Gemini – A new, collaboratively designed internet protocol - <AUTHOR> https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ <comment><USER3> This is so intensely cool.

Urbit was on its own island until recently - the only project challenging the domination of WWW.

This + Tildeverse feels like the very, very, very early days of hackers starting to play with alternate protocols, and the style and format of WWW.

It's fun, non-commercial, social, and aimed at hobbyists - just like the early WWW.

Given another 10 years of experimentation, I could 100% imagine WWW being seen as corporate, commercial and professional space.

Right now there isn't a good pseudonymous layer, because everything is very tied to real identity. Privacy doesn't really exist in a world of shadow profiles. And, with my commercial hat on, not do I want it to. I _want_ to be able to retarget the shit out of email lists, and run intensive Facebook ad campaigns.

The needs of commercial space are not the needs of personal space. One solution could be different protocols, or at least different spaces, for each.

<comment><USER4> "Given another 10 years of experimentation, I could 100% imagine WWW being seen as corporate, commercial and professional space."

Excerpt below is from the file /scripts/web included with the original netcat in 1995.

       #! /bin/sh
       ## The web sucks.  It is a mighty dismal kludge built out of a thousand
       ## tiny dismal kludges all band-aided together, and now these bottom-line
       ## clueless pinheads who never heard of "TCP handshake" want to run
       ## *commerce* over the damn thing.  Ye godz.  Welcome to TV of the next
       ## century -- six million channels of worthless shit to choose from, and
       ## about as much security as today's cable industry!
       ##
       ## Having grown mightily tired of pain in the ass browsers, I decided
       ## to build the minimalist client.  It doesn't handle POST, just GETs, but
       ## the majority of cgi forms handlers apparently ignore the method anyway.
       ## A distinct advantage is that it *doesn't* pass on any other information
       ## to the server, like Referer: or info about your local machine such as
       ## Netscum tries to!
       ##
       ## Since the first version, this has become the *almost*-minimalist client,
       ## but it saves a lot of typing now.  And with netcat as its backend, it's
       ## totally the balls.  Don't have netcat?  Get it here in /src/hacks!
       ## _H* 950824, updated 951009 et seq.
       ##

FWIW, I still use original nc and similar TCP clients to "interact" with the www. Works great.

Not fan of SSL, now TLS, which was in fact created to facilitate commercial use of the www, or "e-commerce", in 1990's.

As an ongoing experiment in a different protocol/space, I run CurveCP on home LAN.

<comment><USER5> For mobile users:

The web sucks. It is a mighty dismal kludge built out of a thousand tiny dismal kludges all band-aided together, and now these bottom-line clueless pinheads who never heard of "TCP handshake" want to run _commerce_ over the damn thing. Ye godz. Welcome to TV of the next century -- six million channels of worthless shit to choose from, and about as much security as today's cable industry!

Having grown mightily tired of pain in the ass browsers, I decided to build the minimalist client. It doesn't handle POST, just GETs, but the majority of cgi forms handlers apparently ignore the method anyway.

A distinct advantage is that it _doesn 't_ pass on any other information to the server, like Referer: or info about your local machine such as Netscum tries to!

Since the first version, this has become the _almost_ -minimalist client, but it saves a lot of typing now. And with netcat as its backend, it's totally the balls. Don't have netcat? Get it here in /src/hacks!

_H* 950824, updated 951009 et seq.

<comment><USER6> Wish I had scrolled down first :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When people go back to using Gopher, you know the Web has turned to shit. I hope something good can come from these alternative protocols, a new space where oldtimers like me can focus on honest information exchange (what the Internet used to be), without the corporate behemoths tracking our every move.

Google's motto used to be "to organize the world's information". It's a daily occurrence where I'm wasting enormous amounts of time because Google search produces results of such low quality as to defy belief (startup opportunity right there, it's gotten so bad somebody should eat their lunch by doing a better search).

I'm yearning for an alternative that's close to what I experienced two decades ago.

</comment><comment><USER8> After recently discovering Gopher and falling down a deep (gopher)hole of exploration, I'm convinced that it, or something similar is a great alternative to the commercial web. What a volunteer-run co-op which sells food in bulk bins is to Walmart.

Simple, fast and open. The exact opposite to something like Urbit, which while it might be open source is designed to be as closed as possible.

Incidentally I recently found a good Gopher client for iOS has some rough edges but is definitely one of the most usable clients.

[https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/gopher- client/id1235310088](https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/gopher-client/id1235310088)

</comment><comment><USER9> I installed `elpher` via emacs and then didn't know where to go to actually see any content. Eventually I followed a link from "The Elpher Project Page" \- it linked to "Project Gemini (hosted using gemini)". From there I found something called CAPCOM and am having fun exploring... but my suggestion is "list some gemini content on the gemini site!"

(Update: oh dear, I've never played with Gopher before. This is my kind of internet! There goes the rest of my day...)

</comment><comment><USER10> Very cool, this is essentially just an updated (modernised) Gopher protocol.

I wish the protocol was designed so that the server signed the document itself [well, most likely a hash of the document]. That would allow caches, archives, and proxies to prove that a document did in fact come from the claimed origin.

Unfortunately the Gemini protocol uses TLS, and so only offers the standard guarantee of HTTPS: a client can confirm it is communicating with the origin server, but it is unable to _transfer_ that guarantee to anyone else.

</comment><comment><USER11> If you're looking for a small week-end project, try checking out the spec and implementing a Gemini client or server. I wrote up a server over two days during my lunch breaks and it was relaxing working with such a small and simple protocol.

There's also a lot of neat stuff at CAPCOM[1] (which is sort of like a public RSS feed) if you're looking for capsules (what Gemini calls websites) to check out.

[1] gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/capcom/

</comment><comment><USER12> Having played with this now via their _" kiosk"_[1] it's very cool and I think there's something here.

I expect only the kind of people who visit HN will ever try it and fewer will ever use it, but the protocol is very nice and simple. I wish it would take off and that a nice GUI client was written so that it was easier to use.

[1]: ssh firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER13> Awesome, this makes me feel like it's 1998 again, in the best possible way :)

To the sibling comment: It's a bit non-obvious indeed. It allows you to use their AV-98 Gemini client. [0] The source seems to be basically the documentation here ;)

Try this:

AV-98> tour gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/

Then add links that you want to visit (they're numbered) with, for example

AV-98> tour 1

and navigate there with

AV-98> tour

[0] [https://tildegit.org/solderpunk/AV-98/src/branch/master/av98...](https://tildegit.org/solderpunk/AV-98/src/branch/master/av98.py))

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm acquainted with some of the folks involved in this project, and it's been a privilege to see them bring the concept so much to life in such a short span of time. For those who share an active interest in alternatives to the farrago that the modern web has become, I can unreservedly recommend Gemini to your attention.

</comment><comment><USER15> Gemini is such a widely used name for systems. I wish people would stop reusing it, in place of finding new unique names.

<comment><USER16> of course, someone on HN has to make this ultimate bike-shed comment about a project's name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I see that they've specified both a transport protocol, to replace HTTPS, and a document format, to replace HTML.

BLUF: They should have just run the text/gemini format on top of HTTPS 1.1, make a gemini --> HTML formatter, and maybe a restricted subset of HTTPS, and called it a day. Replacing HTTPS is a waste of time. Also, most of the benefits of the document format could be gotten with a sane subset of HTML. There are no mandatory bad parts to HTTP or HTML.

I've seen this "The Web is too complex, we need Gopher" sentiment on the Fediverse a few times and it looks like the same class of thinking as "C++ / Rust is too complex, we need C."

They are complaining about how _bad_ parties use HTTP and HTML and concluding that _good_ people should disavow HTTP and HTML as a result. It is like refusing to drive your pickup truck because someone else's truck has truck nuts on it.

But I've run websites with the "Motherfucking website" HTML style and it's fine.

All the complexity of the web is opt-in. Switching my site to Gemini wouldn't prevent, say, the New York Times from wanting a complex HTML website. All I'm doing is shooting myself in the foot to spite my enemy. The FAQ says they intend to co-exist with the web, so I'm sure they agree with me on this. They just want to lead by example. I also don't think it's a good example.

About extensibility, from Section 2.1.2 in the FAQ:

"Gemini is designed with an acute awareness that the modern web is a privacy disaster, and that the internet is not a safe place for plaintext. Things like browser fingerprinting and Etag-based "supercookies" are an important cautionary tale: user tracking can and will be snuck in via the backdoor using protocol features which were not designed to facilitate it. Thus, protocol designers must not only avoid designing in tracking features (which is easy), but also assume active malicious intent and avoid designing anything which could be subverted to provide effective tracking. This concern manifests as a deliberate non-extensibility in many parts of the Gemini protocol."

