I used to think we’d adjust. Sure, the rise of screens was fast and destabilizing—but I believed young people would adapt, and that calling it a crisis was just the latest round of moral panic. A generational overreaction, like the Beatles or comic books or video games before them. But as the data pile up, I find myself shifting.
Now, I think we will likely look back on this era the way we now view ubiquitous cigarette smoking: What were we thinking? It should have been obvious.
We don’t need to adjust to the smoke. We need a public health response that makes the air clear again—where the very idea of “screen childhood” feels as strange to future parents as a cigarette in a stroller. Not a ban. Not panic. But a serious, data-driven cultural shift.
I have an issue with attributing any problems to "screen time" in general. It seems like there are real observable differences based on what it is we're doing with the screen.
Personally, I use computers for work, for reading/research/writing, for news, for gaming, for creating music, and for passive entertainment. They all feel qualitatively very different. I have a hard time adding up all the hours and calling it "screen time". 20 hours reading a good book or editing an audio track is far healthier than 2 hours of doomscrolling.
> “Children are spending more and more time on screens, for everything from entertainment to homework to messaging friends,”
Yes. And it's the algorithmic curated feed that's destroying messaging. And the advertisements and garbage content of the entertainment industry. And AI largely eroding our ability to think critically. None of that has to do with screens themselves.
Maybe instead of "screen time" we should differentiate on a number of axes: Passive vs. active. Creating vs. consuming. Social vs solo. Mediated by algorithms vs mediated by social norms. Not all screen time is created equal, and some may actually be socially net positive.
I used to think we’d adjust. Sure, the rise of screens was fast and destabilizing—but I believed young people would adapt, and that calling it a crisis was just the latest round of moral panic. A generational overreaction, like the Beatles or comic books or video games before them. But as the data pile up, I find myself shifting.
Now, I think we will likely look back on this era the way we now view ubiquitous cigarette smoking: What were we thinking? It should have been obvious.
We don’t need to adjust to the smoke. We need a public health response that makes the air clear again—where the very idea of “screen childhood” feels as strange to future parents as a cigarette in a stroller. Not a ban. Not panic. But a serious, data-driven cultural shift.
I have an issue with attributing any problems to "screen time" in general. It seems like there are real observable differences based on what it is we're doing with the screen.
Personally, I use computers for work, for reading/research/writing, for news, for gaming, for creating music, and for passive entertainment. They all feel qualitatively very different. I have a hard time adding up all the hours and calling it "screen time". 20 hours reading a good book or editing an audio track is far healthier than 2 hours of doomscrolling.
> “Children are spending more and more time on screens, for everything from entertainment to homework to messaging friends,”
Yes. And it's the algorithmic curated feed that's destroying messaging. And the advertisements and garbage content of the entertainment industry. And AI largely eroding our ability to think critically. None of that has to do with screens themselves.
Maybe instead of "screen time" we should differentiate on a number of axes: Passive vs. active. Creating vs. consuming. Social vs solo. Mediated by algorithms vs mediated by social norms. Not all screen time is created equal, and some may actually be socially net positive.