> “They should learn how to handle social media!”

They should learn how to handle reality before being inundated with an endless overwhelming deluge of unreality, outright bullshit, and lies. Kudos to you for giving them that chance.

Social media is such trash, and so much of it is optimized for addiction. You might as well say "They should learn how to handle heroin."

In a world where heroin is normalized, it might be a good idea

A similar question as the European vs American approach to handling alcohol. In Europe (vast oversimplification incoming, big continent with lots of cultures and jurisdictions) it's normal to drink beer the first time by 14, in the presence of your parents, and are typically able to buy it freely at around 16. In the US (oversimplification incoming) you typically have your first experience with alcohol in secret, or binge-drinking once you are 21 and free from your parents. The European version typically results in more alcohol being consumed, but in healthier habits

One crux is that this only works if the parents are actually using alcohol/social media in a healthy way. A heroin addict can't teach their children how to responsibly use heroin

> In Europe (vast oversimplification incoming, big continent with lots of cultures and jurisdictions) it's normal to drink beer the first time by 14, in the presence of your parents, and are typically able to buy it freely at around 16.

You did disclaim about this, but my understanding is that most European countries no longer allow you to buy alcohol before you’re 18 (but with some major exceptions like Germany and Belgium). Culturally, you are however quite spot on.

Is there any safe amount of alcohol?

Well, it’s like epsilon-delta proofs in maths, isn’t it? For any acceptable amount of harm (epsilon), you can find some upper limit on consumption (delta) that causes harm below that threshold based on our current experimental data. Presumably, most people won’t care if epsilon is small enough, for example smaller than the risk of getting cancer from a walk in the park without sunscreen on.

Is there any safe amount of walking down the stairs?

Stair walking isn't a group 1 carcinogen. It's also required in many living spaces.

If I understand correctly, «group 1» says nothing about the probability of getting cancer from exposure, except that we have sufficient data to be sure it must be nonzero?

(FWIW, I don’t drink myself, but I don’t consider cancer risk a motivating reason here.)

Yes, stairs typically kill you through blunt force trauma, not cancer. Your point?

My point is that most everything comes with risks and we trade them off with our desires or needs. The recent push to evangelise that there’s “no safe amount of alcohol” is rather silly in the light of that. There’s no “safe” amount of driving or cycling either but we do them anyway because they satisfy our desires and we judge those to be worth the risk. Alcohol (as long as one is not addicted) is the same.

My point is stair climbing isn't a relevant comparison. It's often required, and usually an activity that improves ones health. Alcohol--even in moderation--appears to have only negative health effects and is entirely optional.

I don't think alcohol is anywhere near as addictive, though. You might be right anyway.

You can't die from heroin withdrawal, no matter how much you might want to.

Addictiveness is a lot more than just how bad worst case withdrawal is.

For every 100 people who take opiates, how many become addicted?

According to this, roughly 1/5th to 1/3rd of heroin users get addicted: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

A lot of the information is from back in the time where opium was legal but most people are not very receptive to opioids. They feel sick and tripping balls and would not repeat the experience if offered.

It is a very particular kind of person who gets addicted right away.

Of course, in a social context where consumption is expected, many more may reach the point where they keep consuming in order to stave off withdrawal.

> You might as well say "They should learn how to handle heroin."

Those were the literal words we used!

Minimizing screens has been shown to have a massive effect on children, positively.

At the same time children are exposed to things and if they don't know how to navigate it, it's critical.

I take small people through what the screens and computers are trying to do their brains and then ask them to watch their brain watching the thing that catches their interest.

It could be someone's smart watch, someone's phone, or a tv.

One time a small humanoid self reported to me that sugar makes them want to have more sugar, and some screens seem to do the same thing, but other screens don't make them feel bad.

I agree - it wasn't that we'd block them from tech without explaining. We take our little people seriously. We always saw them as inexperienced, not dumb. And turns out that if you take people seriously, they return in kind.

So we'd sit them down and discuss what Meta et al were doing to them. And why we thought that was a bad idea. They still hated us for haha but a little less I guess. Rephrase: they still thought it was unfair because their friends got to be on tiktok 24/7 and they couldn't even get a phone.

We told them 'life is not fair', and other parents were ignorant of the dangers but that didn't make the dangers any less.

I don't know - maybe we just got lucky with our kids.

Oh, I want to be very clear. Children absolutely need to be protected, period. The algorithms are completely self-serving and predatory to get and keep people watching, and they do not care.

