screen time – 社区黑料 America's Education News Source Mon, 13 Apr 2026 17:27:51 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2 /wp-content/uploads/2022/05/cropped-74_favicon-32x32.png screen time – 社区黑料 32 32 Gen Z Increasingly Skeptical of 鈥斅燗nd Angry About 鈥斅燗rtificial Intelligence /article/gen-z-increasingly-skeptical-of-and-angry-about-artificial-intelligence/ Thu, 09 Apr 2026 04:01:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1030884 While some might envision Gen Z welcoming artificial intelligence into their lives, a new Gallup survey finds people between the ages of 14 and 29 are becoming increasingly skeptical of 鈥 and downright mad at 鈥 AI.

Compared to a , they鈥檙e less excited and hopeful about the change it could bring and more angry at its existence, citing concerns about AI鈥檚 impact on their cognitive abilities and professional opportunities.

Respondents said they used AI at nearly the same rate they did before 鈥 they reported only a slight increase in daily and weekly exposure 鈥 but when asked how it makes them feel, the answers revealed growing misgivings. 

Thirty-one percent said it made them angry, up 9 percentage points from 2025. And just 22% said it made them feel excited, down 14 percentage points from last year. Only 18% of respondents said it made them feel hopeful, marking a nine-point drop. Forty-two percent said it made them feel anxious, roughly the same as last year. 

Zach Hrynowski, senior education researcher at Gallup, said the switch was swift. 

鈥淥ne of my working theories is that (it鈥檚) the high schoolers, who are in their senior year, or especially those college students, who are maybe thinking, 鈥楢I is taking my job. I just went to college for four years: I spent all this money and now it’s turning my industry upside down,鈥 he said. 

Only 46% of respondents believed AI would help them learn faster, down from 53% the prior year, Gallup found. Fifty-six percent of respondents said it would help them to expedite their work compared to 66% last year. 

Hrynowski notes, too, that users’ unease wasn鈥檛 entirely tied to the amount of time they spend engaging with AI. 

鈥淵ear over year, among that super user group, they’re much less excited, they are much less hopeful 鈥 and they are more angry,鈥 he said. 鈥淪o this is not a case of some people who are adopting it and loving it and some people who are just avoiding it and feel negatively about it.鈥

Nearly half of respondents said the risk of the technology outweighs the benefits in the workforce. Just 37% believed it would help them find accurate information, down from 43% the prior year and only 31% believed it would help them come up with new ideas compared to 42% in 2025. 

The survey also notes some disparities by age and race. For example, older Gen Zers are more likely than younger ones to voice concerns about AI鈥檚 impact on learning in general. 

Asked how likely is it that AI designed to mainly complete tasks faster will make learning more difficult in the future, 74% of K-12 respondents said it was 鈥渧ery likely鈥 or 鈥渟omewhat likely鈥 compared to 83% of Gen Z adults who said the same. Men and Black respondents were also less concerned about learning impact than their peers overall.

Results are based on a survey of 1,572 people spread throughout every state and Washington, D.C., conducted between Feb. 24 and March 4, 2026. It was commissioned by the Walton Family Foundation and , Global Silicon Valley. Together, Walton Family Foundation and Gallup are conducting ongoing research into Gen Z’s attitudes toward AI.

Hrynowski believes there might be a link between recent revelations about the harmful nature of social media and AI-related distrust: Many of the respondents came of age, he notes, just as former surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy called for a about its use. 

shapes the user experience in social media. Just last month, a California jury found social media company Meta 鈥 owner of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger and Threads 鈥 and YouTube injured a young woman鈥檚 mental health by design in that could encourage untold others. 

This was the second of two critical decisions: Just a day earlier, a New Mexico jury found Meta 鈥 and hid what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms.

I’ve always been very impressed from the start of this work with Gen Z that across the board, not just with AI, they are keenly aware of the risks of technology, whether it’s social media, whether it’s AI or screen time,鈥 Hrynowski said. 

They are not the only generation to harbor these worries. A growing number of parents of K-12 students are pushing back on their screen time, not just , but  

Despite respondents鈥 skepticism about AI, they鈥檙e also readily aware that the technology won鈥檛 be walked back: 52% acknowledge that they will need to know how to use AI if they go to college or take classes after high school, while 48% think they will need to know how to use AI in the workplace.

An earlier Gallup study, released just last week, shows 42% of bachelor’s degree students have reconsidered their major because of AI.

Gen Z, in its reluctant acceptance of the technology, wants help in how to navigate it, both in an academic setting and in the workplace. Schools are stepping up, the survey revealed: The share of K-12 students who say their school has AI rules moved from 51% in 2025 to 74% this year.聽

Disclosure: Walton Family Foundation provides financial support to 社区黑料.

]]>
Meta and YouTube Ordered to Pay $3M to Young Woman in Social Media Addiction Trial /article/meta-and-youtube-ordered-to-pay-3m-to-young-woman-in-social-media-addiction-trial/ Fri, 27 Mar 2026 16:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1030429 This article was originally published in

After nine days of deliberation, a Los Angeles jury found Google and Meta liable for harms stemming from the design of their social media products on Wednesday and ordered them to pay $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who said that Instagram and YouTube caused depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

Meta was 70 percent of damages and YouTube the rest. The amount owed the plaintiff may rise, and the jury will over potential punitive damages for egregious conduct, per The New York Times.

This is the tackling the legal question of whether features of social media, like autoplay, infinite scroll and beauty filters can cause harm to users.

“This momentous verdict shows that tech companies will be held accountable for the harm they cause. These companies have spent years choosing profit over people’s well-being, and now a jury has decided they must pay the price for their actions,鈥 said Maddy Batt, a legal fellow at Tech Justice Project, a law firm specializing in suits against AI chatbots.

The plaintiff, KGM, filed her lawsuit using a pseudonym in 2023. KGM, now 20, says she has been addicted to social media since she was a child. It was one of three cases selected out of thousands as 鈥渂ellwether trials鈥 to test out a new theory of liability.

Batt cautioned that the outcome of this trial doesn鈥檛 mean 鈥渁n automatic legal win鈥 for the thousands of pending cases, as determining causation varies greatly given the circumstances. 鈥淓ach individual plaintiff still does have to show, if they go to trial, that any negative mental health outcomes they personally experienced were linked to social media,鈥 she said.

It is a huge boon to tech accountability advocates to see this success though, Batt said, and could lead to tech companies changing their products because of the amount of money in play to settle cases or pay damages. This jury decision, coupled with a $375 million verdict against Meta announced yesterday, is the first step to achieving that goal.

The New Mexico Attorney General Ra煤l Torrez sued Meta in 2023, alleging the company misled constituents over how safe its platforms are for children. State prosecutors focused specifically on Instagram鈥檚 potential to facilitate the sexual exploitation of kids.