These claims are made:

\- Privacy violations are inherent to HTTP/HTTPS/HTML \- Making a protocol non-extensible is feasible

But if you're specifying a completely new client and server, you could also just refuse to send and accept the ETag and cookie headers that are known to allow privacy violation.

And no protocol is non-extensible. They seem to think that software and ideas are controlled and owned by the first people to think of them. But if Gemini catches on, then it can be forked. This should be obvious to people working in FLOSS. I seem to recall it happened to IRC. Designed simple, forked into incompatible competing versions, the official next version is in dev hell, and now it's also competing with XMPP and Matrix.

Perhaps that belief is why they chose to make a new spec instead of defining a subset of HTTP and HTML. They think that HTTP and HTML are atomic and we must not reuse any good ideas from them, they've been tainted with bad ideas, so we have to change everything all at once.

To this end they even made the status codes different from HTTP.

"Importantly, the first digit of Gemini status codes do not group codes into vague categories like "client error" and "server error" as per HTTP. Instead, the first digit alone provides enough information for a client to determine how to handle the response."

They could have just specified a subset of HTTP status codes, to make it easier to remember which codes are which. Personally I like having 4xx and 5xx separate. Maybe they were really happy to save 33% of status code bytes compared to HTTP.

Regarding performance, the spec says, "Connections are closed at the end of a single transaction and cannot be reused."

I believe there's also no inline media, so 1 document == 1 connection == 1 request.

Again, this is completely possible with a sane subset of HTML and HTTP - <USER2> write a server that can't reuse connections, and write HTML that doesn't have inline media. Use a linter or transpiler (from text/gemini to HTML) to enforce that.

But if you _do_ reuse connections, or use something like QUIC, then you can get better performance. So they are making that impossible. Again, until someone forks it and adds it anyway.

I feel like I'm the crazy one because there's clearly a few people working on this project seriously, and I'm one person writing a rambling comment. But I don't see the point. Now I feel like I owe the world a subset of HTTP and HTML to put my money where my mouth is.

<comment><USER18> I've wanted to make something like this, and I'm happy to see its here because implementing a client looks like a lot of fun.

Here is why I want a simpler web: The NewYorkTimes wont be there! Neither will google or facebook or shopify or influencers or clickbait even! I want a web that is hard to make money from. Something that doesn't support fingerprinting and ad tracking, where my interests aren't at odds with the "platforms".

I want a place where people are posting ideas and creations and info and software and labors of love for free, with weird one-off communities that don't get embroiled in national censorship debates.

I might even want the relatively high barrier to entry, the fact that other people there would be looking for the same thing instead of being directed there by browser defaults and content portals.

<comment><USER19> That sounds like an online utopia, almost like the feeling of discovering the joy of the internet again. I want that too.

<comment><USER20> That is how I felt when I discovered gopher and then went on to work on gemini. I can wholeheartedly recommend both communities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's the source for one of the clients (Bombadillo): [https://tildegit.org/sloum/bombadillo](https://tildegit.org/sloum/bombadillo)

<comment><USER20> Thanks for linking! More info can be found here: [http://bombadillo.colorfield.space](http://bombadillo.colorfield.space) for those that are interested. A number of other clients also host at tildegit.org (a search for gemini will probably yield them).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> OMG, this spec was so readable I actually read the entire thing for pleasure.

I think this is a first.

<comment><USER23> I agree it is neat.

My experience tells me it is a sign of too much ambiguity and gaps that will bite you later though. See Markdown for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's like religion - one of the reasons they say Christianity won over Judaism is because they didn't require one to circumcise before the initiation. Yet both are equally rejecting of any other religion.

<comment><USER25> Judaism is also quite "racist". There is only one "chosen" people. Everyone else would be/is a second citizen. Who would join a religion to be 2nd citizen?

<comment><USER26> I'd encourage you to actually attend a synagogue service, or even just have a chat with a real-life Jewish person, before exposing yourself to ridicule as you have here.

In my life as a Jewish person, I've never _once_ hear a rabbi even hint as such a sentiment. Converts are treated exactly as Jewish as those who are born into the faith. What leads you to think otherwise?

<comment><USER27> Most every religion does have that bias of "we know better, we've got the holy texts, if you're not with us you're doomed/clueless/need to be saved/unlucky".

The fact that modern practitioners in your geographic locale of choice aren't as bigoted as their more literal brethren doesn't mean much, except perhaps that there is hope in undoing the more harmful superstitiousness of religion by raising quality of living (for all, regardless of faith).

<comment><USER26> Sure, but that's not what the GP was talking about. They directly stated that those who joined would forever be "second-class citizens", which simply isn't factual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Gemini sounds neat. Not sure I'll continue playing with it, but from the spec I have a couple of suggestions you are free to implement or ignore.

# Denial of Service

Permitting zero or more whitespace characters in a request a introduces a denial of service because the request is no longer bounded. Just keep sending whitespace to keep the connection open. Mandating a single character closes this particular hole.

It's possibly a minor DoS considering other attack vectors, but why leave any low-hanging fruit?

# Caching, ETags and Tracking

Caching is great, and I'm sure Gemini devs wouldn't object to caching if it could be handled without introducing user-facing privacy issues. Here's a sketch for an ad network protocol that I think would work with Gemini:

1\. Client requests URL X.

2\. Server replies with a redirect to "X?tracking-id", where tracking-id is associated with a set of IP addresses.

3\. All links in the document append the tracking-id to preserve it.

Anytime a client accesses a document in the ad network, the tracking-id quickly returns. People often have multiple IPs for their laptop, desktop, phone, tablet, etc. but there would be enough overlap in these sorts of requests to correctly tie a set of IPs to a unique client.

What cookies, etags, etc. permit on the WWW is doing this without requiring sharing the client IP database.

So maybe what we can do is still enjoy the benefits of caching while at least _detecting_ when some shenanigans are at play. The ad network outline above is observable behaviour from which we might be able to infer shenanigans.

To reintroduce caching without amplifying the tracking powers, and add the ability for the client to verify the server's ETag is legit, rather than treating it as an opaque identifier. If an etag for content specified the hash function used, then the client can verify the integrity of the document. So take the HTTP ETag header to a syntax like "ETag(sha256): ..."

Like the ad network outlined above, malicious servers could craft slightly different versions of a document for each IP and so generate unique ETags that may permit some sort of tracking in a similar way. However, the gemini document has no notion of hidden data (like comments and hidden fields in HTML), so any such shenanigans will always be visible in some way in the document itself, eg. embedding a unique hash code at the end, for instance.

So in the end, adding caching in this way should improve efficiency without appreciably amplifying tracking.

# Transclusion

A language with a construct becomes more expressive if it also includes its dual. Gemini has document-level references, where a document points to another document, but it lacks transclusion which is a _dereferencing_ operation, such that you can embed another document into the current document.

So links in Gemini are:

        => gemini://some/url

Transclusion would be its inverse:

        <= gemini://some/url

This is pretty handy actually. Kinda like iframes without the headaches. However, unlike iframes, I don't think the client should load the URL itself, but rather all communication should go via the server for the top-level document. This is again to avoid amplifying the tracking powers, since a top- level document server could append tracking-id to transcluded URLs and then they act just like tracking cookies.

<comment><USER22> I like your first suggestion, the rest don't sound so great to me.

It's simple now, let's keep it like that.

<comment><USER28> Sure, it's simple, but a stated goal is power to weight ratio. Transclusion definitely fits under that. Authoring and organizing information with transclusion is so much easier than without, because it avoids much of the need for special tooling to assemble a final document from fragments that might be reused. It's too unwieldy for _very_ large documents though, so it's perfect for authoring small to medium sized documents, which fits right in with Gemini's goals.

There are many ways to handle it client-side:

1\. Behaviour like iframes, although I don't like the tracking implications.

2\. Origin server fetch, as I mentioned.

3\. Another possibility is to render it as a button which the client must trigger to load the document.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> " In the same way that many people currently serve the same content via gopher and the web"

Is this actually true?

<comment><USER20> In my experience the gopher community is very split on this concept with many people doing just that, but many others (myself included) wishing that gopher/web proxies and cross posting did not exist at all.

<comment><USER29> Is there much (any) gopher community left?

<comment><USER30> There is! I read this on a gopher mirror of the Hacker News, so I thought I'd better come on over to the web version to respond...

In fact, several regular gopherites have commented on this thread.

Funny that this came up on the Hacker News on the weekend that the server is going down. Probably a good thing, since it only has 128MB of RAM.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


If you aren't cheating on your finals, you aren't trying. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/e2a04c71f5f2

<comment><USER2> Linkbait title. Pretty well written. Good to know action is being taken. But is there a take away? Most insightful part I felt was how cheaters will lower the value of a degree from their university. Morally I believe cheating is wrong, nice to see some logical thought put in.</comment>


How Steve Jobs Fleeced Carly Fiorina with HP iPod - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/backchannel/how-steve-jobs-fleeced-carly-fiorina-79d1380663de <comment><USER2> A lot of negative comments on the grounds that this story is political and hence unsuitable for HN. I disagree. It's only the context (Fiorina is running for President) that makes it political. The story itself is mainly a post- mortem of a bad business decision, and is therefore IMHO entirely appropriate for HN, and would be even if Fiorina were not running for President.