The simple proof is how impossible it is to even create a single playlist for children on YouTube. The brands actively create more and more official channels to offset parents who are saying to not show a channel in their feed anymore.

You have a great point about what other children do you or don't do. The Every Family is Different Angle is one that I like and also that people who know how to talk to each other will be more able to lead themselves and others compared to anyone who just listens and watches all the time.

There are so many dangers out there and really especially with AI now able to ramp up everything, those dangers are going to increase and there's going to be something needed because otherwise the entire world directly or indirectly is coming into the little screens and little brains unfiltered and unmanaged.

> They hated us for it. Other parents called us crazy. “They should learn how to handle social media!” And now their kids are unmanageable and ours thank us for shielding them.

Life's about boundaries, if you don't set them for your kids they won't grow properly and other people will have to explain them the rules (or they'll be parasites their whole life)

if you set the boundaries on their behalf, they just learn dependence and not how to establish boundaries for themselves. let them get in trouble while they're kids. as soon as they move out or go off to college, they'll be wise not to get caught and to be responsible for themselves if they've had practice doing it already. otherwise, like several people I grew up with, they'll go off the rails and flunk out because they don't have any self discipline and the freedom they were denied their whole childhood was intoxicating

> if you set the boundaries on their behalf, they just learn dependence and not how to establish boundaries for themselves.

That is not how that works.

If or when it does or doesn’t “work”

People need boundaries. Kids more so. That is not the whole story, not by a long shot. But to say “boundary bad”? Well, no.

Please. If you not have the self-awareness to avoid misquoted straw man effigy arguments in caveman phrasing you do not have the ability or remit to make good rules for others especially kids.

When was the crossover point, when they stopped hating you for it and started thanking you? And what was the specific thank you about? Not wasting their time with tiktok junk, or helping protect their developing brains from addictive slop?

Do you call your parents and thank them that you aren’t a lazy drug addict? That your aren’t a prostitute?

When is the last time you wrote a “thanks for not letting get eaten by a shark” card?

Parents don’t get thanked for things that didn’t happen. If you are waiting around for that, you’re in the wrong care taking business!

Did you read what GP said?

> And now their kids are unmanageable and ours thank us for shielding them.

I'm not looking for thank-you's, I'm just looking to understand what GP meant when he said his kids thanked him.

The earliest time they expressed gratitude instead of annoyance at the boundaries was (I think) when they were 13 and 14. Their friends and classmates would be on snap at 04:00am on schoolnights, endlessly argueing and namecalling and drama. The youngest was really gratefull that she could be on snapchat, but only for a short period of time, and never after 19:00.

And this week they both said how thankfull they had so few advertisements in their lives. Because we block with pi-hole and ublock origin, and showed them how online ads work and how to avoid them.

(Sidenote: If you have kids: talk to your teachers and schools and ask to setup firefox+ublock origin on their classroom computer. Or just install 'brave'. All teachers use youtube during classes. With ads. You will be lifted to instant hero status for blocking those.)

This is completely unrelated, but I just want to say that it brings a genuine smile to my face to see someone else use 24-hour time.

I wish more people would see the value it has in everyday life!

I use 24-hour time personally but to be honest the only thing it's good for is disambiguating 12 midnight from 12 noon.

Tbf that's a huge benefit.

And it's not like 12-hour time has more benefits or fewer downsides than 24-hour time.

Isn't keeping kids safe, fed, sheltered the baseline for parents and caregivers? People generally don't get thanked for doing the bare minimum.

Thanks to the hundreds of people who didn't punch me in the face or ram me with their car today

I don't think GP described the "bare minimum". Sounds like he went above and beyond to keep bad stuff at bay, and probably took some heat from his kids about it. I hope to be as thoughtful, thorough, and successful with my parenting.

I did not go so far, but things were not as bad when mine were younger (the younger one is 18 now). We did not have a TV, and for a long time they had desktops, and they got phones are teenagers.

It has got crazy. I recently read an article by a journalist whose son had just started university who was watching his tracking app and worrying when he did not get out of bed on time. There are Whatsapp groups for parents at some universities - apparently discussing your now adult child with a group of strangers is normal.

I think the perception that kids (or adults!) need constant entertainment is also harmful.

When my kids went away to college it was something of a relief. They were on their own. I would not know where they were, who they were with, how late they were staying out, or any of the stuff I was much more aware of when they were living at home.

