Being prepared and having the resources (money, time, energy, true willingness, etc.) for parenthood is different from maintaining the relationship and the institution that is a marriage. You’re conflating Apples with Oranges.
All of the problems discussed here also apply for adults as well. The fundamental problem is that internet is broken for all of us, especially social media companies and big tech which scramble to make it toxic, addictive and unhealthy. As long as this is addressed, most initiatives will fail.
Putting the burdens on the parents alone would be a strategic mistake. There was a saying in the old days, a kid is raised by a neighbourhood or village. Parenting in the modern world is already very difficult and not all parents have the same level of digital/privacy literacy.
8 Likes
Perverse incentives and late stage capitalism is enshittifying life itself. This is not new anymore. But yes, I agree.
And that’s why my aforementioned suggestion for getting people certified/licensed for parenthood before they become actual parents. This is an odd idea but not an invalid one. Though it definitely needs a lot of discussion but this is not the place.
1 Like
One to Two offenses to be fined just enough amount to face the consequences
Two to Three or more?
“Believe it or not, straight to jail!” (Charged with Child Neglect, non-felony doe).
With that said I think everyone put their thoughts very well so I probably shouldn’t comment.
Let me make it clear, if I hypothetically had a child, I would be putting parental controls and do take my time to monitor them to make sure they don’t get exposed on content they cannot be exposed to. In things that would be considered appropriate especially morally, I do not interfere, and I would manage how long they get exposed (If the research is anything to go by it seems minimum 1 hour is reasonable). I think Apple especially does a lot of things right on Parental Controls front, for privacy and ease of use especially.
But that is just my 2 cents and not an actual parent, For professional opinion or advice always consult @ThePrivacyDad (in general someone who has experience but currently it’s one of them)
Not sure if anybody in this thread read the article as it’s specifically about infants (children younger than two) and not just “kids”.
Your infant won’t know to use your credit card or how to use the internet. They’re basically screaming human potatoes and tablets are a great way to divert the infant aggro to let the parents relax for a time, which is why so many do it. I feel personally attacked by this article, but it was a great, informative read.
1 Like
Maybe parents should give them a Pixel tablet with Graphene on it, a privacy headstart in life 
That’s sound far to invasive for my liking. Would it be voluntary or an obligation? Is there a database that tracks “worthy” and “unworthy” parents?
Is there a social stigma that follows both parent and child who fail this test?
Who decides who’s worthy, governments? One day they’re preaching about inclusiveness and the LGBT, the next about old-fashioned family values and how the LGBT sucks.
Would the criteria for a good parent have to change every administration.
What happens to unwanted or unforeseen pregnancies for people who fail this “test”. Are babies ripped from a mother’s arms? Sorry, you’re not qualified. Into the abusive foster system with you.
What about countries like China? Are you loyal? You loyal? Have child!
Honestly, I could go on. There’s so much wrong with this idea that I’m left speechless that you ever thought it was one worth pursuing? It boggles the mind, really.
6 Likes
This is not the forum to discuss it but I’ll be more than happy to clarify my stance which is not what you think it is in a DM if you write to me should you be interested.
All your points are valid and none of them are what I think should be a part of my suggested unprecedented idea. And I did say it doesn’t sound good because such a thing does exist and must only be thought of independently from any existing ideology. I also didn’t say it’s the best idea but I certainly believe it’s not an invalid one at least.
Anything sounds batshit crazy when something is brand new and never thought through completely and if you immediately label it associated with any ideology that’s invasive to people’s freedoms.
Hell, smoking on planes was allowed. Literally, people could bring fire on an airplane. And it was legal. You think my idea is more insane than that was? There are many such examples one can give. But society changes when new technology and ideas that are well thought out are adopted for better living.
I don’t think you’re accounting and thinking of what I said holistically in the best way possible but are only pointing out the obvious flaws we can all agree should not exist.
What boggles my mind is you could not or did not think at all deeply about this before commenting because nothing you said is wrong and are very obvious points that can be easily ensured for or against for the most freedom and privacy respecting manner in which to incorporate this should people of a society choose to for at least some of the more obvious benefits it will have.