<comment><USER3> The general story of HP, iPods & her role may be apolitical, but this specific article about it definitely wasn't.

It clearly was written with a political axe to grind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh my god the tone of the article is exasperating. We get it, you think she'd dumb or something, but you need to relax a bit.

<comment><USER5> Dumb, maybe, or maybe not, but she's definitely a lying sociopath, no history of successful leadership, doesn't answer questions, and yet thinks she can be President. I saw her on Meet the Press last week and I was genuinely afraid, creeped out even.

<comment><USER6> > a lying sociopath, no history of successful leadership, doesn't answer > questions, and yet thinks she can be President

1\. Not everyone currently running for president is doing so because they believe they actually have a chance of becoming president.

2\. I wonder what percentage of people in the US believe that they personally would be a capable president? It's got to be 90%+

<comment><USER7> > Not everyone currently running for president is doing so because they > believe they actually have a chance of becoming president.

A lot of people seem to miss this key detail.

These people have advisors, analysts, and so on. They know that their chance of winning is extremely slim. However they don't care because the entire point may be:

\- VP slot.

\- Increase public image in general (for future runs for house seats, book deals, TV appearances, speaking opportunities, etc).

\- Pushing a specific political agenda into the debates.

<comment><USER5> And that's okay? They make a mockery of the Office when they treat candidacy as a PR platform. We shouldn't just accept that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes, this is incidentally a hit piece on Carly Fiorina, but the business analysis is quite entertaining

Apple really took HP for a ride on the HP+iPod debacle. I didn't realize how badly. It's funny to look back.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is an interesting anecdote from the Steve Jobs era. HN normally eats this stuff up. No need to flag it just because it concerns a current Republican candidate.

<comment><USER10> My problem with it is that the author so clearly has an axe to grind about Fiorina that it makes me wonder whether the business analysis (which I agree is interesting) is the result of objective analysis or whether he went in looking to slam Fiorina as an idiot.

<comment><USER11> People have had axes to grind against Fiorina because of her tenure at HP long before she decided to get into politics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The only reason I read through this piece was because its by Steven Levy. Not going to flag it, even though its highly political, because I'd never heard or known of the Apple/HP deal and it was still an interesting read.

</comment><comment><USER13> this week's political activity, discrediting Carly. Brought to you by all left leaning news sites, blogs, and now, Hacker's News.

Really guys, the first three sentences should have made this tripe obvious. Expect submission after submission that are purely political hidden under techy click bait titles. We need a new flag, "political"

<comment><USER14> Rational people tend to be progressive and "left leaning" (by American standards; by world standards this country is a right-wing powder keg). The sheer idiocy of the American right is certainly relevant to hackers as an interesting and difficult problem, just like the housing situation in San Francisco or that malaria and Alzheimer's continue to exist.

<comment><USER15> I rarely take the time to comment on HN or submit content but I'm occasionally really tempted to earn enough karma that I can down-vote arrogant, condescending, asinine posts like this one. Neither side of the political spectrum has anything like a monopoly on "rational people" and "the sheer idiocy of [people who disagree with bitwize]" is not "relevant to hackers as an interesting and difficult problem."

<comment><USER16> Well... I am not agreeing that his comment was a bit cray. But isn't it common knowledge that generally more educated areas of the country are also more "progressive/left leaning"? Obviously there are exceptions, but even an intelligent man can cling to the wrong idea ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> More importantly than 'crushing their innovation brand' (which seems like a small consequence), he headed off a potential competitor who might enter the personal device ring. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER18> The more I read about this woman, the worse it gets.

She is sales. Not an engineer. Not a designer. Not even a good leader.

The world needs salespeople for sure, but they are mostly sizzle and little steak.

She will get shredded on the national stage, I think she is worse than Palin. At least Palin was a governor.

<comment><USER19> No, Palin was a beauty contest winner that got elected Governor. She read People magazine when flying between political meetings. She had zero education/competence in the political arena. No policy education and no desire to learn. She was a zero with a big mouth.

<comment><USER20> I'd take Carly over Palin any day, though I dislike both. Carly would blunder around and be an ineffective president, but I was afraid Palin would start a war with Russia or something worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I still maintain the theory that iTunes for Windows enabled the explosive sales of the iPod and, by extension, the funds and momentum to develop the iPhone.

So continuing with that logic, Fiorina can claim that the iPhone was the result of her deal with Apple.

<comment><USER22> Wasn't this by design. They always wanted the ipod to be cross platform. The ipod then became advertisement for Apple's laptops and pc's. I'd argue ipod/itunes drove mac sells and by the time the iphone came around Apple was respected by consumers as a legitimate consumer electronics company.

I know I read or heard this from an apple source but I can't remember where.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I understand that foreseeing who will be a successful CEO is kind of holly grail of management theory, but how come so many incompetent managers keep ruining their companies for so long only to leave with golden parachutes?

</comment><comment><USER7> > This was a highly strategic move to block HP/Compaq from installing Windows > Media Store on their PCs.

Uhh what? I can understand them wanting to get iTunes on OEM PCs, but I don't recall there ever being a standalone "Windows Media Store," and at the time Microsoft was already bundling Windows Media Player (which did contain a link to a store via the in-built browser) with Windows that this deal didn't do anything to stop...

PS - That is a quote, but cannot source the quote, and no author is given either. May be fictional.

</comment><comment><USER24> Wouldn't even know who she is weren't for this article : [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/carly-fiorina-i-supplied- hp...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/carly-fiorina-i-supplied-hp-servers- for-nsa-snooping)

And a presidential candidate ? Wow.</comment>


Ask HN: Help w/ Software Development presentation to middle schoolers - <AUTHOR>

My son's school just sent a request for me to participate in the middle school 'career investigation immersion'.  In the program, parents come in and give
- a brief presentation of the career - hands on activity (15-20 minutes) - Q&A (5-10 minutes)
I'm a software developer (+10 years) that has worked on web and mobile applications, with some hobby electronics experience (arduino, pi).
Any ideas on what might be interesting for a short hands-on activity for middle schoolers?  I feel like I should definitely do this, but I don't really have much experience with that age group (my son is 3 1/2, so isn't part of that group).
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Its actually easier to teach hardware for kids that age. Maybe you can make a sat solver that checks if a circuit is satisfiable and basics of circuits with "and" "or" and "not" gates is always very interesting. You can even teach them about latches and flip flips and have them program a "soft drink" machine</comment>


I spent my career in tech, but wasn't prepared for its effect on my kids - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2017/08/24/melinda-gates-i-spent-my-career-in-technology-i-wasnt-prepared-for-its-effect-on-my-kids/ <comment><USER4> 'One of my favorite things you can do is plan a "device-free dinner."'

_A_ device free dinner? Why aren't all of them? These weird little "small gestures" make me feel like people have lost control of their homes.

We have a landline expressly to give out to emergency contacts. And dinner is tech free. Every night.

I think the main problem is tech has made everything _else_ easier, but parenting harder, and parents just aren't prepared to fight the battles / put in the work. A parent who is staring at Instagram when they're at the park shouldn't be surprised that their kids wants screens, too.

<comment><USER5> I think this is the one thing about technology I'm old fashioned about (I roll my eyes _hard_ when people say stuff like "You should delete your Facebook account, you'll be better off."). If I'm eating food with someone else the phone goes away. The only exception is if in the course of conversation an easily googleable question is asked and both the other person/people and I are actually interested in the answer instead of just guessing. But after that the phone goes right back in my pocket. It's not a hard rule, but it's one I do make a conscious effort to follow.

I've noticed that others are a lot less likely to pull out their phones and stare while at the table if I don't do it myself. There's just something kinda sad to me when I see couples at a niceish restaurant and neither person is talking and both are looking at Facebook or Twitter and there's still food on their plates. I know you can't extrapolate that to a person's entire relationship, but it just seems kinda... unfortunate I guess.

<comment><USER6> So the question that I don't know the answer to: would those couples have engaged each other in meaningful conversation (meaningful to _them_ ) had cellphones not existed? Or does the presence of cellphones reveal that a large number of people were never particularly interested in engaging meaningfully with others but would only _feign_ interest when the alibi of the cellphone isn't available?

<comment><USER7> Or a more optimistic view: it takes some effort to get to interesting conversation; you have to go through some fakeish small talk to find a topic worth discussing. Phones don't require that effort, they're the path of least resistance.

