Ah ok, I thought you were insinuating kids were being excessively exposed to screens for the sake of research, which wasn’t happening here. But yeah, I agree feeding your toddler 4+ hours of digital media a day is very depressing.
Ah ok, I thought you were insinuating kids were being excessively exposed to screens for the sake of research, which wasn’t happening here. But yeah, I agree feeding your toddler 4+ hours of digital media a day is very depressing.
I do not understand the amount of uninformed objections to the presented results in a number of comments here … you can’t just discount the results of a peer-reviewed study with some generic knee-jerk interjection off the top of your head. Read the original article here. It details which covariates were considered and how they were taken into account. Income bracket, educational background, gender, … all this shit is not new to researchers.
Don’t get me wrong: JAMA Pediatrics being a reputable journal shouldn’t lull you into complacency, but JFC, just because you don’t agree with the findings of a study doesn’t mean you have to dismiss it completely on first glance.
What are you talking about? This data was collected in a field study, not in a lab.
This is actually an incredibly poor take. Why do you think self-reported data has no scientific value?
Regarding your last sentence: Are you suggesting insincere motives behind this study?
There is an argument to be made about how studies like this underpin technology averse boomers trying to vilify modern social life. OTOH, studies like this, correctly implemented, are utterly important. It wouldn’t be the first time science has proven something very popular (e.g. smoking) is actually also very harmful.
The article is a bit too nostalgic for my tastes, and hyping 4chan or Web 1.0 surrogates is not going to put the Internet back into users’ hands.
Everybody should rather take a look at what Ari Balkan is doing with the Small Web concept over at his blog. He’s also on Mastodon and generally seems like a great guy.
This point is actually acknowledged in the study findings under “Strengths and Limitations”:
The original data used in the study did not allow this differentiation but these findings can be used as a starting point for further research.