I hope it’s obvious that we all agree that adults should be smart about having children. No one is denying that. But sometimes life hits us in the face, even when we’re smart about it, and leaves us in ruins. If the solution is to ensure good parenting proper, then it clearly shouldn’t be solely on the individual.
This is most definitely not the solution to ensuring good parenting. Teachers don’t call students dumb to ensure their learning…
It doesn’t matter why. If you are offering a solution, the burden is on you to find one, not to imagine a false world in where your empirically weak solution becomes magically strong. Please re-read this:
You are right about one thing: regulating parenthood is dystopian (and dispicable)! You supposedly agree that there are systemic issues, yet you still believe that this micro-level solution will fix the issue.
This is a micro-level solution because you are still focusing on the individual. Even though it employs macro-level changes like regulation, the intended goal is directed towards the micro-level. Properly acknowledging systemic issues requires not just suggesting macro-level changes, but also directing intentions towards the macro-level itself.
Ensuring good parenting is the goal. The solution you provide is individual and micro-level. You want people to acknowledge their fitness for parentage before they become parents. This is a reasonable ask, and it’s something we all agree on, as discussed in the opening of this reply.
But then you go on to suggest macro-level changes like regulating parenthood. This is still individualistic because it expresses the sentiment that “good parenting” is a result of individuals gaining certifications/licenses, not a result of the help of a village. This presupposes that good parenting depends on the individual, which is counter to your supposed acceptance of the underlying systemic issues. “It takes a village to raise a child,” but you’re suggesting that the village should enforce good parenting, not that they should partake in it.
You need focus more on the systemic, macro-level issues present. Take this, for example:
You completely ignore the systemic fact that these various things are, in effect, privileges. The question to ask is: should they be privileges? But you don’t ask this. You don’t even consider the macro-level changes that could be suggested to fix this. You instead keep it at the individual level:
Good parenting is, in effect, a privilege. Rather than proposing systemic, macro-level changes to prevent it from being a privilege (which would in turn ensure that it is accessible for more people), you instead propose that people ask whether or not they are privileged enough to have kids??? What kind of solution is that? It’s a bandaid solution at best.
If anything, you should focus more on the education reform of your argument. This directs intentions to the macro-level that your arguement desperately needs to address. You briefly mentioned education reform here:
However… this was only in response to this question:
You suggest that schools should teach critical thinking so as to not fall into norm-following behaviors. This solution is intended to prevent students from using social media only because other friends use social media. I think you should expand this further to include situations not just about norm-following, but about habits in general. This is related to the following question asked by @Superman:
Education can be reformed so as to help children build good and healthy technology habits. This will most definitely become more difficult the older children are. Children in middle schools and high schools can and will assert their right to possess their phones on school grounds, consequently removing any chances of building technology habits. One might imagine reform of this kind to look like granting public schools the ability to reprimand personal possessions like phones, or granting them the ability to control student devices like a parental control feature. I am against this for obvious reasons.
But another education reform that I think is more agreeable is a non-elective (required) class that grades students based on their technology habits. It is akin to gym classes or those old-school home economics classes where students learned how maintain good health habits and cook and stuff. This could be implemented all throughout primary and middle school, but ideally also throughout high school as well. Rather than having grades be based on in-class work and behavior, it is instead like those take-home infant projects where high school students must take care of a fake infant. In this case, however, it is technology habits that are graded (both during and outside of school time), not infant-caring habits.
This is just one instance of a macro-level solution that addresses systemic issues. Another macro-level solution is the reforming of the work week. @nicotiu says this:
This is another systemic issue that you do not address. You say that you “alluded” to it:
but you do not try to solve it. You demand not for work hours to decrease, or for the removal of bullshit jobs, or for the government to reconsider what they mean by poverty. Demanding all this would effectively allow parents to do what you are demanding of them here:
These systemic changes gives them more time and resources to be at home with the family, essentially removing good parenting from being a privilege and instead making it something accessible.
But you instead demand adults to take a certification or licensing course on being a parent, as though that will solve the systemic issues. It will not! It will certainly help solve the individual issues where we have actual irresponsible adults becoming parents. But it does not address the systemic ones.