On Tuesday, a jury sided with New Mexico, saying the company also engaged in deceptive trade practices. Meta was ordered to pay $5,000 per violation 鈥 $375 million total. Torrez at a future bench trial, and hopes to compel changes to the platform. Meta said it plans to appeal.

Batt pointed out that this trial is the first time tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg have had to make a case and submit to questioning in front of a jury of their peers. (The CEO did not take the stand in the New Mexico case.) Large tech companies have faced a public backlash over the past decade, and much of it has revolved around their products鈥 impact on the mental health of young people.

Frances Haugen, a whistleblower, leaked internal research documents from the company previously known as Facebook showing girls reported their eating disorders worsening after using Instagram. Social media use can prompt girls to compare and criticize their own bodies, and many companies struggle to moderate on their platforms.

Over two-thirds of teenage girls reported using Instagram, more than boys. A quarter each of Black and Latinx teens said they use Instagram and YouTube 鈥渃onstantly鈥 according to a by Pew Research Center.

Google argued that YouTube was not social media, while Meta of KGM鈥檚 anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. Meta鈥檚 lawyers deconstructed KGM鈥檚 home environment, alleging her parents鈥 divorce and treatment by her mother were the root cause of her emotional pain. The companies also argued that it wasn鈥檛 the way their products were designed that caused problems, but rather the specific content seen.

KGM originally named the companies behind Snapchat and Tiktok in the lawsuit, but those parties settled for an undisclosed sum before the trial started. The trial focused on Instagram and Facebook, both Meta products, and YouTube, which is owned by Google.

The burden was on KGM鈥檚 lawyers to prove that Meta and Google were negligent in their design of social media products and show that those same products caused the plaintiff鈥檚 mental health issues. The jury agreed with those arguments.

KGM testified that features like notifications , and she was unable to stop whenever she tried to limit her usage. She said she started her first Instagram account at age 9 and joined YouTube at age 10, even though legally kids aren鈥檛 supposed to have online accounts before they鈥檙e 13. Almost all of her Instagram posts had image filters on them, and KGM said she didn鈥檛 feel bad about her body until she began using the platform.

The tech accountability watchdogs who rallied behind KGM are ecstatic over this win. 鈥淭he era of Big Tech invincibility is over,鈥 said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, in a statement.

For parents who have lost their kids to what many describe as social media-related harms, this is a moment of vindication.

鈥淔or years, families have been told this was a parenting issue, but the jury saw the truth: these companies made deliberate decisions to prioritize growth and profit over kids鈥 safety,鈥 said Shelby Knox, director of online safety campaigns at nonprofit ParentsTogether.

Social media companies have been battling allegations of harm, particularly to kids, for years. Most of the claims are easily dismissed under Section 230, the law that says a platform isn鈥檛 held liable for third-party content it hosts. But these bellwether cases are testing whether the design of products like YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are inherently harmful. Plaintiffs have pointed to the impacts of features such as infinite scroll and face filters as harmful regardless of the content being shared.

The case concludes as Congress works to pass a package of internet bills that is but that critics say may lead to the removal of digital and 鈥 a particular concern given the Trump administration鈥檚 policy positions.

In her statement, Haworth at The Tech Oversight Project called on lawmakers to pass the Kids Online Safety Act, one of the most hotly debated pieces of tech legislation in recent years. It has failed to pass the House since its first was introduced in 2022, but now is being considered as part of the aforementioned package.

鈥淚t’s good that people are suing these companies and winning in court to reduce their power and force them to change their policies,鈥 said Evan Greer, director of digital rights nonprofit Fight For The Future, to The 19th. But she鈥檚 concerned how the verdict in KGM鈥檚 case will be used to advocate for laws that she says could threaten free speech online.

Greer pointed to the way activists are using social platforms to monitor abuses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, advocate for human rights and discuss accustations of sexual abuse against people like Jeffery Epstein. 鈥淲e need policies that address corporate abuse without kneecapping the ability of front-line activists to use social media to change the world,鈥 she said.

Jess Miers, associate professor of law at the University of Akron School of Law, is concerned about the long-term consequences of the verdict. While these cases focus on the way platforms are designed, said in practice, there isn鈥檛 a strong delineation between content and feature design.

鈥淎utoplay is only engaging because of what it plays,鈥 she told The 19th. 鈥淚nfinite scroll only retains users because of what it surfaces.鈥 She pointed out many apps use these kinds of features, but those aren鈥檛 the ones being sued.

Thus, liability tied to design will inevitably trickle down to judgements about content. 鈥淭he only practical way to reduce the risks alleged in these suits is to restrict or suppress categories of content that might later be characterized as harmful or 鈥榓ddictive,鈥欌 she noted.

And what鈥檚 the content most likely to be labeled as harmful? 鈥淗istory shows they expand to cover disfavored speech鈥攚hether that鈥檚 reproductive health information, gender-affirming care, or speech about policing and immigration enforcement,鈥 she said.

鈥淭he people most likely to be affected are those who already rely on the Internet as a primary space for connection and support,鈥 Miers said 鈥 like disabled people, LGBTQ+ youth or people looking for accurate information on contraception.

was originally reported by Jasmine Mithani of . .

]]>
Alabama Legislators Launch Late Push to Expand Screen Time Limits to K-12 Students /article/alabama-legislators-launch-late-push-to-expand-screen-time-limits-to-k-12-students/ Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1030089 This article was originally published in

Just weeks after approving limits on screen time for preschoolers, Alabama lawmakers are mounting a last minute push to set screen time limits for all public school students. 

The House Education Policy Committee Thursday approved , sponsored by Rep. Jeana Ross, R-Guntersville and filed on March 5.  The bill is an extension of the signed by Gov. Kay Ivey earlier this month. 

鈥淲hat I鈥檓 hoping this will accomplish is that these two acts will work together to create a continuous research based framework for developmentally appropriate technology you see from from early childhood to 12th grade,鈥 Ross said in an interview Friday.

Among other features, 搁辞蝉蝉鈥 bill would limit total screen time instruction in schools to two hours a day and mandate regular vision breaks after screen use.

搁辞蝉蝉鈥 limited screen time for children from birth until kindergarten in licensed child-care facilities, public kindergarten classrooms and specific Pre-K classes. Under the law, the Department of Early Childhood Education, Alabama State Department of Education and Department of Human Resources would collaborate on creative guidelines for appropriate screen time usage.

During committee, Reps. Alan Baker, R-Brewton, and Marcus Paramore, R-Troy, brought extending the limit to 12th grade and requiring students to follow the 鈥20-20-20 rule鈥 during scheduled screen breaks. The 20-20-20 rule states every 20 minutes students must look at an object at least 20 feet away from them for at least 20 seconds. The method has been recommended by the to reduce and prevent eye strain.

Mark Dixon, president of A+ Education Partnership, a education nonprofit, said in an interview Friday the organization supported the bill. 

