Not on HN, please. If you want online shaming, the rest of the internet is available.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Working backwards a bit:

> Parenting choices can be a way of harming people.

Sure, but the clarity of the information on which choices are likely harmful outside of fairly direct, physical harm is often far less than the shakers would like to pretend; it wasn't long ago (in fact it still happens even though the recommendation of the AAP has since caught up with the science) people were being shamed for providing early exposure to various nuts (the evidence note suggests the old advice that shaving was based on produced a huge surge in nut allergy prevalence, rather than mitigating risk.)

> People who harm people should be shamed.

And shaming, anyway, isn't all that effective (and certainly not a harm free) method of correction even when based on correct premises; when based on faulty premises it's an unmitigated harm.

So shamers generally deserve, by that standard, to be shamed; by a reasonable harm minimization standard they need to be corrected.

By showing youtube kids video to their child? Com'on, you're extrapolating and pushing it beyond the point.

The entire anti-shaming movement seeks to legitimize all choices. It’s wrong.

I think the best you can do is point at the scientific evidence that screen time is bad for kids, and if they won’t accept that there’s not much you can do outside of your own kids.

My sister has a 10 year old son and has absolutely no interest in even talking about parental controls. He spends all his time watching Logan Paul and who knows what else. I know how I was as a boy coming of age with unrestricted internet, and I worry about him.

> I know how I was as a boy coming of age with unrestricted internet, and I worry about him.

did you turn out ok?

when I was a kid in the early 80's kids would bring torn out pages from dad's dirty magazines, we'd sneak in to watch adult movies etc, and as far as I can tell we all turned out just fine.

On the other hand there is liveleak now and I'm not sure what effect that would have on a 10 year old's psyche. I guess we'll find out in the next decade or two.

I understand your argument. I had those experiences as well. Then I got high speed internet at 13 or so. Things changed very rapidly from there.

I really didn’t turn out ok. I don’t really want to go into details, but I turned out very far from ok. Maybe I wouldn’t have turned out different without internet, I can’t really know. I do know that I’m going to be really zealous in keeping the unrestricted internet away from my sons. And my girls, but for different reasons.

That's because people like you see 1 example and extrapolate that onto everyone's life circumstances.

For example: What about a single mom who puts on youtube for her child while she does the home chores and cooks because she does not have the money to pay for anything else (youtube is free)? Should she force her kid to sit there without any stimuli while she works? I'd argue that is far worse.

That's a false dichotomy - if you have money to buy a device to show YouTube on, you have money for books, toys whatever. And they needn't be expensive - at least in the UK, you can regularly buy 2nd hand books in mint condition for as little as £0.01 from Amazon, and we have lots of charity shops with great bargains on 2nd hand toys.

No, it doesn't. It recognises that shaming people does nothing to change behaviour or to prevent people taking up unhealthy behaviours. If anything shaming just entrenches those "bad choices".

And you're looking to shame anything, no matter how benign. That's even more wrong.

I’m not a good person, or even close to it, and don’t mind being shamed for the harm I have caused people (some of it serious), but I wasn’t saying that. I was saying that Harvard should admit Beyoncé over me because she became more powerful than I did.