I never GPS tracked them even when they were younger. I didn't read their email or text messages, I didn't lurk on their school website checking grades every day. If a teacher or administrator emailed me, I'd deal with that, but otherwise I tried to let them learn to run their lives. They made some mistakes. That's how you grow.

[delayed]

When they were about 13 and 14 they started to appreciate what they had. Both girls shun Insta and TikTok. They get angry when people take pictures without their permission.

The hardest period was when they were 10-13 I think. Because around that time all other kids got their own phones without any screentime limitations, or app store limitations. We'd hear about their friends being on tiktok and snap until 03:00am on schoolnights. Our kids were really jealous about that. But to us, it was like other parents had forgotten that they could actually... you know... parent.

HN always says something about "parents not parenting" in these discussions, but is there actually an objective definition of "parenting" that excludes this behaviour?

Parenting is complex. So no, there is no such definition. At least I know of none and believe none should exist.

Did you have landlines? I want my kid to just walk over to his friend's place whenever he wants, but while most parents are coming around to having kids without cellphones they all live in extremely un-walkable neighborhoods.

I’m seeing more retro-style tech spring up for kids. We just got one of these for the kiddo: https://tincan.kids/ and have found out several other parents have them so there’s a small but growing network of kid landlines forming.

Even without purpose-built things like TinCan, most "landlines" these days... aren't. My parents' house is wired for telephony, but the backhaul is 5G. A box in the house serves as the uplink between the 5G network and the "landline" phones throughout the house.

No but we did have a 'house phone': a mobile phone that would always be in the house and anyone could use. Shared whatsapp for playdates.

For some reason I read "landmines", and wondered what lengths we're reaching to defend our domestic spaces... Glitter bomb landmines anyone?

You literally need to give your kids a phone now. They need to login to school apps to complete their assignments and similar cases. Yours probably grew up in the interim time before these tools became mandatory.

No, you don't. That need is artificial.

But: they have phones. Since they were about 12. But with screentime, with us controlling the apps, without tiktok, behind a pi-hole and pivpn. With the initial agreement that we - the grown ups - were _always_ allowed to open their phone and look at any content.

For the past year or so the eldest doesn't have any screentime limitations anymore, but she still does not use insta or tiktok.

What we did was constantly explain our decisions. And showed them how boundaries were there for protection, not holding back. And if they showed us that they could handle lifting of a boundary we would lift a boundary.

Other parents in our neighbourhood just gave phones to their kids at age 11 and never set boundaries. Those kids now take pictures of girls in their classroom, and turn them into nudes. And send them around large groups on snapchat. Police was involved. But I look at the parents. Kids _need_ boundaries.

We pointed out to ours the peers who watch shorts in a doom loop and how they are shaping up to be losers, that pretty much set them straight. But a lot depends on a person too, how competitive they are or how prone to addictive behaviors.

Raise hell with the school administration, school committee, mayor, etc. over this.

I don’t have kids myself this is just what my friends who do tell me

> They hated us for it.

doubt that ppl care about you or your kids so much that they have feelings of hate towards you.

I think they mean their kids hated them for it, initially

The kids hates us for it. Obviously.

Back about 15 or so years ago, I heard from colleagues and even my sister about how they banned kids from the stupid that was readily available on television. Their kids would be forbidden, for instance, from watching Hannah Montana, or even the entire Disney Channel and/or Nickelodeon. When my nephew was little, Caillou was forbidden to him. I was impressed with these parents' gutsiness and willingness to take action to protect their kids from harmful slop.

Banning kids from social media seems to be the present-day equivalent of that and I commend you.

Here's another one for ya: we also forbade them from watching Barbie. They are, to this day, pissed about that hahaha.

And recently they confessed that they sneakily watched once in a while. :-D

So they got the boundary. Found it to be unjust. Tested it. Crossed it. Got away with it. Grew from that. All without having to steal lipstick, smoke joints, or drink themselves into a coma.

Honestly: wife and I are awesome at parenting.

I'm pretty sure you mean some Barbie show? Apparently that's a thing that exists. Because Barbie is a great movie, although I'm not sure what to recommend about the maturity level required to understand -- it seems that many many fully grown adults have not reached that level. (Ken will be okay. The movie isn't about Ken. It's okay to have a movie not be about Ken. Do not conclude that the movie is saying that all men are vapid losers because the movie portrays vapid men.)

Are you sure it’s related though?

Maybe you did other things right too. Like listening to them. Spending time with them. Passing your genes. Who knows what else. Maybe you’re "just" great parents.