鈥淲e鈥檝e seen the benefits of the cell phone ban that legislature and Gov. Ivey passed last year; we were already seeing the benefits in classes this year, and A+ is support of limiting screen time in an age-appropriate manner,鈥 he said.

Messages seeking comment were left with School Superintendents of Alabama and Alabama Association of School Boards Friday.

During the meeting, Rep. Terri Collins, R-Decatur, who chairs the committee, said Rep. Chris Blackshear, R-Smiths Station, brought the idea of expanding the limit to 12th grade. Attempts to reach Blackshear were not immediately successful.

Under HB 584, a 17-member task force composed of educators; vision specialists and national experts in child development, digital media research or cognitive science will work in collaboration with the Alabama State Department of Education to develop guidelines for best practices for screen-based instruction.

鈥淲e want it to be high quality and to be used intentionally, again, just avoiding that passive use of technology, just like with the birth to age five kindergarten, but on up through 12th grade, our technology is intentional,鈥 Ross said.

Ross said after her original bill passed she heard concerns from parents about whether or not the bill would dictate what goes on in their homes. She said both bills only relate to instructional time in classrooms.

鈥淚t has nothing to do with what parents choose to do in their homes, but all to do with what happens in public schools and in places that receive public funds,鈥 she said.

The bill was not on Tuesday鈥檚 House agenda as of Friday afternoon. There are seven legislative days left in the 2026 regular session. 

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

]]>
Getting a Smartphone Before 12 May Raise Kids鈥 Health Risks /article/getting-a-smartphone-before-12-may-raise-kids-health-risks/ Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:48:34 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1028421
]]>
When It Comes to Screen Time, Expert Guidance and Family Realities Diverge /zero2eight/when-it-comes-to-screen-time-expert-guidance-and-family-realities-diverge/ Tue, 10 Feb 2026 13:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=zero2eight&p=1028340 For years, the screen time recommendation for children under age 2 has been simple: They shouldn鈥檛 have any. 

But as surveys of parents have revealed that young children are increasingly exposed to digital media, it鈥檚 become clear there鈥檚 a disconnect: Families aren鈥檛 following the guidance.

Not only do the youngest children in the U.S. have some exposure to screens, many of them are getting   鈥 and for an average of about . 

鈥淭here鈥檚 a huge gap between what the experts say should be happening and what parents report is happening,鈥 noted Kris Perry, executive director of the nonprofit Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. 

Survey data tells us this is true at all ages, but the divide is easiest to measure for babies and toddlers under age 2, for whom any amount of screen time deviates from evidence-based recommendations.

For years, leading organizations focused on child well-being have cautioned that excess could impede . Research has shown that children under age 2 do not benefit from most types of digital media use, and in some cases, can actually be harmed. Studies have found possible links between screen time and , ,, , and more. 

Screen time also high-quality, engaging, in-person interactions, which babies and young children need to thrive. 

鈥淓very hour a child spends watching a show or an app comes at the expense of time spent doing something else 鈥 being physically active, being cared for and played with by a loved one,鈥 said Dr. Dimitri Christakis, professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington and of numerous research publications on screen time in early childhood. 鈥淭here are developmental costs associated with that. Children that age need laps, not apps, to develop appropriately.鈥

There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence that very young children are getting screen time. It鈥檚 often on display in public spaces, such as restaurants and airplanes. 

Common Sense Media, an education nonprofit focused on children鈥檚 technology and media use, in 2024 that children under age 2 were getting an average of 1:03 hours of daily screen time, with more than half of that time spent watching television or videos. By age 2, the group found, 40% of children had their own tablet.  

In 2024, caregivers reported that children under 2 years old average one hour and three minutes of daily screen time. (source:)
In 2024, caregivers reported that by 2 years old, 4 in 10 children have their own tablet. (source: )

Supreet Mann, director of research at Common Sense, pointed out that 鈥渦nder 2鈥 is a very wide age band; there are massive developmental differences between a 3-month-old baby and a 23-month-old toddler, for example. 

Mann believes that the era of personal devices, such as tablets and smartphones, has made short-form videos (think TikTok and YouTube Shorts) more accessible to children, even as these devices are less conducive to co-viewing with a parent or caregiver, a practice that has been woven into expert guidance for years. It鈥檚 also harder for caregivers to monitor what a child is seeing and whether autoplay serves them something developmentally inappropriate. 

Still, she thinks parents should not live in fear of being scrutinized about how they use screen time with their children. 

鈥淲e talk about the 鈥榙igital babysitter鈥 in a way that鈥檚 demeaning to parents who need that extra bit of help,鈥 Mann said, noting that some families may turn on a device for a child when they need to make dinner, take a shower or focus on that child鈥檚 sibling. 鈥淚 certainly do think we need to give grace to parents who are using media for adaptive reasons.鈥

In May 2025, Pew Research Center conducted a to understand how parents of children under age 13 approach technology use and screen time with their kids. About 82% of parents with children under age 2 said their child ever uses TV, while 38% said that about smartphones. 

Another 62% of the same population said their child ever watches videos on YouTube, while 35% said their infants and toddlers watch it every day. 

鈥淥ne of the most striking things from this study is the finding that screens start young for children today,鈥 said Colleen McClain, senior researcher at Pew and author of the report on family screen time. 鈥淎nd it鈥檚 not just occasional use. For some, it鈥檚 daily use.鈥 

In focus groups, McClain said, parents expressed a variety of feelings about their use of screens with their children. Some felt judged. Some felt guilty. Others said it was a tool they used to get through the day, to get everything done. Others didn鈥檛 think much of it.

鈥淭hey have other kids. They鈥檙e working. They need to keep their sanity,鈥 McClain said, summarizing what she heard in focus groups. 鈥淭he human element really comes through. These parents are trying to do the best for their kids.鈥

Both researchers noted that families have to navigate an extremely complex technology environment today, and with minimal guidance or guardrails. 

Perry, the executive director of Children and Screens, believes the biggest problem with children鈥檚 digital media use has little to do with family dynamics. The real culprit, she said, is the companies creating content for 鈥 and marketing to 鈥 children. Many parents are almost defenseless against the addictive qualities embedded in children鈥檚 media, driven by a business model that profits off children鈥檚 time and attention. 

For children under age 5, Perry said, 鈥淭heir brains are under construction.鈥 They cannot resist short-form video, compelling characters, infinite scrolling, unnatural colors and high frame rates (measured by the number of still images that appear in a frame each second). 

鈥淭heir ability to stop is almost nonexistent,鈥 she said of early learners on devices. 

For children age 2 and older, it鈥檚 important to reduce time on screens, and to choose high-quality programming if possible, Perry added. She identified four quality markers for children鈥檚 media. 

First, it should promote active engagement. Second, it should avoid distracting ads and gaming features. Third, it needs to connect the child鈥檚 learning with real-world experiences. And finally, it should encourage social interaction. 

