to unboxing videos and surreal spam.

On that note, I'm happy to let my daughter play switch, because it has the best system for limiting screentime that I've see to date. I can set a limit, and then I can increase that limit for the day or lock it down again, remotely from the app. Very streamlined experience, clearly made by someone with user experience. In comparison, on iOS the system is janky and the Chromecast it's close to broken (and feels like abandonware).

All ages benefit from time-limited exposure to social media. We have a term for it now: brainrot. Fully convinced it is the cigarettes of our generation: ubiquitous enough to be pervasive despite negative externalities.

Screen time features exist on most devices. Parents - please set them up. It doesn’t take a lot of effort. I limit my kids for 1/2 hr of screen time per day. I exclude apps like iMessage, phone and maps.

Yeah - they do ask for more time here and there. But it’s pretty well controlled and they adjust to it

This thread is person after person saying “oh wow, person who sells terrible thing for humanity doesn’t let their kids have unlimited access to terrible thing! It’s so obvious. This isn’t news.”

The news is that the CEO of youtube is saying that Youtube is something that should be limited and he thinks harm will come to his children if he does not. This may be obvious to people on this site but a lot of normal people think it’s fine. It’s shocking as for a lot of people it’s more like “CEO of cucumber farm limits cucumbers for their child!” As that’s how Google markets youtube for kids.

This isn't hypocrisy, it's parenting.

Do you think the Pfizer CEO lets their kids have unlimited Viagra? Or the Anheuser-Busch CEO's kids have unlimited Bud Light? I don't think this is the gotcha it's painted as.

The world is going to be underwater in a couple decades and we're fighting the world's biggest companies from eviscerating children's public education. It's not looking good.

If there's any lesson to come from this (ha, learning) it's that we need to stop venerating successful business people. It turns out they're just people who like money and don't think about the consequences of their actions.

Meanwhile “normal” (neglectful) parents give iPads or internet-connected computers to 5-year olds. They never stood a chance.

I don’t think this idea is that controversial? Most (?) people would agree watching YouTube 16 hrs a day is bad, but agree there is also a benefit to some of the content available.

I've certainly spent a lot of my life on social media - even as a child. It's just that back then the media was the forum that my friends and I ran; the other forums we talked on; and then later the video-games we played. There certainly is an increase in the amount of addictiveness now of the feed. I was always easily addicted to writing and reading a lot of online text (a lot of which was just garbage on both sides) but the habit seems stronger now. I wonder what changed. I'm trying a couple of experiments: one is to reduce engagement bait stuff by blocking users who say it; and the other is to try to end infinite-feeds.

I think I have a desire to 'correct' other people and a desire to 'complete' the feed. If I can eliminate these two, I wonder if I can reduce the problem.

It’s not just about limiting - why don’t these people make it easier on the apps themselves to do it? We know why.

Just throw it out of the window. I'm not going to give my 6y son access to a smart phone until he is much older, ideally when he is in senior high school. The only issue is that his future friends may not have the same idea, so it's going to be extremely difficult when he grows older. Fortunately we have a mobile ban in the school, so at least they know this is not a good thing.

Truth is that NOTHING beats parental involvement.

That's it. No law or tech will change that that.

That CEOs recognize this should be no surprise, same goes for non CEOs.

We parents are in a constant war with screen use by our children. It causes a cognitive dependence that is translated to a chemical one (dopamine etc). I don't blame the mega corps and their CEOs, they are legal money makers not cultural leaders. We are winning and losing battles everyday and that depends on factors like child temperament and age, school, peers etc. I believe my children will thank me for that later.

[flagged]

Somehow we've not had the problem (yet). They get bored quickly and self-limit themselves, though we reserve the right to look at what they're up to whenever we see fit. Having lots of extracurricular activities might be helping, but my introverted, nerdy self spent way more time glued to a CRT as a teen. Hmm, maybe that's the secret.. having a nerd for a dad makes tech look uncool! :-D

I am sure the coca-cola boss limits his kids soft drink consumption too.

"Recommendations" should be optional. I can recall early days of "recommendation engines". Never thought it would lead to this

The "algorithmic feeds" in Facebook, YouTube are greed-based

No user ever asked for them. They could be optional. But they are mandatory. A significant amount of user control is transferred to the company. ByteDance took this even further, arguably it has 100% control. Now Facebook and YouTube, and others, all have some form of this, rolls, shorts, whatever

What's interesting is the companies, no matter what the harm alleged to stem from the "algorithmic feeds", will not back down on "recommending" content. No compromise

I think that's telling. Perhaps traffic would plummet, stock price would tank

No one should be surprised by the legislation this had spurned

Dealers and dope peddlers don't get high on their own supply.

how about a nighttime ban (10 p.m.–7 a.m.) for users under 18?

This has been the case for a while. Look up Waldorf schools. Screen free.

The way this article is written, saying "tech boss" implies de-facto boss of the home and the child's behavior, is flat and silly.

Both parents are bosses of the home.

If one parent does not co-operate to limit social media — it's unlimited by default for the kid.

Instead of teaching kids self control they snatch stuff from them left and right.

The previous CEO did the same thing.

more likely his nanny manager enforces the rule

He probably also limits his kids exposure to public services

In other news: Philip Morris CEO limits his kids' cigarette use.

CEO of tobacco do the same. What’s your point? We sell things that are bad for humans. It’s a significant part of our global GDP