I’m not sure if you have kids, but I’m not sure making the choice to ostracize your kids is one they’d thank you for later.
And, certainly not all kids would. It very much depends on the kid / the impact said ostracism would have.
back
2 comments
This is why it needs implementing systemically, and not ad hoc. If no one has social media, no one is being ostracised. If only one person opts out then yes, they risk being ostracised.
100% agreed, which was my point above about studies being done to prove the negative impacts, so everyone could actually get on board, instead of it being done ad hoc.
It took public shaming to start to reduce addiction to cigarettes, after we were able to show how bad they were for you.
The ostracization is a strawman. A few good friends (or even just one) is, imo, going to provide far more fulfillment than a million digital friends.
And when living in an appropriate place to raise children (playgrounds, etc near housing) it's super easy to meet other parents. And, in my experience at least, a rather large percent are also against 'digitizing' their kids.
Making friends the old fashioned way, and not just for your children.
I don't think you have the appropriate context here. This isn't about "good" (in person?) friends vs digital friends known only online. This is about schoolkids who almost all have smartphones losing a channel of communication with their schoolmates and thus being excluded from much of what goes on in the social group outside of school.
I have a child around this age and can absolutely see the issue, but I think it's less about phones per se and more about messaging apps and/or social media. For us, banning the phone itself wouldn't have these effects because we impose suitable restrictions on use as well as having put effort into educating our kids on healthy behaviours.
There are a small number of kids in the year group with "nokias" (non-smart phones) and they aren't looked down on or deliberately excluded by others, but they might feel they are missing out on something. As the kids get older and more independent their needs for communication tools will surely grow, but not so much social media.
Yes, the two kids in grade school who's parents wouldn't let them watch SpongeBob felt some exclusions from the lunch table discussion as well. The social aspect is extremely difficult to solve, and the app makers know this and accentuate it. They are shrewd businesspeople who's only goal is a functioning app that brings in more money than last year, hopefully on an exponential curve. This social exclusion aspect is why Facebook is still there, plodding along. They've effectively trapped the last groups of people there, and they raise the wall faster than the stragglers can climb. I'm currently trapped in snapchat as the only way to stay in touch with my old dnd group for when i come around. But those people are actually my best friends, so i speak to them more often, and i will be decompiling the APK and gutting the engagement shit with a rusty saw the moment i have time.
It's crazy there's people here defending these companies.
By good I mean having a small number of good friends rather than superficial relationships with large numbers of people. That should be a false dichotomy of course, but in reality it seems to often hold.
In other words - I'll ensure my chlidren have a small group of kids to regularly play with, ideally in the same neighborhood. Who cares what the other kids are doing?
> And when living in an appropriate place to raise children (playgrounds, etc near housing) it's super easy to meet other parents.
Ah, so this yet another aspect of health that one needs a certain amount of money to enjoy.
This sort of stuff is ubiquitous in cheap more ruralish areas. Negligible crime rates are also important, and once again something you'd be more inclined to find well outside the city.