Mister Rogers鈥 Neighborhood was an excellent example of that, Perry said. But for the most part, the shows and apps families are turning to today are not hitting any of those criteria, she said. And some advocates fear that cuts to public media funding could make it harder to produce quality children鈥檚 programming with those characteristics.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 being pushed out there is fast-paced, loud, stimulating, full of ads and not educational,鈥 she said. 鈥淲e know what the standard is, but it鈥檚 often not being met.鈥

For the last decade, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been the 鈥済old standard鈥 for families on how to use screens with their children, Perry said. 

In 2016, the AAP released a policy advising that children under age 2 avoid screens altogether, with the exception of video chatting with family members. The World Health Organization and other groups have a similar approach. 

But the AAP, just last month, released around 鈥渄igital ecosystems,鈥 which encompasses all digital media a child may encounter, from smartphones, tablets and TVs to apps, video games and AI. The new policy statement, which replaces prior recommendations, does not include duration-based screen time limits. 

Dr. Tiffany Munzer, a developmental behavioral pediatrician at the University of Michigan and lead author of the new AAP policy, said the guidance reflects a more comprehensive body of research and evidence that looks at not just how digital media affects children, but also at factors such as the design embedded into those technologies and a family鈥檚 psychosocial context. 

For example, if a child lives in a neighborhood where they cannot safely play outside, the use of digital media for entertainment is perhaps a safer alternative. If a family cannot access child care, 鈥渟ome families may need to use digital media to just get some work done at home,鈥 Munzer said. 

鈥淚nstead of thinking of it as a screen time limit, per se, we thought about it as boundaries for families to set,鈥 Munzer said, referring to the group that drafted the policy. 鈥淓very family is different.鈥 

The new policy statement contains nuances and gray areas, putting the onus on families 鈥 many of whom are giving their children screens because they already feel overwhelmed 鈥 to sit down, read it, digest it and decide how they want to apply it to their own lives. It鈥檚 impractical to expect most caregivers to do that. 

鈥淚 think when you give a clear, black-and-white recommendation, it鈥檚 so much easier to file that away in your brain, instead of having all these messages,鈥 Munzer said. She recommended that families who are seeking specific, actionable guidance around screen time talk to their child鈥檚 pediatrician about it or reference the AAP鈥檚 .

As for the use of digital media with children under 2, even though the new AAP policy statement doesn鈥檛 explicitly state that it should be avoided, that鈥檚 still the underlying message. 

鈥淚nfants under 18 months struggle to transfer information from a screen to the real world because of immature cognitive processing,鈥 one part of the statement reads. Asked to elaborate, Munzer acknowledged that research is still pretty clear about infants and screens. 

鈥淜ids who are under 2, it鈥檚 just harder 鈥 from a cognitive processing standpoint 鈥 for them to get a lot out of digital media,鈥 she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a lot of flashing lights to them. It鈥檚 hard to transfer to real life.鈥

No one disputes that parents and caregivers today are juggling many responsibilities. And screens are so easy to turn to, always right there in a parent鈥檚 pocket, with an engrossing video just a few taps away. 

In interviews, researchers and early educators alike urged parents to find alternatives. Even if the result is less screen time, rather than none, that鈥檚 a win, they said. 

The use of digital tools to distract children when they鈥檙e bored or to calm them down when they鈥檙e upset is denying them an opportunity to build essential life skills, said Dr. Carol Wilkinson, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School who was involved in a about the effects of screen time during infancy.  

鈥淎 lot of the skills kids need 鈥 come out of the practice of kids being frustrated,鈥 Wilkinson said, noting the way many parents will pull out a device when a child is throwing a tantrum. 鈥淯nfortunately, it鈥檚 something parents don鈥檛 always know how to handle or have time and space to support. We now have this thing that is easy and available that somehow seems to miraculously work every time. In many ways, it鈥檚 a missed opportunity for kids practicing things like behavioral regulation.鈥

Perry, of Children and Screens, made a similar point: 鈥淭hat very phenomenon of learning to be calm and learning to distract yourself are such foundational pieces of our development that parents choosing a screen for that reason are postponing or even delaying their ability to do that.鈥

Wilkinson also wondered if maybe young parents today have forgotten how to play 鈥 or at least have lost sight of the magic of play. 

鈥淚f parents don鈥檛 know the value of a giggle, the value of peek-a-boo, the value of singing, the value of raspberries 鈥 if they don鈥檛 know that鈥檚 going to grow their child鈥檚 brain more than Bluey does,鈥 Wilkinson said, then they may not realize what they鈥檙e missing out on when they hand their child a phone or tablet or place them in front of a TV. 

Robyn Zapien, director of Livermore Playschool in Livermore, California, said she doesn鈥檛 want to shame families who use screens with their young children at home, but she knows enough not to use them in her early learning program.

鈥淵oung children under 5 years old really need the interaction of their parents, siblings, friends and peers. They don鈥檛 need the interaction of something digital on a screen,鈥 Zapien shared. 鈥淭hey need to know how to make real connections, how to express real feelings, and what it鈥檚 like in the real world 鈥 not just the virtual world they鈥檙e watching.鈥

]]> Bernstein: 鈥楾here’s a Window of Opportunity to Create Change鈥 in AI Chatbots /article/bernstein-theres-a-window-of-opportunity-to-create-change-in-ai-chatbots/ Tue, 18 Nov 2025 13:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1023580 The chatbot developer has said it will ban users under 18 years old from using its virtual companions, an unprecedented move that comes after the mother of a 14-year-old user sued the company in last year, saying the boy talked to a Character.AI chatbot almost constantly in the months before he killed himself in February 2024. 

The 鈥渄angerous and untested鈥 chatbot, the mother said, 鈥渁bused and preyed on my son, manipulating him into taking his own life.鈥 It essentially assisted his suicide, the mother alleges, prompting him to isolate from friends and family and at one point even asking if he had a suicide plan, according to the lawsuit.


Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter


In its Oct. 29 , the company said the change will go into effect no later than Nov. 25. Character.AI will limit teen users to two hours per day with chatbots before then, ramping it down in the coming weeks.

It also said it will establish its own AI Safety Lab, an independent non-profit 鈥渄edicated to innovating safety alignment for next-generation AI entertainment features.鈥

To offer perspective on the move and on issues surrounding AI safety, privacy and digital addiction, 社区黑料鈥檚 Greg Toppo spoke with , a Seton Hall University law professor and director of its . Bernstein has also created a school outreach program for students and parents, introducing many for the first time to the idea of 鈥渢echnology overuse.鈥 

An intellectual property lawyer, Bernstein noticed around 2015 or 2016 that 鈥渢hings were changing around me鈥 when it came to technology. 鈥淚 had three small kids, and I realized that I would go to birthday parties 鈥 the kids are not talking to each other. They’re looking at their phones! I’d go to see school plays, and I couldn’t see my kids on the stage because everybody was holding their phones in front of them.鈥

Likewise, she felt less productive 鈥渂ecause I was constantly texting and emailing instead of focusing.鈥

But it wasn鈥檛 until whistleblowers began revealing the hidden designs behind so many social media tools that Bernstein considered how she could help herself and others limit their use.