6 Likes
Okay. You say this but you don’t explain why not. So, please do.
Do you have a better solution that establishes the same urgency needed?
I’m not saying it fixes it. I’m saying it’s an idea we haven’t thought about. Is all… Also not claiming my idea is the best. Like I also said, we get certified in our lives for so many things. Why is it suddenly a bad idea to not get similar certification to raise another human being. That’s a much bigger responsibility than many other things for which we get licensed. I’m only trying to engage and ask the questions. I don’t mean to say or even mean that this is the only solution that will ensure of parents knowing better before the fact.
Not quite. It can be. It is not by default or inherently the case. Just like you can drive better after taking lessons. You can still drive otherwise but will be more harmful if you don’t learn the basics at least.
YES. This is what I am saying. How we can go about ensuring that is the debate/real question.
Again, it can. Doesn’t need to but of course only helps.
The only reason I don’t say directly that they should partake in it is because there may be certain ways and things you want your child to learn about your culture and whatnot and not have everything dictated by the village. Again, this is a debate so I’m only throwing in ideas to brainstorm to see if there’s a reasonable set of “rules” we may come up with that can become a part of a better system or a new framework through which some of the upbringing can be ensured for the better. Small example: in Germany, the right to educating a child is the law. You have to enroll your kid in school when the time comes. In other places, such rules don’t exist. So, here the State does say that you must do something for your child in order to raise them better for everyone’s future.
You’re thinking in a certain way that is not the intention with which all that I suggest here. No, that’s not how I mean it. You’re categorizing that as a privilege first to make your own point. Not how this works because we may not agree with your underlying point of it being a privilege in the first place.
I agree. This is a part of my idea a level or two below what I suggest. Secular science based and data backed learning and education independent of any particular ideology.
Even parents should. And they should know how to.
Yeah, you’re saying using different works but I mean the same.
Apparently only the EU social states offer such quality of living. Other Western places including some developed Asian countries are the complete opposite worse than the US. Though I wish you’d stop labeling it as a privilege. In an ideal world it should be a right for you to act upon or not by choice. Labeling it as privilege automatically and by default disparages those who are poor. And there is nothing inherently wrong with people who are poor.
Again, for the last time, I did not say this will solve the entire problem. But it will definitely be a benefit.
It will come close at-least. Much easier ensuring of this than changing whole economic systems the world runs on.
If you independently think about systemic issues outside the scope of my suggestion here, nothing besides a complete overhaul of the economic and political systems of the world changes or improves or address the systemic issues in any meaningful and tangible ways. So, this is more than beyond the scope of discussions. The world runs on band-aids. The only difference is the quality of the adhesive and the size of the aid differently countries have. Systemic issues are another beast that will also require change in cultures and language and not just official policies. In my view, this may as well be impossible. It is not. It can happen. But humans are not evolved enough to ensure of this given the inherent difference in views and opinions and freedoms that we should posses that makes us humans.
–
Thank you for the well thought out response however.
I already did? My whole point was that good parenting proper requires systemic and macro-level attention too, not just individual and micro-level attention…
Just because I do not have a better solution does not mean I cannot discount yours. For the record, I did lay out a solution as an example in my reply..
Perhaps I misunderstood you. But I doubt you lack the social awareness that allows you to understand that the way you expressed all this makes it seem as though you are endorsing the solution and not just “spitballing” it. Just to be clear then, you do not endorse this as a proper solution, correct? You are merely asking us to consider it? Please clarify your stance on this, as it’s getting very confusing. (1) Lay out your actual solution (if you have one, but if not that’s fine, since that’s not the point of this discussion) and (2) clarify what you take the solution to be. Is this something you endorse? Do you think it will solve the issue?
For the record, whether you took this to be your solution or not does not matter for my point.
I am not referring to contingent cases. Of course it’s possible to still drive as a licensed driver and be bad at it.. What I am referring to is the intention of that licensing. It does express that sentiment. Licensing driving expresses the sentiment that “good driving” will be had. As in: There is a certain threshold of skill that needs to be reached in order to be licensed. This threshold of skill is what literally constitutes “good driving”. But this is beside the point, dude… My analogous point is that licensing driving is not the solution to reducing car crashes alone. You also need good roads, which is systemic.
