I’m going to head the likely discussion off the pass: like articles on nutrition or fitness, discussions on screen time inevitably devolve into share-fears where everyone is describing and possibly advocating their own lifestyle approach, and it’s very subjective.
And that extends to responses to TFA. Personally, I think this article does a fine job dispelling some of the hysteria around screen use. But on the other hand, it probably goes too far towards minimizing the effects of ubiquitous hyper-stimulation. Part of it is segments like this:
> A popular view is that screens are like cigarettes—the less you consume the better. That simply isn’t true. A more nuanced comparison would be that screens are like food—it depends on what you’re consuming and how much.
But that’s a straw man. No one is talking about the dangers of Khan Academy or Duolingo. They’re talking about the addictive nature of social media and other infinity pools of content and engagement. That’s what the danger of screens is about.
And that extends to responses to TFA. Personally, I think this article does a fine job dispelling some of the hysteria around screen use. But on the other hand, it probably goes too far towards minimizing the effects of ubiquitous hyper-stimulation. Part of it is segments like this:
> A popular view is that screens are like cigarettes—the less you consume the better. That simply isn’t true. A more nuanced comparison would be that screens are like food—it depends on what you’re consuming and how much.
But that’s a straw man. No one is talking about the dangers of Khan Academy or Duolingo. They’re talking about the addictive nature of social media and other infinity pools of content and engagement. That’s what the danger of screens is about.