In 2021, the whistleblower , the primary source for The Wall Street Journal鈥檚 series, told congressional lawmakers that her employer鈥檚 products 鈥渉arm children, stoke division, and weaken our democracy.鈥 Creating better, safer social media was possible, Haugen said, but Facebook 鈥渋s clearly not going to do so on its own.鈥

In her testimony, Haugen zeroed in on the social media giant鈥檚 algorithm and designs. In her writing and speaking, Bernstein maintains that tech companies like Facebook 鈥 rebranded as Meta 鈥 manipulate us to keep us online as long as possible, with invisible designs that 鈥渢arget our deepest human vulnerabilities.鈥 For instance, they use a tool called , prominently on display on Facebook and Instagram, in which the page never ends. 鈥淲e just keep scrolling,鈥 she wrote recently. 鈥淭hey took away our stopping cues.鈥

Similarly, video apps such as YouTube and TikTok rely on , in which one video automatically follows another indefinitely.

In 2023, Bernstein put her findings into a book, . Since then, dozens of state attorneys general and school districts have sued to force social media companies to reform 鈥 and Bernstein says this approach may also help parents and schools battle the growing threat of AI companion bots. 

Late last month, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators to make AI companions off-limits to minors. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo, a co-sponsor, said more than 70% of kids now use them. 鈥淐hatbots develop relationships with kids using fake empathy and are encouraging suicide,鈥 he wrote. 鈥淲e in Congress have a moral duty to enact bright-line rules to prevent further harm from this new technology.鈥

The move comes weeks after the said it was investigating seven chatbot developers, saying it was looking into 鈥渉ow these firms measure, test and monitor potentially negative impacts of this technology on children and teens.鈥

In her conversation with 社区黑料, Bernstein said the FTC probe amounts to 鈥渁nother pressure point鈥 that may help change how tech companies operate. 鈥淏ut it’s not just the FTC. It’s the lawsuits, and it’s bad PR that comes from the lawsuits, and hopefully there’ll be regulation. Litigation is expensive. Investors might not want to invest in these new products because there’s risk.鈥

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

The obvious interest we have in this is that we’re seeing Character.AI鈥檚 new policy, which limits access to its chatbot companions to users 18 or older. I imagine folks like you would say it’s only the first step.

Just the fact that they are taking some precautions means hopefully some kids will not be exposed to what’s been happening 鈥 convincing them to kill themselves, convincing them to not talk to their parents, to stay away from their friends. That’s a good thing. 

On the other hand?

I’ve researched how tech companies, especially Meta and other companies, have been behaving for years. So I’m a bit suspicious, because we tend to see these kinds of moves when they’re threatened legally. So it’s not so surprising that it’s happening. They’re under pressure.

In my mind, there are two questions: First of all, what will this look like exactly? In the past, for example, you would see Meta, every time there’s a big privacy breach, they would apologize and say, “We’re fixing it,” and they’ll fix something small and not fix the big thing. So what are they really doing? What kind of age verification mechanisms are they going to use? Secondly, they said they’re creating some space for teens. What is this going to look like? We don’t know. And I believe that until there’s real regulation at stake, we can’t be sure that they will take real precautions. 

I read a earlier this year in which you used the phrase “collective legal action,” saying that this is what’s needed to exert pressure on tech companies to change their designs, which trap users into 鈥渙veruse.鈥 That’s a fairly recent development, correct?

At the beginning, the people who were writing on this were mostly psychologists. Parents thought it was their own fault. The idea was, “Let me just fix my habits.” It’s self-help. The books that came before me were mostly talking about self-help methods. And when I was thinking about collective action, I realized: Parents can鈥檛 really change things by themselves, because you can’t isolate your kid and not give them a cell phone, not give them social media. It becomes an endless fight. And so I thought this has to be changed through collective action, through pressure 鈥 through governmental pressure, litigation. 

Jonathan Haidt’s book talks about collective action through parents doing things together in order to not have your kid be the only one who does not have social media or a phone. The idea is that it’s not our fault. It has to be done differently.

And to your point, a lot of this is by design, whether it’s social media or games or AI companions. By design, they’re meant to keep you there, keep you in place, keep you engaged. That’s something that, until recently, was not on a lot of people’s radar.

It took after to come out and explain how it works, to understand it as a business model. There’s no accident. We’re getting these products for free: Gmail for free, Facebook for free. We are paying with our time and our data. They collect data on us in order to target advertising 鈥 that’s how they make money. And they need us online for as long as possible so they can collect the data 鈥 and also so we will see the ads. So they need to find ways to keep us online. And there are different mechanisms like the infinite scroll. And they come up with new ones. AI companions have new addictive mechanisms: the way that they , they always flatter you. For kids it’s even more addictive, but even for adults it鈥檚, “You’re always doing a great job.”

It’s meant to keep you talking, meant to keep you engaged. You focus a lot on games and social media, but it strikes me that AI companions make those things seem quaint in terms of their addictive qualities, or the potential for real peril.

I agree with you. If you have a spectrum where social media is addictive 鈥 people spend many hours online, and they’re not interacting face-to-face 鈥 that’s an issue. And you see this with AI companions too. But what’s concerning about AI companions is that it’s much worse for kids. If you think about it, if you’re a kid and you go to middle school, kids are not nice. It’s much nicer to chat with somebody who’s always nice to you. Falling in love and getting your heart broken is not fun. There are many websites that just offer girlfriends that cater to you. So for me, the scariest thing is that kids will just never really develop the skills to have these relationships. And some adults may also stop preferring them.

About a year ago, I wrote a piece in which I talked to a college student, maybe 19 or 20 years old, who admitted that essentially he had outsourced advice about his romantic life to ChatGPT 鈥 he had a girlfriend, and whenever they had a fight or disagreement, he would excuse himself, go into the bathroom and ask ChatGPT what he should be doing. I can see that both ways: On the one hand, it just seems incredible. On the other hand, I can see where he’s basically looking for good advice. He’s looking for guidance. What do you make of that?

People say you can get advice, and you can practice your dating skills. I’ll give you something that happened to me, which is on a different scale: I was traveling abroad, and I was in this restaurant, and the menu was in a different language. So what did I do? I took a picture of the menu and uploaded it to ChatGPT and got it translated to English. While I was doing it, a young man came up to my partner and asked to translate. So what happened? I was already busy looking at my phone because I had a translation. My partner was speaking to this young man who was very happy to speak, and they were having a great conversation. 

That’s an example of the kind of things we’re giving up. This guy you wrote about, instead of going to the bathroom, maybe could have asked a friend, developed a deeper relationship with a friend. Maybe they would share experiences. But he gets used to getting the immediate answer from somebody else, and you didn’t develop these relationships. 

We miss out on the possibility of having a human interaction. 