Licensing parenting is the same as licensing driving, but without ensuring good public roads and road laws. That is my issue with your dystopian “solution”.
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Please clarify what you mean, or ignore this if it is not useful for furthering discussion.
Just a side tangent, this is contradictory. This is probably why we all think you are proposing it as a solution rather than as an idea to be discussed. Debating is about opposing sides “debating” each other, not spreading ideas just to spitball..
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at, but I must have misused the proverb or something. To clarify, I am not talking about culture and community. I am instead using it as a metaphor to refer to the fact that we are embedded in social systems, and problems like the rise of iPad kids requires not just change on the individual level but also on the social-systemic level, which was my whole point.
Do you think the time and money needed to raise a child is a privilege? Please clarify. Regardless, whether we consider it a privilege or not doesn’t matter. My point still remains that individual, micro-level changes does not solve the solution. Meaning, guilt-tripping parents by calling them irresponsible is not gonna work.
This is not a normative claim, so I am not prescribing anything to the poor. It is a descriptive claim which says that time and money is a privilege, and that by demanding people to only have children when they have the time, the money, and the perfect life is descriptively privileged. But this is besides the point. Whether it is a privilege or not doesn’t matter. Talking about this further will only derail the actual point, which is that the micrro-level solutions laid out does not actually work out due to systemic, macro-level issues. Whether this is a solution you actually believe in or is merely something you are spitballing does not matter.
Firstly, I am not advocating for “whole economic systems” to change. Institutional reform happens all the time, believe it or not. Social progress is a thing. Secondly, I already made claims that explain why I think it doesn’t. Please address that when you say that you think it does.
Just to clarify, this is the social progress I was referring to. Institutional reform can still be considered band-aid solutions. I was just using that term comparatively because you suggested an micro-level goal while I suggested an additional macro-level goal. Comparative bandaid.
And again, just to make the above point even more clear: Those changes in “official policies” are “bandaid” solutions comparatively. You agree that the world runs on bandaid solutions. I see no issue with what is being said. I am not advocating for whole cultures to transform or economies to disappear. I am asking you to look at systemic, macro-level changes in the US that will help reduce the supposed rise of “iPad kids”.
3 Likes
…OK, if that’s the case, why did you go on a tangent right after.
Than what are the solutions? How do you ensure theses “obvious flaws” don’t creep in.
Again how? Instead of explaining how cigarettes were once legal on planes you could have taken the time to explain how I’m wrong in your right. Add substance.
If you honestly believe regulating parenthood is in anyway something worth considering you are naive.
Even now, children who act out and commit criminal acts get different punishments depending on skin color. From a slap on the wrist to years behind bars.
We can’t even solve this. How will we solve these “obvious flaws” you speak of that can be ensured away?
What if it’s ruled people with genetic disorders or mental disabilities are not fit to have children? And don’t say it won’t happen, because it has.
Who decides who’s fit to be a parent? The government? Seriously, answer this question. Its important.
1 Like
Yes
An iteration of what I suggested could be a solution. Not exactly how I said it but on the same lines.
It will improve the situation enough so we can continue to keep improving our lives not just regarding this but in any other way we currently do.
Maybe this is the wrong word to use but something to denote that one has gone through learning how to be good parents equipped with knowledge to ensure of certain things you’d rather not have directly mandate.
I mean, I am agreeing with what you said there. The reasonable ask. We agree on this already and I was only agreeing with you again.
Why can’t it be both. It doesn’t have to be. You can either look at it as an idea to be discussed or directly entertain an iteration of my idea as a potential solution. Up to how anyone wants to see it.
One should not have to be forced to choose between having the time or the money to raise a child because both are needed. I guess that’s what I meant there. But some things are getting confusing as you don’t appear to understand everything I am saying nor do I. Natural drawback of corresponding via text I suppose. There’s only so much one can say and how in writing.
What will? (besides systemic changes at the core)
Not how I meant it. You took it another way again. What I mean is one should not be in a position to spend time and use the resources to raise a child/children as well as reasonably possible no matter their personal income level. In today’s world, it is becoming a privilege because people only have one of those two if that. But it should not be this way, is all.