<comment><USER8> Smalltalk is ideally about finding a hook, a more interesting shared topic which can support a more fulfilling conversation. Otherwise, it's just killing time, and I daresay most here have more intellectually stimulating ways to kill time.

The complexity is when people regard a lack of smalltalk as a chilly isolation. I personally have been called stuck-up because I didn't engage in smalltalk at school. Some cultures are more oriented to this than others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This doesn't invalidate the article, but I feel the need to point out that the author lives in a $63 million house with $80,000 worth of TV screens lining the walls. "Anyone in the house can change the screens' displays to their favorite painting or photograph, in effect personalizing the room (via lighting, temperature, and even decor) to the guest's own flavor." [0]

They certainly didn't do themselves any favors when they built their house.

[0] [http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the- biggest/12-unbelieva...](http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the- biggest/12-unbelievable-facts-about-bill-gates-house/)

<comment><USER10> Yes, a "career in tech" and a tech-lifestyle are different things and you can keep them separated. Based on the article and your comment it seems they have more of a problem with the latter.

<comment><USER11> This is big. I used to work for a manager who didn't even have a computer at home (and no smartphone in 2013). She definitely excelled at keeping tech out of her daily life.

<comment><USER12> > She definitely excelled at keeping tech out of her daily life.

I'm curious -- what was she managing? Did she excel in her role?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm a retired geek but I do tractor work, I just pulled a 14 hour day and I'm having some wine so salt heavily.

In my opinion, the best thing you can do with kids is create boredom. If they have access to a shop, or some lumber, they will start to build stuff. If kids are bored and they turn that into building, that's the first step towards getting into a good undergrad school. Building stuff is good.

The hard part, as parents, is creating that boredom. It's so easy to give them the video game babysitter. I haven't done well at that. I wish I had some magic statement that made that part easy but that part is super super hard.

The other thing I'd say about kids, and I hate this, really hate this, is private school. It's better. My kids went and were on track to go to Los Gatos High School which is a pretty decent school. For various reasons we found kirby.org and both of my kids go there and it's a shit ton better. I hate private schools, I think kids should experience the full range of people, not just the rich kids that get into private schools, but wow, the private school was so much better. So much better. Hugely better. My younger son who hates that school, it's a nerd school and he's a jock, came to me and said "yeah, I want to go there, it's better than Los Gatos". My older kid is applying to schools and he has a shot at the ivys, that's all the private school.

I'm ashamed to admit that I like private schools, but wow, have they been good for my kids.

<comment><USER14> > I'm ashamed to admit that I like private schools, but wow, have they been > good for my kids.

Nothing to be ashamed about. You want the best for your children and private schools get more money.

The problem is not that private schools are better, but that public schools are so much worse. The people feeling shame should be the politicians who have worked and continue to work to dismantle the public education system (in large part motivated by religious fundamentalists seeking to replace public education with voucher-based religious schools), and the people that vote for them.

<comment><USER15> >in large part motivated by religious fundamentalists seeking to replace public education with voucher-based religious schools

This can't possibly be the reason. Otherwise the bay area would have the best schools in the nation because religion here is borderline illegal.

<comment><USER16> What is the relationship between proportion of non religious people and quality of schools? There a few factors of bad schools, and along with it a less than ideal group to classmates. Wealth seems to be the primary problem, as it creates unstructured homes and poorly funded schools. Another problem is religious parents who want to teach children that lack of evidence is a good thing. The fact that the latter want to divert taxpayer funds for their own agenda is also a cause for bad schools, as it diverts funds from public schools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "As its use has proliferated, so has its effects...

...the interviewer, apparently, asks young people (age 18 to 22 years old) the following: whether men with the (device hidden) are human or not; whether they are losing contact with reality; whether the relation between eyes and ears is changing radically, whether they are psychotic or schizophrenic; whether they are worried about the fate of humanity."

Can you guess the device? It's the Sony Walkman, and the time is the 1980s.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman_effect)

The arguments aren't new or novel. Hosoda was saying similar in the 1980s, and the Walkman just as easily isolated people in the 1980s as phones do now. yet somehow humanity survived.

Remember pagers? They were the device of choice in the 1990s for kids, and they were pilloried just as bad, and even linked to drugs. There's a pretty decent history of people panicking morally about new technologies and their dehumanizing effects, and generally people have adapted more or less fine.

<comment><USER18> But maybe we have lost something also. As a truly social species, do we not lose as a society when barriers are erected to sociability? The literature certainly points to increased social isolation among adults and children. It also makes the point that loneliness is a risk factor in things like dementia, being overweight and a litany of other ailments. I reject the notion that anything new is automatically better and has only net positive effects.

<comment><USER19> If anything, most of the addictive internet stimuli are social to some degree. I do think there's an interesting analysis to be made of how social connectedness got redistributed though. Both in terms of absolute connectedness and who we're connected to.

<comment><USER20> I would argue that these "social" parts of the internet are social in the shallowest sense of the world. E.g., telling people how your life is without actually talking to them. I would agree with above that these devices are adding to (creating?) our social isolation.

<comment><USER19> I don't know the numbers. But if my intuition isn't completely wrong, and I'm not a total outlier, most seem to spend a lot of time on Messenger (/other IM) talking. Usually talking about content that is social in nature.

And quite frankly, most "real-life" interactions seem to be pretty much the same. Just sitting around with phones talking about things you saw on the [social] Internet.

<comment><USER21> > And quite frankly, most "real-life" interactions seem to be pretty much the > same. Just sitting around with phones talking about things you saw on the > [social] Internet

This is a bit of a sad statement. What about conversation in a group, or debate in a meeting at work, or communicating with your children, or any other kind of relationship? Not everything can be showing each other videos, as YouTube can already recommend better than humans can.

<comment><USER19> I'd imagine pre-Internet conversations were just as "sad". The main difference was you couldn't "show" what you were talking about. Nowadays instead of verbally describing a conversation with a friend, you'll just do a screenshot dump.

Given how much social life basically migrated to the Internet, there aren't that many happenings without a digital trace.

I mean you can't even discuss politics without talking about Trump's twitter...[0]

Just yesterday grandma was showing me pics my aunt sent her. Pics she found on cousin's Facebook profile.

[0] We already have political scandals that involve just email dumps, think how cool things are going to get when we get dumps of facebook/slack/whatever convos!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The hardest thing for me has been young children begging, just begging, for screen time. It's heartbreaking and I know very few parents who have managed to make no mean no. I grew up watching TV but then, TV was mostly for adults and I only paid attention those few hours it was child-friendly. I spent almost the entire decade of the 90s without a television, only going to the movies or the occasional VHS. Even today, while I'm on my computer for 8 hours/5 days a week, I read books when I stop work or cook or just sit and talk. I turn off the screen, close the laptop and turn off wifi on my phone. I worry for the attention span our kids won't have.

When was the last time you let a child just get bored, so they might entertain themselves with their imagination?

On the other side, when we go out for walks or camping or away from tech, it really doesn't take long for the kids to adjust.

<comment><USER23> I spent a lot of the decade of the 90s having the best times of my life immersing myself in video games and the Internet, and looking back it seems to me like I'm the better for it. I think it should rightfully be heartbreaking to deny that to a kid who would have it.

<comment><USER24> > I think it should rightfully be heartbreaking to deny that to a kid who > would have it.

I'm going to assume you haven't seen the steaming piles that are today's kid's shows and apps. There's no way that crap is as mentally stimulating as content from the 90s (or before). It's optimized for addiction.

And I'm not saying to cut it off entirely. I'm just saying the new stuff is universally terrible.

<comment><USER25> There's something really sinister about watching a toddler utterly engrossed in someone unwrapping Kinder eggs, for _hours_. In the 90's, the internet involved more than just slapping your palm against a screen and not blinking for the rest of the afternoon, and TV was in limited supply. Today, you never have to take a break if someone isn't there to teach you how, or even that you should.

<comment><USER26> In the 90s we watched crap literally engineered to sell toys.

[http://www.retrodomination.com/master-of-your-universe- the-s...](http://www.retrodomination.com/master-of-your-universe-the-story-of- he-man/)

<comment><USER24> The difference I see is the addictiveness of on-demand. It's a constant drip of endorphins not unlike chain smoking or a morphine line.

When we were children we had to wait till weekends to watch those special weekend shows. We had to wake up early to watch all of them. Hell we even had to pee or make a snack in the 3 minutes of commercials lest we miss the next segment!

Nowadays you see kids watching all that crap all the time. Morning, noon, and night. Parents justify it as "educational content" or they just want some quiet time. But you have children literally sitting on the shitter for an hour watching an iPhone.

