I agree, but this stuff is like crack-cocaine. Until you've tried to separate kids from deliberately addictive tech it feels easy to just say "parents should take responsibility". They should. And as a parent I do. But parents need help.

I watched a documentary about China where they have technology addiction boot camps. I supposed it would be biased toward "see what fascists the Chinese are...locking up kids for gaming too much", but within 5 minutes I changed my mind and could see a very different side.

If parents give their kids smartphones and let them go wild on social media - because they feel unable to help their children against highly addictive behaviours - then they need societal backup and education to be better parents. It's hard enough just clothing and feeding those little ones.

This stuff is destroying the lives of young people. And we made it!

In my opinion, social media (and always-on smartphone culture) is bad for _everyone_ and should be treated as a public health issue like tobacco and alcohol. That way, governments can take a... like you know... _ACTUAL_ _MORAL_ position on it.

Schools can be funded to message kids early and proprietors can feel emboldened to ban people from using technology in places (as in the UK where some pubs and gyms ban phones). We can get doctors and counsellors on board and fund public health awareness.

The _real_ problem is governments are conflicted. They want social media. It's a useful surveillance and control mechanism. And to some degree a suppressant. I wrote a fair bit about here [1]

[1] http://digitalvegan.net

> In my opinion, social media (and always-on smartphone culture) is bad for _everyone_ and should be treated as a public health issue like tobacco and alcohol

I personally wouldn’t go that far but agree with your logic. If we come to the conclusion that something is bad for every member of our society, the course of action shouldn’t be to shield children from it but to straight regulate at a seller level.

For lighter approaches, I think there should be higher barriers to pay money virtual goods in game, and dark patterns should have more protection (automatic refunds on proven bad behaviors of an app could be a thing for instance)

How has government regulating tobacco and alcohol worked out ?

You remember that whole “Prohibition” thing don’t you?

Tobacco regulation worked exactly the way govs wanted it to work: keep making money while putting the blame on the buyers.

On alcohol, I think current policies are decently balanced. There could be more education on its effects and work around the driving part, but we’re in an better place than when there was no gov. intervention at all I think.

So adults are forced to buy cigarettes? Should the government ban everything that is unhealthy?

If you think government regulations when it comes to alcohol has done anything, you haven’t seen the statistics on underage alcohol use.

Looking it up, 60% having "at least one drink" by 18 (33% by 15) seems surprisingly low. It probably explodes in the 18-20 range because of college, however.

Doesn’t every single bad law trying to regulate media whether it be to ban rap music because four guys in LA release an album with “F%^%* the Police” on it or because a video game “induces violence” start with “think about the children”?

You are free as a parent to try to shelter your children from harm.

Political slogans are famously the opposite of what they claim. We get “Save Our Green Earth” polluting bills, “Freedom and Peace” wider incarceration bills, and as you point out “Think about the children” mantra thrown around for anything and everything, with nothing in it actually about children.

Also if we really think that video games induce violence, it’s interesting to think about why we want them played by 20+ yo grow ups who can cause actual harm at a non trivial scale.

Looking around at the “society” in the south where I live, I would rather them not be responsible for my kids.

This is the same “society” that routinely post messages to NextDoor because my son “looks suspicious” walking in our neighborhood in the burbs and walking into our house.

> If they aren't old enough to not wander off, they shouldn't be playing in the street without supervision.

This has truth in it, but in my opinion the pendulum swung way too far on one side. We live in times were the cops will bring back a kid that is found to be playing alone in a park. Or whole services cutting off 13- yo from their platform (yes I know, COPPA and everything) because they can’t be bothered and nobody blames them for that.

A lot of people have I think an ideal of kids raised in a cocoon by their parents until they’re 13 or 18, and by the magic of their age kids can now freely roam and become full member of our society overnight. That’s now how it works, or I’d say that’s a horrible way to raise future members of society.

> They shouldn't be spending that time behind a screen.

A century and half ago, I think people would tell their kids to close their books and play outside. My parents were telling me to turn of my video games and play outside. Current parents are told to shut off screens, keep their kids off the street, and “supervise” them. Or are parents all supposed to hire actual human nannies ?

As a society, do we really want kids ? I think that’s how we’re telling people to not have kids.

Did kids back in the day not have access to TVs and those “violent video games”? Every generation has their own “think about the children” fear mongering.