I did not mean to imply you did. Sorry if my comment came off that way.
–
Look, my whole point is to only propose a potential solution even if flawed. It’s an idea. Some are good, some are bad. We won’t know unless we deliberate on it.
Nobody decides. If you want to become a parent, you can be. Every person is free to. No one should stop you from it. The reason I wrote all that I wrote if you want to raise children better and parents don’t seem to be skilled (technical or otherwise) to ensure proper healthy upbringing to a point where the governments are trying to come in a place restrictions on children’s tech use (which will also affect us all), then every wanna be parent should learn some things to equip themselves to become the parents we all wish to be for our kids.
Now, obvious questions of what, how, when, rules, etc. regarding this are good questions. I don’t have answers for all. That’s why we need a dialogue if this is at all going to be considered a sound idea worth brainstorming on.
My only point is that there should be a legal mandatory framework in place for parents to go through to learn to become parents before they become parents such that children are not subjected to (even by mistake) become more anxious, less resilient, and slower decision makers as the main post says. That’s it. I am not saying I have answers to all the rules to ensure of this. I don’t. I am not an expert. I only commented of an idea I had.
And I’ll just leave it that because we all come from all kinds of social, educational, cultural, and political backgrounds so it’s hard to converse over text and is a limit to how best we can do it in writing. The natural drawback is that several things will always be “lost in translation” (because we don’t know each other and hence can’t say the right things the right way for each of us to get what we all mean exactly how we mean it) even while communicating in English.
Also to be clear, I am not disagreeing with all that you all are saying. But apparently just because I am not providing a clear framework with all the answers to the questions you’re asking (because I don’t know them all) doesn’t mean its a bad idea in and of itself.
Also, to folks saying every parents wants to be a good parent and do all the good things by their kids side - sure. They want to. But are they able to or are equipped to? That’s the contention I have with people when they are not able to ensure of this given their legitimate busyness. And to that I say, perhaps one should have thought parenthood well before having children - to in practice ensure of what you want for your kids. This means different things to different people but primarily it is time and money. That’s my only gripe with folks who can’t or are unable to do it.
1 Like
It is, in essense, still a micro-level goal, which is the criticism I am pointing out. Please explicate further. There are such things as programs which educate parents, planned parents, and teen parents the necessary knowledge and skills to be a bare minimum parent. But I didn’t take you to me this. If you did, please say so. However, if what you meant was that adults are required to pass some threshold in order to have children, then nothing changes. My criticisms still stand. The intention of the goal is still micro-level (despite introducing macro-level changes).
Again, my whole point is literally to address the systemic issues bro, not just hone in on micro-level issues.
Idk if it’s just me, but I do not understand what you are saying in this sentence. It does not seem coherent to me. Please clarify, but only if it is vital to discussion. I am tired of fragmented, tangential points being made.
I really don’t understand what you mean by “people only have one of those two”. I am not separating [time] and [money]. I take them to be one single thing: [time and money]. Overall, I take [time and money] to be whatever you meant here:
In other words, what you initially pointed out here as being necessary for having children is a precious resource granted to proportionally few people systemically. @anon51983832 labelled this as a privilege because you have to be one of the select few to be a parent “responsibly”, in your sense of the word. It is analogous to having an upper-class home. Having such a home is a privilege. Being rich is a privilege. Lots of things are privileges. So on and so forth. In the same vein, nicotiu and I were saying that having the time and money and foresight and whatever words you pick and choose necessary to have children is a privilege. Having children itself is a comparative privilege.
Consequently, demanding that people ought to only have children when they have such time and money is equivalent to asking them to have children only when they are privileged. This is the only reason I bring up privilege, because it seems to us that you are demanding adults to have children only when they are privileged. This is the most obvious point in the world, and again we already said we agreed with it: the better your socioeconomic position is in life, the more time and money and resources and whatever you can afford for child-rearing. But this misses the point: this privilege to have children can be broadened by institutional reform so that it is more accessible to everyone.
I do not even have to use the term “privilege” if you don’t want to. Parents need X to ensure good parenting. X can be attained more easily with the help of macro-level goals.