I'm not expert on raising kids and I'm not saying my generation was perfect (far from it!), but that can't be good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I got Internet access in 1990 when I was 12 years old. Completely unfettered, unmonitored, unlimited in any way. And I wouldn't trade it for anything. Certainly many, if not most, kids would end up obsessing over social status and gossip and similar things. That has nothing to do with technology and absolutely everything to do with how they deal with their life in general. They're encouraged to avoid taking an intellectual approach to life, to never question or doubt their emotional impulses (indeed taught that those impulses are more trustworthy and 'pure' than conclusions reached intellectually). They're the kids that have always been popular, the bullies and the kids that get DUIs before out of high school. You can't protect them from themselves through any means if you're not willing to address their way of living.

And for the kids that aren't destined to live an adolescence of bickering and strife, they will flourish with access to the whole of human knowledge and ability to interact with online communities as an equal, without anyone knowing their age unless they choose to reveal it.

<comment><USER9> > That has nothing to do with technology and absolutely everything to do with > how they deal with their life in general.

With all due respect, accessing the internet today is nothing like what it was in 1990. It's like comparing apples to oranges. There's a huge difference between accessing a BBS with a modem and pulling an iPhone out your pocket and pulling up Facebook's newsfeed with a couple taps of your finger. These applications are _designed_ to be addictive, and people's unfettered ability to access them anywhere enables their addictions. The physical and technical barriers that limited your access in 1990 are long gone.

<comment><USER27> You are right, it is certainly quite a bit different. I'm not sure how material the differences are though. For what it's worth, I had access to BBS' prior to that and had already enjoyed discussing things with adults as an equal before getting a dialup account on a local university mainframe. Everything was done through a shell account, telnet and gopher and similar. I mean, I was still able to quite easily find myself to alt.binaries.tasteless and find extreme porn and all that sort of stuff.

Those things like Facebook and such that are designed to be addictive are only addictive to the types of people who find that kind of thing alluring. People who seek social validation whether than evaluating themselves for themselves can not be protected from that tendency. And that is, whether we like it or not, the foundation of modern society. It is an inevitable consequence that such people will spend their lives drowned in neurotic worry. It's not particularly new, and the systems that make engaging in it so easy also make leaving that sort of thinking behind if a person wishes to do so.

Ultimately, though, consider the kid. If the kid is a social butterfly, what effect is withholding tech from them going to have? They're going to be made bitter, probably be significantly sidelined in their social circles - <USER2> exact place they derive every ounce of their self worth. It wouldn't exactly be a pretty alternative.

<comment><USER9> I understand what you're saying and agree for the most part. I guess the big question here is whether or not parents can or should teach their children self-control. As a parent, should I just give my child access to everything and hope for the best? Or should I restrict access and hope they don't become bitter hermits? :)

<comment><USER28> I guess the real answer is probably somewhere in between - restrict at first and loosen restrictions as you see fit. Are there a lot of examples of how to do this effectively? It's a question I wonder about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Have two kids, 14/12\. They've grown up as fully connected kids, have always had access to their own devices, never more than a year or two behind the Big Now. We have never imposed "limits for the sake of limits" on their screen time. I find the idea preposterous, frankly.

We have no issue connecting with them, or doing family things together, or etc etc etc. If you can't connect with your kids when they have iPhone in hand, you're not going to be able to connect with your kids even if you're a million miles from the nearest wireless cloud.

A lot of discussion around this issue is just tired rehashing of the same complaints every generation over the past 150 years has said about the incoming generation. Some of y'all in here already sound like grandparents, lol.

<comment><USER30> >We have no issue connecting with them, or //

It's good that all people are exactly the same as you and your kids and that this will therefore work for everyone, isn't it. /s

<comment><USER29> I didn't make any such claim. If you'd like to respond to what was actually written, feel free. :)

<comment><USER31> > If you can't connect with your kids when they have iPhone in hand, you're > not going to be able to connect with your kids even if you're a million > miles from the nearest wireless cloud.

It seems to me, you did make that claim.

<comment><USER21> They were obviously implying that, yes. Then just backpedalling for some strange reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I have a 14 yr old and a 16 yr old step kids. They both live with their phones in their hands.

I took them camping this past weekend. Fishing (caught 4 lake trout!), tubing, camp fire .. it was a blast. Even though their was no cell and no wifi neither of them could bare to put their phone down AND CHECK IT.

They had fun, but the second they weren't stimulated they were asking to take a 40 minute boat ride (45mph!) to 'buy some ice cream' and get a cell signal.

Sad.

<comment><USER33> When I was 14 we always took plenty of snacks and a set of playing cards to any vacation or outdoor activity.

It doesn't have anything to do with tech. Young people just get bored easily.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> When I was a teenager living with my parents we used to have a 'devices free' dinner where we'd sit in silence and realize that an awkward teenager had little in common to talk about with his out-of-touch parents. This was the time where conversation was forced and often led to arguments. Though this says more about my upbringing than the use of technology.

I think my point is that people see people looking at their phone while in restaurants or people sitting silently and assuming that this void means that the social aspect of the human race is doomed for destruction. You can't force conversation and I've found with friends and even family now that the phone has replaced forced discussions with something else. And you don't always need to fill silence with conversation and nonsense.

Similarly I would say there's nothing wrong with lessening the use of technology your kids use, but at the same time you can't just outright cut them and yourself out from it. Instead you should adapt; give your kids positive uses of the TV or their phone. If you try to force devices-free meals your kid may think that bringing up issues of cyberbullying, facebook etc might not be appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER35> It's a level-headed article. Parenting, like almost nothing else, turns normal, intelligent, educated people into nutters. A rational, evidence-based conversation about screen time, breastfeeding, pregnancy, birth, education, and diet is increasingly impossible to have, especially with millennial parents.

I just got my four year old an iPhone (with a data plan, because she realized she didn't have wifi in the car). It's great! She can text me emojis and Digital Touch messages, and Facetime me at work whenever she wants. It's fine: [https://www.theguardian.com/science/head- quarters/2017/jan/0...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/head- quarters/2017/jan/06/screen-time-guidelines-need-to-be-built-on-evidence-not- hype).

<comment><USER36> If your takeaway from your link was that "it's fine" and not "that further research is necessary"... you are going one step further than the article.

I can understand why people don't want screen time when their kids are toddlers -- you only get to raise your kids once. If the jury is out on whether or not "screentime" is bad, some parents err on the side of caution. Regardless, kids are malleable enough that any "familiarity gap" that the "iPhone user from age 2" has over the "iPhone user from age 6" has will likely be near zero within a few months at that age.

What benefits have you found your child to have derived from relatively early smartphone use beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day?

My personal take is that, as with all things, moderation is key.

<comment><USER30> >beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day //

That sounds like anything but an advantage if you eventually seek to have children be independently capable and willing to rely on their own resources.

<comment><USER33> On the contrary. Being able to communicate with parents at any time lets them take more calculated risks and grow more independent.

If I had a cellphone when I was a kid, taking the bus for the first time would not have been so terrifying.

<comment><USER30> >If I had a cellphone when I was a kid, taking the bus for the first time would not have been so terrifying. //

Isn't it being "terrifying" and yet you having the gumption to do it what builds your character and prepares you to take on things without having your hand held? You were relying on your self - your skills, your organisation; and not on your parents?

<comment><USER37> "And now, little Jack, it's time to learn to swim. [throws child in pool] C'mon, use your gumption! Stop drowning! And stop all that yelling. This is building character!

Oh, he's drowned. Never mind! Better luck with little Fred!"

<comment><USER30> There's a lot of variables and fine balance at play, for sure.

Riding the bus alone for the first time: IIRC I was 11, but in a small village, I'd already ride a few miles from home on my push bike.

I wouldn't expect death as the most likely outcome of a public transit ride at this sort of age.

There's no one size fits all approach to raising children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The problem isn't with devices or necessarily "screen time" but with the types of software on these devices. Social media is just 21st century TV -- that's why it's harmful. The platforms that are ad-driven and engineered to be addictive don't help us _connect_ in the same meaningful ways we get offline.

So as you might restrict your kids' time watching TV, parents should be aware of the amount of time kids spend on _interactive TV_. Phones are particularly demonized because their omnipresence encourages more consumption, but really they're just the physical manifestation of the individual problems starting _inside_ the devices. (Aside: I'd really be curious to know the amount of time people spend passively consuming information on social media vs. creating / contributing.)

And as an industry I think it's important we find other business models. We build these apps for "stickiness" and "engagement" \-- seemingly innocuous metrics that ultimately accumulate to form these larger societal issues.

</comment><comment><USER39> OK, so I'm pretty old. I remember, as a child, assuming that misadventures would be largely forgotten by adulthood. I did many crazy things, but there's no record, except for whatever people remember. OK, maybe a few FBI files buried somewhere in Washington ;)

But now? There's a record of everything. Starting before birth, in many cases. First words from smart toys. Social media. Game sites. Sales portals. Files saved by peers.

