I don't think it's controversial to suggest that the world of "computers" today doesn't look much like the 80s and 90s. Back then, the most child-friendly computing device one could hope to be exposed to was probably a speak-and-spell (or a fiendishly difficult NES cartridge). If the kids back then -- now tech workers -- wanted to mess around with a computer, it was more effortful to engage with and presented even greater challenge once one was actually comfortable with it.

I had the advantage of a few family members already involved with computers, but I remember learning about colour depth with some ridiculous dinosaur game, about bootdisks so I could play Commander Keen, and how not to install X-Wing (don't ask). The act of using the computer was inextricable from learning about how it worked, and that knowledge could be immediately reemployed in more interesting use. I know a west-coast-style guy who works in a brewery and lives for Ultimate Frisbee, but he also understands scripting better than any non-tech person I know because in his youth he was seriously into Diablo 2 and its bot scene.

Contrast this to the modern iPad. No edges to cut yourself on, no seams to pry up, no tacit understanding gained, and the big draw being the meta-TV of YouTube...

And, importantly, none of those early experiences you had were psychologically engineered to manipulate you into spending as much time on the screen as possible.

This is such a massively important point. Back when I was growing up (Apple ][ / 8086 PC) the software was basically written by one or two people.

Not entire teams of people scheming addictive manipulation with slot-machine payout rates tuned to precise dopamine chemistries and social networking pressures using models that have been tuned and proven to be frighteningly effective over two decades of experimentation.

I played a machine zone game, thankfully only lost about 60 bucks on that crap between me and my GF, and by then I became wise to what they were doing, and shocked on all the levels of manipulation they were using for what is essentially a nag game that strongly rewards bullying for those people that pay to win.

The history of these games goes back at least to the mid2000s (anyone remember Civony/Evony and "Come Play My Lord" Ads? Those are basically the same game as Machine Zone). They've been honing the various mechanisms (false advertising about what the game entails, grooming whale players, addictive gameplay) using mechanics from civilization, tamagochi, and whatever else works.

Children's mobile games show a shocking amount of manipulative mechanics for the "free with ads" tier which for 90% of people (you know, the ones that aren't rich) will be what they use.

Then again, this is the world they will be living in, so exposure to the manipulation may be good for them in limited doses, but "adult supervision" is more needed than ever.

Indeed, they were something better! They induced my spending as much time on the screen as possible, because the machine would do anything I could figure out how to tell it to do. Something as rule-laden and consequential (or so it seemed to single-digit-aged me) as the physical world itself, except I was allowed to do pretty much anything because no one understood what I was doing!

Modernity presents the superstimuli parent is referring to but removes all the interesting paths into the machine, the better to shear us. If the gameplay was reading O'Reilly books and the lootboxes were full of code snippets, it'd be one thing, but that's not what's happening.

Who are you talking about when you say “ an entire economy that sprung out of people who were exposed to computers at an early age”? I genuinely have no idea what economy you’re referring to. Certainly not software development, as the original computer programmers (the people that built the things that later inspired children when exposed to computers in the home) were exposed well before computers were small enough to be in the home. Do you mean influencers? Streamers? Neither of those are considered generally to be positive for the social development of children.

I’m assuming they’re referring to the people who grew up in the 80s and maybe even pre-internet 90s that then participated in the tech scene over the past 15 years. I also don’t they’re talking about kids now but rather then.

I don’t know if that’s true either. Exposure to computing in the 80s or pre-internet 90s as a child would be a small minority of households enjoying the existing tooling, manuals, guides, games, and interfaces built by innovators before their time. It makes no sense to argue an economy was built on these households in particular, especially when tech is so much more diverse than whatever minority of families were able to afford spending a ton of money on in-home computing devices in a set of time.

Why is it dubious? Dropping out of school and social awkwardness are not uncommon stereotypes among computer enthusiasts. Having these properties doesn’t necessarily correlate with negative economic outcomes…