Your whole response to my claim was that systemic change (what I am advocating for) is too disruptive of society… You certainly did imply that, even if you did not want to:
My whole point is pointing out those flaws, of which are what I talked about above previously already: the solution is targeted at the micro-level, not addressing systemic issues. Institional reform in an attempt to fix systemic issues does not imply massive disruption to society. They can still be comparative bandaid solutions, which you say the world runs on.
1 Like
There’s plenty of people who have responsibly thought about whether they should bring kids into this world, and who also had the time and money to do so. They did all the right things, so on and so forth. But as I said at the very beginning:
The issue with you guilt-tripping parents who have iPad kids is that you cannot seriously tell whether they responsibly considered having children or not. Your tone suggests that you believe any parent who has iPad kids automatically did not do the due diligences you demanded. Unfortunately, this is just not true, and therefore guilt-tripping parents for this is just misguided.
No one said it was a bad idea because you didn’t provide a clear framework. I said it was a bad idea because it relies on the individual and does not address the various social mechanisms which lead to “iPad kids.” I did misinterpret you endorsing the plan, but that is besides the point and was already settled previously.
I also don’t think anyone needs to provide a clear framework for that here. There’s probably plenty of resources online which reiterates this as a solution.
1 Like
The problems with chat control and age verification measures giving the government more power to control its citizens also apply here. Authorities, including child protection services, already have excessive power to judge parents and even try to take their children away if they are not constantly watching them, including absurd situations such as: letting them ride the bus alone, losing sight of them for a minute at a picnic, letting them stay in a park, letting their daughter look after her younger siblings at home, among other cases, which are allowed because of ambiguous child protection laws. We do not need to put more pressure on parents or children than they already have:
See: “The Sisyphean Cycle of Technology Panics”
I don’t think the distinction between active and passive use of social media is that important; the effects on well-being or ill-being can occur in both cases.
2 Likes
Then what do you propose to make parents monitor their kids activity to at least prevent being exposed to harmful content?
You know some or most parents are already trying to lease the responsibility of taking care their kids to schools when that’s not and never was their responsibility, I can’t even count how many times headmasters were saying this. Having parents feel no consequences to not keep their children safe online and be so lazy that you don’t feel like it is a huge problem, doing nothing is also not an solution to the problem but you can do this to affect the specific group and not everyone like the governments are trying with chat control and stuff like that.
Things don’t have to be this absurd and I do indeed agree on that, absurd levels this should be avoided but at least sticking to the goal is enough to basically tell parents “You keep your children safe on the internet or face consequences”
The face consequences missing part is what encourages this parents to just throw the tablet to the infant/kid and hope they don’t get exposed to or have no clue they are being exposed or wishful thinking that the platform will keep them safe which is also not exactly their responsibility either (Of course platforms are responsible for the nasty things and illegal stuff to not be shown or be banned including but not limited to predators but platforms are not parents too [Which some are facing lawsuits due to not doing anything about the problem say for example Roblox and the predator problem])
There’s no “Nothing should be done” as a solution, if you truly care about kids, you don’t use it to masquerade for laws like chat control where that affects everyone and do something that’s truly going to have an impact without affecting adults/future adulthood. We are already seeing many parents be neglectful of kid’s online activity let alone their screen time on these devices.
Of course I agree that in the first place you shouldn’t buy your kids an iPad, actually to clarify especially on infancy level but that’s why such rule would be exempt, no internet connected (basically ones that let you be on the word wide web) device, no problem
And don’t get me started on the predator problem and Roblox problem
1 Like
We should seize the means of production, establish a true rule of law and a true democracy where Human Rights are respected, where you don’t live to work but work to live, working less than 3 hours a day, with clean cities that respect locals without overcrowded urban centers, with quality public transport so that you don’t need to have an individual car per person, etc.
In short, saying “enough is enough” and taking the economy by the horns so that it serves us and not the other way around.
That way we would have enough free time and energy not only to prevent children from suffering screen addiction, but also so that each individual has the possibility to develop as a human being and stops being an animal with debts and stress.
Sorry, sometimes I get carried away. 
4 Likes