And of course, that plus the exacerbation of psychosocial craziness.

</comment><comment><USER40> Technology (apps, phones, news) is a tool.

If tech distracts from children forming attachment to parents and other people in their lives, then there is a problem full stop. The problem isn't "screen time" or even "tech" directly.

Children (or adults) who have poor attachment (disorganized, dismissive, or just lacks practice), they will be at much greater risk.

</comment><comment><USER41> Parents face a bit of a catch-22: Those that have kids young are not all that grown up themselves. Those that have them later have trouble remembering what it is like to be a kid. They each have their upsides and downsides. There is no _perfect_ time to become a parent. But, I think older parents have challenges they didn't expect because being a parent is not like your day job. Even if you do daycare, you get to put it down at the end of the day. A child is responsibility 24/7, even when they are at school or daycare. It is just different in important ways from most other pursuits.

Plus, we don't really have an established culture for dealing with all this as a parent. So much of our very widespread tech is too new for us to have some established precedent to confidently draw upon.

</comment><comment><USER42> When I was growing up, I used to read quite a lot. I wasn't allowed to bring my book to the dinner table - no matter how suspenseful the chapter or how fascinating the subject. Of course my childhood wasn't perfect; every night wasn't a talkative social family dinner. I appreciated the rule even back then, though I wanted to read my book it was easy to see that me doing so was taking something away from the other people at the table. A little intangible, but quite clear.

I can't help but wonder if in the many countries & cultures, and across many generations, what various expectations there are for family time together, and what challenges and barriers were in the way. "No lens polishing at the dinner table!" might have been said to some young astronomer hundreds of years ago.

Mobile phones are a great source of information (something I've been fascinated with my whole life), but sometimes seem to replace rather than supplement social interactions. While I can see why people would want a "tech free dinner", I've also had the joy of a "facetime dinner" with friend's grandchildren who live far away. It was a wonderful and natural thing for the child involved, because it added to the social harmony, rather than isolating parts of it.

</comment><comment><USER43> whenever i see parents struggling with issues like this, i wonder why everyone wanders into parenthood without any forethought, any preparation. its so frustrating to see people take their hands off the wheel and say "well, i have no control over this situation. i hope my kid turns out ok." people have this idea that you cant influence your kids. they send them to school where you have 0% control over what they see and do.

parents do prepare when it comes to finances and having a crib, but its the larger picture that is not considered in advance. nobody seems to look at how kids are raised now and think "this is completely broken" and then make a plan to deal with it. children are like any other animal, they need to be raised deliberately. if you spoil a dog, and dont train it, what kind of dog do you wind up with? what kind of people do you end up with when they are sucked into ipads while still in a stroller, and they are sent to schools that are little more than zoos being overseen by air-headed sorority girls? well, what a coincidence, you end up with the poorly adjusted and frustrated kind of person that seems to be more and more common these days. just because society says that everyone has to use social media doesnt mean you have to let your kid use social media. fuck society.

<comment><USER44> > children are like any other animal

Yeah, raising kids is just like owning a gerbil. Exactly.

<comment><USER45> @joshribakoff, you're being disingenuous. You left out the important part of that quote:

> they need to be raised deliberately. if you spoil a dog, and dont train it, > what kind of dog do you wind up with? what kind of people do you end up with > when they are sucked into ipads while still in a stroller, and they are sent > to schools that are little more than zoos being overseen by air-headed > sorority girls?

That is succinct, true, and a shame. A shame, just like your hand-picking out a part of a sentence, in order to make the poster sound like an idiot is.

He omitted: in that, from his sentence. They are just like animals, in that....

And if you were to be truthful with yourself, you'd admit he's eerily correct in his observation.

<comment><USER44> Disciplining a kid like they are a dog just feels like a marginal step up from corporal punishment. Instead I believe in a more empathetic approach. I can teach a kid why its dangerous to walk into the street, no so with a dog, which can only learn via positive & negative associations, without understanding or communicating the reason why. A gold fish can be trained to swim through a hoop by giving a treat. A kid has more complex emotions & thought process. Also discipline is not the only principle you want to teach a kid. What about creativity? Self expression? If a 9 year old wants to write his own mine craft mod, I don't care if he is on his ipad at dinner time. Cultural change is inevitable why fight it. My parents gave me electronics kits, knex, lego mindstorms, I was programming at 12yrs old. I grew up a productive member of society. If your kids on their ipad too much maybe delete angry birds & install a math/learning game instead.

<comment><USER46> >I can teach a kid why its dangerous to walk into the street

Children are neurologically incapable of understanding a large proportion of the dangers they face. Toddlers simply can't understand the cause and effect of "run into street -> get run over". Younger children who lack a fully developed theory of mind can't understand the concept of lying. Younger teenagers often attempt suicide as a means of seeking attention, without fully understanding the finality of death. Older teenagers have a very limited ability to reason about more abstract risk behaviours like distracted driving or binge drinking.

Unless your child is extraordinarily precocious, some amount of "don't do that or there'll be trouble" will inevitably be necessary. Hell, adults often respond far better to simple conditioning than logical reasoning. Patiently explaining the risks of smoking was far less effective than simply stigmatising the behaviour. Everyone knows that they need to eat less and exercise more, but that knowledge has done practically nothing to stem the obesity epidemic. We can't expect children to understand that homework is a necessary investment in their future when most adults don't save enough for retirement.

Children need to be taught self-regulation, but it's unrealistic and unfair to burden them with the full responsibility of disciplining themselves. Rules and boundaries are a kindness, not a cruelty - they give children a safe space in which to learn and develop.

<comment><USER44> well I didn't ever like homework either. I failed classes because I was up all night programming. I hated homework because I was hungrier to work on something more interesting. Not because I didn't want to learn. I believe in letting people follow their calling. For some that means not wearing a seatbelt or becoming obese and that does not harm me. Toddlers is a different story. If a toddler throws a temper tantrum I believe in comforting. With an animal you'd lock it in a crate. I had behavior problems and the experts told my parents to give me more access to technology instead of take it away. It worked

<comment><USER43> there are things beneath the surface that must be set. the mind takes shape at certain levels during certain ages. if they take an unfortunate shape, the child will carry that burden with them forever. if you abuse a child, you can make this happen. it is universally accepted that childhood abuse can cause life long behavioral problems. what is not universally observed, however, is that child abuse has a kind of opposite. you can mold a young mind into being poorly adjusted and you can mold a young mind into being extraordinarily well adjusted.

not everything in life is conscious. in many situations that are new or ambiguous, a child will make a decision based on his or her disposition, his or her feeling. a well adjusted child has feelings about things that will help them. of course, those feelings and instincts dont guide all decisions, im not saying that.

and here is where our opinions intersect: the reason to control and form a child in their early development is because it provides a good foundation for the next step, which is self motivated learning. no child can learn anything unless they learn it themselves or if it is taught to them in an extreme way. by extreme, i mean that you take your kid aside and look him in the eye and you put on a face more serious and deadly than you have ever before and you say to him in a low voice "crossing the street without looking is not acceptable." those lessons should be few. what you want is to spark a chain reaction of learning by first teaching the child how to learn and then allowing them to build their knowledge on their own.

learning to learn comes naturally to some and not to others. being forced to learn complicated things forces one to learn how to learn. usually people get this in their twenties when they set a hard goal, like passing a chemistry or physics class in college. i believe that this can be done deliberately by the parent at a much earlier age.

so, my overall point is that a child must be raised deliberately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I think maybe mobile tech is starting to go through it's 90's-era- children's-tv-style "Oh my god nearly everything we've made is a manipulative commercial designed to get an economic outcome without regard for the consequences to the kids" moment.

And that's good. Because while kids are much more susceptible to the attention-seeking games mobile app designers play, they are by no means ineffective on adults.

</comment><comment><USER48> My cousin has a no tv policy in his home. The parents do watch tv but not in the presence of their 3 year old boy. They'd rather take the kid to play with other kids or swimming.

This won't last, sure. But by the time the kid grows up to start making demands, he'll hopefully already be more invested in his current activities and find solace in swimming.

I really don't want kids around me growing up to become unsocialized video game geniuses.

<comment><USER49> We got rid of cable tv years ago and tv watching dropped off sharply after that. These days we barely turn it on, although the kids play XBox here and there. The iPads they have are a nuisance, though. We excised the worst demon, but Youtube has some pretty vapid crap, too. It's a process. I don't want to entirely cut them off because they do learn from it here and there. It's a tool, not a drug.

<comment><USER50> but they are clearly designed to be a drug.. under the guise of a tool:

[https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming- Produc...](https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming- Products/dp/1591847788)

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what- youtube-reveals-about-the-toddler-mind/534765/?single_page=true)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm always struck by the arrogance of parents. It never changes through the ages. Why do you think you know what's best for your kids? Do you really have the insight and experience from a single lifetime's perspective to know what's best for kids?