We are. I think. :) We have a great many faults and suck at a great many things. But parenting is not one of those.

We decided early on to treat them as inexperienced tiny teammembers. So many little tricks and nuances. Learned a lot from the book "How 2 Talk 2 Kids".

Like: don't refer to yourself as "Mommy" or "Daddy". Instead use "I": "I'm going to cook dinner now", not "Daddy's going to cook dinner now".

Or: don't tell them what to do, but point out the problem: "Oh, look, those shoes are now blocking my way to the kitchen. Could you help me out?"

(Use that last one at work too. ;-))

But yeah - tiny teammembers because we are a team. We are not against them. Therefor they don't need to fight us. Instead we fight alongside them. And they seem to realize that.

But I'll post back in this thread in 15 years and we'll see how it all turned out by then. ;-)

I don't know if I follow your exact philosophy but one thing I've never done: baby talk. Kid talk? Whatever you want to call it.

I talk to my kids like I talk to other people. "Go to the bathroom" is the notable example. By no means a pro and many flaws in my process.

Frankly, I think the best thing you teach them is not how to do or not do anything but instead the implications of thoughts and actions and what it means to handle and feel comfortable with their choices.

Mine are 8.5 and 4.5. They watch TV like plenty of kids. Rarely used iPads, and my older kid uses a laptop here and there. I will not let them use my phone casually.

But I don't think that them not using it is teaching them much about the phone. Instead it's about opportunity. Do something else! READ, draw, write, sketch, paint, run, craft, build, talk. I'm working on teaching my oldest how to be, well, bored.

I think I can handle the things you mentioned, except the genes part. That’s what may screw us in the end. And I’m not actually joking :(

Not talking about physical ailments, just tough personalities (mine)

Time will tell haha

I love to hear this.

I’d like to hear more, if you don’t mind, about your kids’ experience:

1. At what age did they start recognizing your rules benefited them (and start tanking you) 2. Was it a daily nonstop fight to keep telling them “no” to these things? 3. Did your kids feel sincerely ostracized and, if so, for how long?

Thanks!

My boys are 16 and 14, we tried to limit screen time when they were younger but weren’t militant about it. Both are doing fine, good students, and humans. They have had phones since 6th grade and social media but their day-to-day use is more in group iMessage chats and meeting up with friends to play games.

Militant anti-technology parenting guarantees nothing.

It's probably just not so black and white. Every kid is different and I think you just have to observe how they handle different mediums. If I had a kid that really struggles with peer pressure, why would I put them in a situation where it's likely to be heavily amplified (i.e. social media)? But maybe other kids handle it just fine.

FWIW, I let my boys spend a good chunk of hours on video games because I would be a hypocrite otherwise. But there comes a point when their behavior takes a turn for the worse (I mean after so much video game time) that I end up taking it away for awhile. All things in moderation and such.

    > They have had phones since 6th grade and social media but their day-to-day use is more in group iMessage chats and meeting up with friends to play games.

I am curious about the outcome if you had daughters.

There were plenty of unmanageable kids before screens and social media.

I’m glad your kids turned out how you wanted them to, but I’d be careful jumping to conclusions.

We had a TV. but it was a 12 inch diagonal B&W. EVENTUALLY the kids showed great composure and maturity and we relented to a Color 26inch (still Cath raytube then). Even bought them a NES console one Christmas. because they were good kids.

'shielding' is a responsibility, but it is also a responsible act of partenting to require them - demand of them - to develop their own autonomous safety systems and awareness, independent of our controls or consultations 24/7.

I'm curious what gadgets did you grow up with, and what age did your children get the NES? Are you raising them to have a "lower tech" childhood than yours?

well, the 60's and 70's were not very gadgety. FM stereo? then cassettes...

Oh wait but then the came the 8085, 80186, 68000...you see where I'm going...

We got them the NES I think it was Christmas in 1989. Lower tech...that was a long time ago. They are both savvy now but one is a pastor and not techbound, the other is in a Tech based company but not a deeptech pro

I retired from so many different things that were getting digitized. it was/is a great time to be an engineer.

    > And now their kids are unmanageable

Can you give some specific examples about what makes them "unmanageable"? I'm not disagreeing, but I want to learn more about your experiences.

> We never had a tv. Only let them watch dvd on laptop.

Why no TV? Only connect a DVD player to it and there wouldn't be anything on the TV that they couldn't get on laptop.

But movies sure are a lot nicer on a TV than on a laptop, especially if you have a decent sound system connected to the TV and DVD player too.