13 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 47.4 ms ] thread
The article title claims causality. The article body says the researchers didn't claim causality:

  The review, conducted by researchers from four UK universities known as the Action on Digital Device Immersive Conditions Team, did not establish causal links between screen use and specific developmental conditions.
That's a problem because "using a screen as a babysitter" likely correlates with overworked poorer parents and thus a whole host of other developmental problems
This happens a lot in mainstream science and journalism. Another famous example is the often misquoted study (from McKinsey?) about DEI improving company results. The authors didn’t claim causality, since the most likely explanation is just that already large companies were more likely to adopt policies that discriminate based on race or gender, simply to keep up with trends. But virtually all news articles and company policies mistakenly referenced the study as if it had established causality.
The ADDICT, nice
I don't like the screen time generalization either. What about watching a tv show with a parent explaining? What about trying a videogame with a controller on an actual game console, experiencing remote controlling something in a screen (Spoiler alert: amazing results, I have a video with my daughter shocked at age 2).

Smartphones used as a babysitter with a f2p game is probably garbage time

> The article title claims causality.

Maybe they edited the title since you saw it, but currently there's no claims of causation unless you think "can" and "will" are synonyms.

"Landmark" review by an advocacy group. Not a good review, either.
There’s no reason for kids under 6 to ever look at a screen.
(comment deleted)
When you see the following sentence: "She said parents should not be blamed for a problem they did not create."

associated with the deceptive title, you can know for sure that this article has a hidden objective, and that there is a big lobby behind it. Something like "internet, digital, ... is bad, there should be regulation for that".

Because, let's be serious, if the causality was there (it is not the case), the obvious conclusion is that the parents are not doing their job or at most not well educated enough on how to raise a kid. It would not be the fault of anyone else.

I don't think my 18-month-old had any problems from watching a little Miss Rachel and Baby Einstein here and there. However, the few times my mother showed her cute animal videos on Instagram, it was a completely different story. She became obsessed with the phone and would fuss and scream whenever my mother put it away. It was pretty incredible. We banned it pretty quickly.