Especially striking are the programmers who grew up on technology. Literally spent all day on a computer as a kid, and now have high paying jobs, and happy lives. And then they say "no tech in the house!" \- like it is some bad thing. It's almost like a cult, there is a striking lack of rationality. It's like that protestant ethic - if it feels good, it must be bad.

I have two kids, and I do limit screen time to an extent. But I don't go and brag like I know this is the best thing for them. I have very mixed feelings about it. Certainly when my kids are teenagers, I think an attempt to control them is just going to end up bad for everyone involved.

<comment><USER21> No one is bragging. They are just talking. And the point isn't that no kid can cope with massive exposure to technology, it's that now, all kids have access to it. A kid from the 90s who grew up on it was probably pretty smart to be able to access that stuff, and could potentially cope better with it than another kid (although you can have very poor social development and still get paid a lot, so the job thing doesn't really prove anything) - now, all kids have access, if their parents let them.

I'm not saying it's bad, necessarily. I'm just concerned by the lack of logic in a lot of these pro-technology responses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I dunno -- part of the problem might be that we older people have notions of how childhood should be. Entire industries are built around it. And we eagerly declare an emergency when kids decide to stray from the notional path.

But maybe a little experience will enlighten (maybe.) I recall some 30-odd years ago how much more fun D&D would be if all of the paper, die-rolling, etc. were automated. This was sometime between the Atari 2600 and Commodore 64. I got my wish, obviously, and then some.

And it seemed old-fashioned ways of gaming would forever be consigned to history's dustbin.

Only it didn't happen that way. Dice and tabletops are still around, maybe more popular than in my day.

So I for one will not surrender to despair, or go blue-nose against modern tech "for the children." Maybe we should just go with the flow.

</comment><comment><USER53> I think the opposite. Every one of the effects (and more) that she decided happened too early before her kids were "emotionally ready", the high school experience smashed down on me like a meteor strike.

A link to my tribe in my pocket making me feel even a bit less than a complete outsider would have been a godsend.

Bbs's saved my ass while my parents fretted that "all that time on the computer doing god knows what" would ruin me for life so what do I know?

</comment><comment><USER54> Politely, this is not a new problem. Nor is it untypical for the upper crust to have issues with their kids, if myths and tales from earlier times are to be believed.

I can confidently say that screen addiction is kind of a _thing_ for many kids. They can't bear to be without it. I notice my baby _stares_ at the glowing screens, the phones, the computers. He also stares at fires. Brightness is attractive, apparently.

But something my wife and I are very set about: Mr. Baby will have to be able to bear being without a phone. Not that we'll be hovering or super limiting, but we expect Mr. Baby to be able to psychologically handle not having a phone glued to himself at all waking hours, and we will adjust our own phone usage if it becomes apparent _we_ have issues.

Most entertainment and many non-entertainment phone apps are designed to be attention-grabbing machines, and that's worrisome. Kids don't have that armor to be able to drop out into a focus world. It is a very _hot_ media, by McLuhan's classification, and I think that's worrisome.

Anyway. Unexpected effects happen, we're spinning faster than we ever have, and we have to ride the wave.

<comment><USER55> The lack of awe is what surprises me. Just how quickly we take each breakthrough for granted.

Sure, we're spinning faster and faster, as you say. But sometimes I think it's actually the FOMO mechanism built into social media that is keeping us unimpressed by the amazing technology powering it. Kind of a cruel joke really.

<comment><USER54> > The lack of awe is what surprises me. Just how quickly we take each > breakthrough for granted.

That's just your perspective and the people you deal with. Many people I know over 40 are amazed. Perspective....

A lot of the technology is respun other technology, and that does take the luster off.

Personally I think a lot of the social media stuff is bunk, particularly the bits that prioritize zero-content fluff. But things like Mastodon, Hacker News, or Wordpress (remember twitter was _microblogging_ ) have spawned deep and thoughtful engagement with the world and others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Amen. Im glad im not the only one freaking out about this.

a few weeks ago i posted to HN asking for parental advice: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14924520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14924520)

i mostly got "aahh dont worry about it. you are being hysterical" ... i see it all around me (even in 2nd world countries like Argentina - where im an expat ).

Its quickly deteriorating the fabric of our society. When I see families go out together for dinner ( 90% of them are ALL on their phones ) .. Single fathers with their sons.. both on phones.. At a singles-night at a bar.. all on phones instagramming hard.

Their little brains are being hardwired to the digital COCA-COLA..and when the water comes around they look at you like "why drink that shit?!"

When he grows up.. no laptop at school for him: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning- secret...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-secret-don-t- take-notes-with-a-laptop/)

in fact our family is seriously thinking of moving to Patagonia, just to re- calibrate with natural wavelengths.

<comment><USER56> When and how do one come to think that it is a good thing to let kids watch YT videos ? I used to wonder this but I think now I know why.

I barely watch any myself so I really don't get the hype people seem to have for videos. But my boyfriend watches more YT than I do, and follows channels I don't get the point of. That's actually the moment I realized my disinterest for browsing channels and watching videos was maybe not so common after all.

Also, what's the problem with banning it altogether ? I don't see one, other than the disapointment that compromise didn't work. But of course a 5yo can't have the self control some people never even reach during their lifetimes anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I think it's (it being the socially damaging effects of persistent internet access) is going to get way worse before it gets better. Rising depression rates in youth are happening, but nobody is even talking about this on the 'mainstream', it's just not openly visible yet. Meanwhile the Google's and Facebook's algorithms keep getting more finely tuned . . .

<comment><USER58> No worries man, Google is going to diagnose your depression and all but prescribe your Prozac.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> For people like me who think smart phones ruin everything, I suggest looking into Waldorf education for your kids. Smart phones are banned at the school (until high school) and screen-oriented media (phones, TV, movies) are strongly discouraged outside of school. In my opinion the system attracts really interesting adults and kids who still know how to enjoy life the old fashioned way.

<comment><USER60> I wonder about the efficacy of banning the devices entirely until a certain point. Is that all that is done or is an attempt made to teach children how to responsibly use the devices so they don't gorge themselves when the ban is lifted?

<comment><USER59> There is an attempt and they are conscious of the fact that outright bans never work. It's more about preventing media from influencing the childrens' development, especially early on.

<comment><USER60> That's great then. As adults were are left to our own devices to figure out how to use new technology. Giving children those mechanisms will serve them well long-term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> > I probably would have waited longer before putting a computer in my > children's pockets

A part of me wonders how this consideration might stunt the child for "the near future to come" in a societal context.

Sure, we could want our children to have similar experiences to our own. However, technology and at least in part related society advances increase at ever faster speeds. My grandfather could get a job by walking down the street and saying "hello" to a shopkeeper. Me? Not going to happen; "apply online" and maybe I'll get an automated, maybe even kind, rejection email about "skills" or "fit". My children? Some AI could automatically filter them in or out of internships and the like. What could a totally blank ghost town of lifetime data prior to 5, 10, or 15 years old do to someone in a completely, totally, all-encompassing digital age? Nevermind what this would mean for somebody running for political office.

</comment><comment><USER62> While I do appreciate how much is at my fingertips with my phone I also acknowledge how it can insidiously develop unnecessary habits–random home button tapping anyone? Reminds me of this article: [https://theroamingmind.com/2017/03/06/social-media-is-the- ne...](https://theroamingmind.com/2017/03/06/social-media-is-the-new-smoking/)

I also don't want to be quick in demonizing specific apps or companies. I have power over my notification settings which have a huge effect on usage patterns. I've been using Moment ([https://inthemoment.io/](https://inthemoment.io/)) to help get quick snapshots at my utilization rates.

*Edit: grammar

</comment><comment><USER63> I grew up glued to screens since I was 11. My parents hated it, but my hobby became my career and I became a confident and social individual despite my constant interest in computers.

Now, I serve dinner in front of a movie/TV sometimes, and don't police my kids' phone usage at the table. I do police other behavior, and checking out in the presence of others isn't acceptable. They try to become little addicts (they're young) but the pressure to engage locally wins often enough. If there's nothing to talk about, I don't mind if they get online. It generally takes all day to exhaust our conversations like that, though.

</comment><comment><USER64> > I spent my career at Microsoft trying to imagine what technology could do, > and still I wasn't prepared for smartphones and social media

There is a certain irony in her opening statement regarding Microsoft's lack of vision in these two spaces. I think there a have been some unforeseen consequences of these but even when I was a teen, kids would spend hours each day on the phone, or on the computer playing games - some even online - <USER3> watching TV. I feel like the fundamental interpersonal dynamic really hasn't changed that much, and I say this as a parent of young kids and a friend of lots of parents with teenagers.