Yes.

In its announcement, Character.AI actually apologized to its younger users, saying that many of them had told the company how important these characters had become to them. And I’ve heard that before. I wonder: How do we as adults start to think about the flip side of this, that it’s difficult for young people to tear themselves away from these things they’ve created? Do you have any sympathy for that?

I have concern, actually, because these kids, sometimes they kill themselves for these bots. So I am concerned about what will happen to kids who are very attached when these bots are suddenly gone. And you hear news stories even of adults who suddenly lost characters they were attached to. It’s a bit like how do you get people who are addicted off the addiction when you suddenly cut them off? These are things we’ve never even thought of.

Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you think is an important piece of this?

An important piece of this is that you don’t yet have every teen, every kid, attached to an AI companion. So there’s a window of opportunity to create change. Social media is much more difficult, because by the time we realized how bad it was, everybody was on social media. The money interests were so big that they would fight every law in court. So it’s really important to move fast and also understand that Character.AI is a small part of the problem. Because it’s not just these specialized websites like Character.AI. It’s ChatGPT 鈥 one of the last lawsuits was . The AI bots in ChatGPT are becoming more human, so it’s important that any action is against these bots, against the type of characteristics they have and to regulate how they behave. Just getting rid of Character.AI is not going to solve the problem.

]]>
This School Banned Phones 6 Years Ago. Teachers 鈥 and Many Kids 鈥 Are Loving it /article/this-school-banned-phones-6-years-ago-teachers-and-many-kids-are-loving-it/ Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1021030 This article was originally published in

SAN MATEO, Calif. 鈥 On a cool Friday morning in April, the halls of California鈥檚 San Mateo High School were full of students chatting, running to class or trying to find their friends.

But one common sight in high schools across the country was and always is absent from the halls of San Mateo: cellphones.

鈥淲hen you look at the crowd, kids are not buried in their phone,鈥 said Yvonne Shiu, the school鈥檚 principal. 鈥淭hey have grown to value being in the moment.鈥


Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter


Students at the public high school about 20 minutes south of San Francisco have been prohibited since 2019 from using their cellphones while in school 鈥 from bell to bell. Schools nationwide, including some in Maryland, are now increasingly imposing such bans, but San Mateo was one of the earliest and largest schools in the country to implement a complete ban on cellphones during school hours.

At the start of each day, each of the 1,600 students lock their phone in a magnetically sealed pouch, created by the San Francisco-based company Yondr, that won鈥檛 be opened until the school day ends.

The decision to introduce Yondr pouches was the school鈥檚 attempt to tackle the increasingly pervasive effects of cellphone and social media overuse on its student body: cyberbullying, loss of sleep, self-esteem issues and endless distractions in class.

Teachers and administrators quickly embraced the program, saying it restored their grasp on students鈥 attention in class. Some even said if the school were to end the program, they鈥檇 leave.

As schools around the country implement similar cellphone bans, San Mateo offers a six-year track record of how a cellphone ban can force young people to focus and, in many cases, feel better.

鈥淚f schools can help alleviate some of those expectations and pressures about appearance and performance and embarrassment, and take away some of those elements that a lot of kids really struggle with and are confronted with, that is a benefit to them and to the school community and the school culture,鈥 said Casey Teague, a longtime world history teacher at the school.

San Mateo High School Principal Yvonne Shiu works in her office on April 11, 2025. (Photo by Sam Gauntt/Capital News Service)

A slow start

The decision to implement the Yondr program at San Mateo began with observation and a trial run.

One of its faculty members, Alicia Gorgani, observed a similar cellphone ban at San Lorenzo High School, a smaller school in the area, and brought the idea to San Mateo鈥檚 teachers and administrators.

Adam Gelb, San Mateo鈥檚 assistant principal at the time, said seeing the cellphone ban in action at San Lorenzo 鈥渂lew [his] mind.鈥

鈥淪tudents were engaged with one another,鈥 he said. 鈥淭hey were interacting. They were playing card games. They were playing out on the yard. They were goofing around. They were in circles, talking to each other.鈥

Gelb helped bring the program to San Mateo, which tested Yondr pouches in a few classrooms in spring 2019.

Teague, who鈥檚 worked at the school for more than 20 years, was one of those first instructors to pilot the program. He said he decided to try out the Yondr pouches in his class after noticing students鈥 smartphones were constantly bombarding them with notifications.

鈥淏y 2018, every kid had a phone. That wasn鈥檛 anything new,鈥 Teague said. 鈥淏ut the distracting nature of the phone was becoming more and more obvious.鈥

San Mateo health education teacher Brittany Dybdahl poses for a portrait on April 11, 2025. (Photo by Sam Gauntt/Capital News Service)

Health education teacher Brittany Dybdahl said leading up to the ban, the school was seeing an increase in cyberbullying and drama stemming from online activities.

Embarrassing moments or conflicts among students had the risk of getting captured on video and being immortalized online.

鈥淚t basically created way more opportunities for students to be emotionally impacted throughout the school day,鈥 Dybdahl said. 鈥淎nd that would, of course, affect their academics and learning.鈥

After the pilot program, and many discussions with students and their parents, San Mateo implemented the program schoolwide beginning in the 2019-20 academic year.

Some teachers were apprehensive about the cellphone ban, thinking it would create more work for first-period teachers to check that each student had their phones sealed away.

But those checks quickly became part of the daily routine, said physics teacher Patrick Thrasher.

And after seeing the impact the program had on their students, most faculty members got on board, Thrasher said.

鈥淭here was such a pretty clear, drastic difference in the classroom,鈥 he said. 鈥淚t was just night and day.鈥

San Mateo鈥檚 cellphone ban was not even a year old when the COVID-19 pandemic moved all learning online for a year starting in March 2020. But the school decided to continue the cellphone ban when students returned to the classroom in 2021.

鈥淭hey do spend enough time already on screens that, you know, seven hours a day here at school [without screen time] is not going to kill them,鈥 Shiu said.

The student reaction

Enforcement of the ban hasn鈥檛 been entirely without issues.

San Mateo faculty members said some students 鈥 albeit a small percentage 鈥 are determined to bypass the Yondr pouches and keep their phones on them. Some put calculators, hard drives or other phone-shaped objects in their Yondr pouches. Others put old, unused 鈥渂urner phones鈥 in their pouches while keeping their personal phone on them.

But many San Mateo students, like junior Lulu Bertolina, embraced the program. She said the Yondr program was one of the reasons she enrolled at San Mateo.

San Mateo junior Lulu Bertolina poses for a portrait on April 11, 2025. (Photo b Sam Gauntt/Capital News Service)

鈥淗aving our phones [in Yondr pouches] made it easier to make friends, because I can鈥檛 go off on my phone and not make conversation with people,鈥 she said. 鈥淚t almost forced it 鈥 in a really good way.鈥

For San Mateo senior Siddharth Gogi, the absence of phones made the school feel more welcoming. He said students aren鈥檛 glued to their phones playing video games at lunch or distracted on social media in class.