</comment><comment><USER65> One of the things I'm most thankful for is the fact that I grew up before cell phones were ubiquitous. And I honestly feel awful for children today, because they're all the unwitting subjects of a cruel experiment: What happens when you give people access to _everything_ from birth?

Knowing how much self-control it takes for me to resist social media, Reddit, games, etc. I can't even imagine what it's like for children. Many of them are probably being ruined by smartphones, but we won't realize until it's too late, like the kids in China who are all myopic because they spent too much time indoors.

</comment><comment><USER66> Its slightly ironic to me because I went much more to technology than my peers growing up because I had depression and social problems, not the other way around.

I think technology being so mainstream now means that the popular kids can now have a lot more online points (followers, likes, etc) just like in real life. Stuff happening on a screen is very frequently a lot more interesting than whats going on in a suburb - besides, you can't get social likes/currency if you're not online.

</comment><comment><USER67> I've found that the more competent and as a result confident the parents, the less they micro-manage their kids.

They don't feel the need to send them to private schools, have them be A students, get into universities, spend less time on their phone etc etc etc.

That's just insecure, overbearing parents.

There's some subtle irony in the same person who is part of a foundation saving kids in Africa, worrying about phone use. You'd think she'd have a greater perspective on these things.

</comment><comment><USER68> "eighth-graders who use social media more than 10 hours a week are 56 percent more likely to say they're unhappy than peers who use it less"

But is that a causal relationship? Are people unhappy first, so they therefore go on Facebook to seek help? Does taking away that escape route make it worse?

Correlation does not imply causation.

</comment><comment><USER69> The thing is that technology can have an _incredibly positive_ benefit on a kid's life if done right. People espousing schools banning screens and limited screen time strike me as people attached to the status quo. We need to adapt and learn how to raise children around technology.

</comment><comment><USER50> [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what- youtube-reveals-about-the-toddler-mind/534765/)

</comment><comment><USER50> i think this Android app will do the trick for kids under 15: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zerodeskto...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zerodesktop.appdetox.qualitytime&hl=en)

and this one for IOS: TeenSafe [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/teensafe- parental-control/id...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/teensafe-parental- control/id1066075344?mt=8)

</comment><comment><USER70> How does a child having a computer exclude them from learning empathy? Do teenagers that are more likely to be depressed use social media more?

There are so many problems with this article.

</comment><comment><USER71> I don't think it was tech specifically as much as the _love of_ tech.

I appreciate the reminder to be mindful for my own family's sake!

</comment><comment><USER72> 1B startup idea: equip every primary/secondary/high schools with walls that block every cellular signals.

</comment><comment><USER73> two kids, 2 and 7. They have a hard time having dinner without watching something on iPad. Otherwise the 2 year old doesn't use technology aside from TV, 7 year old has 1 hour of iPad time most days.

I like to give them some exposure to tech but much of it so addictive, makes me think how it must affect reward pathways in a maturing brain

</comment><comment><USER74> I agree with the sentiment of this, but this is pretty light.

</comment><comment><USER49> Technology does not care about human values.

<comment><USER60> How can this be true? Technology is created exclusively by people. Our values are baked in.

Filesystems have a concept of ownership, ask your dog what that means.

<comment><USER75> I think it's more accurate to say that technology _reveals_ the edges and contours of our values.

<comment><USER60> That's a good way of stating it actually, something to think about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> _" The most important thing we've learned,

So far as children are concerned,

Is never, NEVER, NEVER let

Them near your television set --

Or better still, just don't install

The idiotic thing at all.

In almost every house we've been,

We've watched them gaping at the screen.

They loll and slop and lounge about,

And stare until their eyes pop out.

(Last week in someone's place we saw

A dozen eyeballs on the floor.)

They sit and stare and stare and sit

Until they're hypnotised by it,

Until they're absolutely drunk

With all that shocking ghastly junk.

Oh yes, we know it keeps them still,

They don't climb out the window sill,

They never fight or kick or punch,

They leave you free to cook the lunch

And wash the dishes in the sink --

But did you ever stop to think,

To wonder just exactly what

This does to your beloved tot?

IT ROTS THE SENSE IN THE HEAD!

IT KILLS IMAGINATION DEAD!

IT CLOGS AND CLUTTERS UP THE MIND!

IT MAKES A CHILD SO DULL AND BLIND

HE CAN NO LONGER UNDERSTAND

A FANTASY, A FAIRYLAND!

HIS BRAIN BECOMES AS SOFT AS CHEESE!

HIS POWERS OF THINKING RUST AND FREEZE!

HE CANNOT THINK -- HE ONLY SEES!

'All right!' you'll cry. 'All right!' you'll say,

'But if we take the set away,

What shall we do to entertain

Our darling children? Please explain!'

We'll answer this by asking you,

'What used the darling ones to do?

'How used they keep themselves contented

Before this monster was invented?'

Have you forgotten? Don't you know?

We'll say it very loud and slow:

THEY ... USED ... TO ... READ! They'd READ and READ,

AND READ and READ, and then proceed

To READ some more. Great Scott! Gadzooks!

One half their lives was reading books!

The nursery shelves held books galore!

Books cluttered up the nursery floor!

And in the bedroom, by the bed,

More books were waiting to be read!

Such wondrous, fine, fantastic tales

Of dragons, gypsies, queens, and whales

And treasure isles, and distant shores

Where smugglers rowed with muffled oars,

And pirates wearing purple pants,

And sailing ships and elephants,

And cannibals crouching 'round the pot,

Stirring away at something hot.

(It smells so good, what can it be?

Good gracious, it's Penelope.)

The younger ones had Beatrix Potter

With Mr. Tod, the dirty rotter,

And Squirrel Nutkin, Pigling Bland,

And Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle and-

Just How The Camel Got His Hump,

And How the Monkey Lost His Rump,

And Mr. Toad, and bless my soul,

There's Mr. Rat and Mr. Mole-

Oh, books, what books they used to know,

Those children living long ago!

So please, oh please, we beg, we pray,

Go throw your TV set away,

And in its place you can install

A lovely bookshelf on the wall.

Then fill the shelves with lots of books,

Ignoring all the dirty looks,

The screams and yells, the bites and kicks,

And children hitting you with sticks-

Fear not, because we promise you

That, in about a week or two

Of having nothing else to do,

They'll now begin to feel the need

Of having something to read.

And once they start -- oh boy, oh boy!

You watch the slowly growing joy

That fills their hearts. They'll grow so keen

They'll wonder what they'd ever seen

In that ridiculous machine,

That nauseating, foul, unclean,

Repulsive television screen!

And later, each and every kid

Will love you more for what you did."_

\--

Roald Dahl died in 1990, I wonder what he would think about smartphones :)

</comment><comment><USER77> virtue signaling

</comment><comment><USER78> Billionaire tells us how we should be living our lives. How fortunate we are.

<comment><USER79> Wife of billionaire with a track record of 100% failed ventures in mobile tells us all about mobile.</comment></comment>


Insider Reveals Google Plan to Prevent 'Trump Situation' in 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re9Xp6cdkro&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> Kudos to Project Veritas. I always suspected Google were intentionally manipulating people. Now we know for certain. I cancelled my Google accounts yesterday after watching.

As a conservative, (not a Republican-they are too liberal), I find any tech company saying our goal is to prevent anyone getting elected hideous and un- American. Ditto Facebook and anyone else who doesn't like the status quo. People have a right to vote their conscience. Companies trying to manipulate people to vote a certain way is terrible.

I'm likely further right on the political spectrum than anyone in Congress, hence my disdain for the Republican party, but I would never try and manipulate someone to vote a certain way. People are freewill moral agents and able to think for themselves.

</comment><comment><USER3> Project Veritas also leaked internal Google presentations and notes on "algorithmic unfairness," fake news, and biases amplified by machine learning. I found it thoughtful, though unfortunately some communities have just narrowed in on a few slides about Hollywood they disagree with and rejected the rest.

[https://www.projectveritas.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/SS...](https://www.projectveritas.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/SS1DocDump.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> See Jen Gennai's response at [https://firstname.lastname@example.com/this-is-not-how- i-expected-mo...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com/this-is-not-how-i-expected- monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82)

and the hackernews thread at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20269590](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20269590)

</comment><comment><USER5> I get an error message that I haven't seen before:

 _(!) Video unavailable_

 _This video is no longer available due to a privacy claim by a third party._

<comment><USER4> Go watch it at [https://www.projectveritas.com/video/insider-blows- whistle-e...](https://www.projectveritas.com/video/insider-blows-whistle-exec- reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How come when I posted this same link on Hacker News, HN flagged my post? Guess the same hive mind that runs Google runs the show at HN.</comment>


Jeff Bezos: World's richest man agrees $35bn divorce - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47817833 <comment><USER2> Is this world's expensive divorce?</comment>