鈥淐onversations move past surface level when you have that time to talk to one another,鈥 said Gogi, San Mateo鈥檚 three-time class president who graduated this spring.

He acknowledged, though, that some students are concerned about not having quick access to their phones in case of an emergency.

In the early 2000s, many schools repealed their cellphone restrictions after the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado.

But Shiu said it鈥檚 better if students don鈥檛 have access to their phones during an emergency. The pouches prevent students and family members from sharing misinformation or flooding 911 with calls overwhelming first responders and the cellphone network.

鈥淚n any emergency, we want students to be focused on the adult giving the information,鈥 Shiu said.

The experts

To hear the experts tell it, there鈥檚 an overriding good reason for schools to ban cellphones. Cellphone use and social media sites can both have a serious impact on young peoples鈥 well-being.

Extensive cellphone use during the day has a 鈥渄irect correlation with a decline in mental health,鈥 said Annette Anderson, the deputy director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Safe and Healthy Schools.

鈥淲e also know that cellphone use late into the evening has a disruptive factor in our young people getting enough sleep and then being attentive enough in the morning,鈥 Anderson said.

Young people are grappling with the reality that the phone in their hand could be doing them harm. A Pew Research Survey released in April found almost half of U.S. teens age 13 to 17 agreed social media sites have a mostly negative impact on kids their age.

San Mateo wellness counselor Helen Citrin poses for a portrait on April 11, 2025. (Photo by Sam Gauntt/Capital News Service)

San Mateo wellness counselor Helen Citrin said a cellphone ban can provide students a much-needed break from their phones.

For students who are highly anxious or struggle managing their emotions, Citrin said, not having access to a cellphone can help as it prevents them from constantly texting their parents.

鈥淭hat pouch offers a boundary,鈥 she said.

One recent study echoed this sentiment. Independent research on school cellphone bans is limited, but a 2024 study conducted by Yondr found that students saw a 15% increase in the likelihood they received a passing grade after their school implemented Yondr pouches. The report also found a 44% decrease in behavioral referrals after implementation.

Data from San Mateo paints a mixed picture of the school鈥檚 performance since implementation of the cellphone ban. Math and English test scores declined from 2019 through 2024, but both the graduation rate and preparedness for college and careers have inched upward. Meanwhile, the suspension rate increased.

Gelb offered an explanation for the rise: 鈥淓verybody was forced to communicate in person, so you had more people talking, and there鈥檚 more chance for someone to say the wrong thing or be in the wrong place.鈥

But, he added, the premeditated incidents and cyberbullying disappeared from the school day.

A growing trend

Although San Mateo might have been early to the cellphone ban movement, it鈥檚 among growing company now.

State and local governments and school districts across the country are now considering 鈥 or have already passed 鈥 policies on cellphone use in school. Yondr boasts that millions of students from all 50 states are now using its pouches.

While there is no statewide ban in Maryland, more than a third of its public schools prohibit cellphone use, . Several school districts, including Howard and Baltimore counties, have passed a total ban.

About 30% of U.S. schools now have a ban on cellphone use throughout the school day, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

That percentage is likely to rise. In the nation鈥檚 largest state, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed legislation last year requiring all public and charter schools in California to create a policy to reduce or ban cellphone use during school hours by July 1, 2026, but left each school or school district to decide the specifics of their policy.

And recently, New York joined the more than two dozen other states instituting a complete ban on cellphones during school hours.

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said the decision comes as part of the state鈥檚 efforts to protect youth mental health.

鈥淥ur young people succeed when they鈥檙e learning and growing, not clicking and scrolling,鈥 Hochul said in a statement in May.

A model to follow?

San Mateo faculty and staff said the school鈥檚 careful implementation of the Yondr program and the conversations it had with families and educators led to its success.

But several San Mateo faculty members said Yondr alone can鈥檛 solve youth mental health issues stemming from social media and personal devices.

The second students leave school grounds, they once again have access to their phones and can browse as much as they want. Citrin, the school鈥檚 wellness counselor, said many of the students she deals with stay up late into the night doomscrolling, or texting or video chatting with friends.

The exterior of San Mateo High School on April 11, 2025. Since 2019, students at the school have been prohibited from using their phones during the school day. (Photo by Sam Gauntt/Capital News Service)

That being the case, Gelb said schools should also teach students how to develop a healthy relationship with their phone and social media.

The pouches also carry a financial impact on schools.

Each student at San Mateo receives a free Yondr pouch at the beginning of the school year, but each replacement costs $15. In total, Shiu estimated the school spends about $20,000 a year on Yondr pouches.

However, San Mateo teachers and administrators said the program鈥檚 benefits outweigh its costs.

鈥淔rom a school perspective, it keeps kids off of their phone during class time,鈥 Citrin said. 鈥淏ecause the main focus here is education, that鈥檚 what the purpose is, and that鈥檚 what the use is benefiting.鈥

Capital News Service is a student-staffed reporting service operated by the University of Maryland鈥檚 Phillip Merrill College of Journalism. Stories are available at the  and may be reprinted as long as credit is given to Capital News Service and, most importantly, to the students who produced the work.

]]>
4 Tips To Make Screen Time Good for Your Kids and Even Help Them Learn to聽Talk /article/4-tips-to-make-screen-time-good-for-your-kids-and-even-help-them-learn-to-talk/ Sat, 03 May 2025 10:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1014677 This article was originally published in

Screen time permeates the lives of toddlers and preschoolers. For many young children, their exposure includes both direct viewing, such as watching a TV show, and indirect viewing, such as when media is on in the background during other daily activities.

As many parents will know, . As scholars who specialize in and , we are particularly interested in the recent finding that too much screen time is associated with less parent-child talk, such as .

As a result, the and suggest limiting screen time for children.


Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter


Beyond quantity, they also emphasize the quality of a child鈥檚 engagement with digital media. Used in moderation, certain kinds of media can 鈥 and even contribute to language development.

These tips may help parents structure and manage screen time more effectively.

No. 1: Choose high-quality content

Parents can enhance their children鈥檚 screen-time value by choosing high-quality media 鈥 that is, content with educational benefit. , from 鈥淣ature Cat鈥 to 鈥淪id the Science Kid,鈥 that would qualify as educational.

Two other elements contribute to the quality of screen time.

First, screen content should be age-appropriate 鈥 that is, parents should choose shows, apps and games that are specifically designed for young children. Using a resource such as allows parents to check recommended ages for television shows, movies and apps.

Second, parents can look for shows that use evidence-based educational techniques, such as participatory cues. That鈥檚 when characters in shows break the 鈥渇ourth wall鈥 by directly talking to their young audience to prompt reflection, action or response. that children learn new words better when a show has participatory cues 鈥 perhaps because it encourages active engagement rather than passive viewing.

Many classic, high-quality television shows for young children feature participatory cues, including 鈥,鈥 鈥,鈥 鈥溾 and 鈥.鈥

No. 2: Join in on screen time

The that whenever possible.

This recommendation is based on the evidence that increased screen media use can reduce parent-child conversation. This, in turn, can affect . Intentionally discussing media content with children increases language exposure during screen time.

Parents may find the following joint media engagement strategies useful:

  • Press pause and ask questions.
  • Point out basic concepts, such as letters and colors.
  • Model more advanced language using a 鈥渢hink aloud鈥 approach, such as, 鈥淭hat surprised me! I wonder what will happen next?鈥

No. 3: Connect what鈥檚 on screen to real life

because their brains struggle to transfer information and ideas from screens to the real world. Children learn more from screen media, research shows, when the content connects to their real-life experiences.

To maximize the benefits of screen time, parents can help children connect what they are viewing with experiences they鈥檝e had. For example, while watching content together, a parent might say, 鈥淭hey鈥檙e going to the zoo. Do you remember what we saw when we went to the zoo?鈥

This approach promotes language development and cognitive skills, including . Children learn better with repeated exposure to words, so selecting media that relates to a child鈥檚 real-life experiences can help reinforce new vocabulary.

No. 4: Enjoy screen-free times

Ensuring that a child鈥檚 day is filled with varied experiences, including periods that don鈥檛 involve screens, increases language exposure in children鈥檚 daily routines.

Two ideal screen-free times are mealtimes and bedtime. Mealtimes present opportunities for back-and-forth conversation with children, exposing them to a lot of language. Additionally, bedtime should be screen-free, as using screens near bedtime or having a TV in children鈥檚 bedrooms .

Alternatively, devoting bedtime to reading children鈥檚 books accomplishes the dual goals of helping children wind down and creating a .

Having additional screen-free, one-on-one, parent-child play for at least 10 minutes at some other point in the day is good for young children. Parents can maximize the benefits of one-on-one play by letting .

A parent鈥檚 role here is to follow their child鈥檚 lead, play along, give their child their full attention 鈥 so no phones for mom or dad, either 鈥 and provide language enrichment. They can do this by labeling toys, pointing out shapes, colors and sizes. It can also be done by describing activities 鈥 鈥淵ou鈥檙e rolling the car across the floor鈥 鈥 and responding when their child speaks.

Parent-child playtime is also a great opportunity to extend interests from screen time. Including toys of your child鈥檚 favorite characters from the shows or movies they love in playtime transforms that enjoyment from screen time into learning.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

]]>
Opinion: A Better Understanding of What People Do on Their Devices Is Key to Digital Well-Being /article/a-better-understanding-of-what-people-do-on-their-devices-is-key-to-digital-well-being/ Tue, 24 Dec 2024 17:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=736576 This article was originally published in

In an era where digital devices are everywhere, the term 鈥渟creen time鈥 has become a buzz phrase in discussions about technology鈥檚 impact on people鈥檚 lives. Parents are . But what if this entire approach to screen time is fundamentally flawed?

While researchers have made advances in measuring screen use, a detailed critique of the research in 2020 in how screen time is conceptualized, measured and studied. how digital technology affects human cognition and emotions. My ongoing research with cognitive psychologist builds on that critique鈥檚 findings.

We categorized existing screen-time measures, mapping them to attributes like whether they are duration-based or context-specific, and are studying how they relate to health outcomes such as anxiety, stress, depression, loneliness, mood and sleep quality, creating a clearer framework for understanding screen time. We believe that grouping all digital activities together misses how different types of screen use affect people.

By applying this framework, researchers can better identify which digital activities are beneficial or potentially harmful, allowing people to adopt more intentional screen habits that support well-being and reduce negative mental and emotional health effects.

Screen time isn鈥檛 one thing

Screen time, at first glance, seems easy to understand: It鈥檚 simply the time spent on devices with screens such as smartphones, tablets, laptops and TVs. But this basic definition hides the variety within people鈥檚 digital activities. To truly understand screen time鈥檚 impact, you need to look closer at specific digital activities and how each affects cognitive function and mental health.

In our research, we divide screen time into four broad categories: educational use, work-related use, social interaction and entertainment.

For education, activities like online classes and reading articles can improve cognitive skills like problem-solving and critical thinking. Digital tools like mobile apps can by boosting motivation, self-regulation and self-control.

But these tools also , such as distracting learners and contributing to poorer recall compared with traditional learning methods. For young users, screen-based learning may even have on development and their social environment.

Screen time for work, like writing reports or attending virtual meetings, is a central part of modern life. It can improve productivity and enable remote work. However, may also lead to stress, anxiety and cognitive fatigue.

Screen use for social connection helps people interact with others through video chats, social media or online communities. These interactions can promote and even such as decreased depressive symptoms and improved glycemic control for people with chronic conditions. But passive screen use, like endless social media scrolling, can such as cyberbullying, social comparison and loneliness, especially for teens.

Screen use for entertainment . Mindfulness apps or meditation tools, for example, can . Creative digital activities, like graphic design and music production, can reduce stress and improve mental health. However, too much screen use may by limiting physical activity and time for other rewarding pursuits.

Context matters

Screen time affects people differently based on factors like mood, social setting, age and family environment. Your emotions before and during screen use can shape your experience. Positive interactions can lift your mood, while with certain online activities. For example, we found that affect how readily people become distracted on their devices. Alerts and other changes distract users, which makes it more challenging to focus on tasks.

The social context of screen use also matters. Watching a movie with family can strengthen bonds, while using screens alone can increase feelings of isolation, especially when it replaces face-to-face interactions.

Family influence plays a role, too. For example, parents鈥 screen habits , and structured parental involvement can help reduce excessive use. It highlights the positive effect of structured parental involvement, along with mindful social contexts, in managing screen time for healthier digital interactions.

Consistency and nuance

Technology now lets researchers track screen use accurately, but simply counting hours doesn鈥檛 give us the full picture. Even when we measure specific activities, like social media or gaming, studies don鈥檛 often capture engagement level or intent. For example, someone might use social media to stay informed or to procrastinate.

Studies on screen time often vary in how they define and categorize it. Some focus on total screen exposure without differentiating between activities. Others examine specific types of use but may not account for the content or context. This lack of consistency in defining screen time makes it hard to compare studies or generalize findings.

Understanding screen use requires a more nuanced approach than tracking the amount of time people spend on their screens. Recognizing the different effects of specific digital activities and distinguishing between active and passive use are crucial steps. Using standardized definitions and combining quantitative data with personal insights would provide a fuller picture. Researchers can also study how screen use affects people over time.

For policymakers, this means developing guidelines that move beyond one-size-fits-all limits by focusing on recommendations suited to specific activities and individual needs. For the rest of us, this awareness encourages a balanced digital diet that blends enriching online and offline activities for better well-being.The Conversation

, Doctoral student in the College of Health and Human Development,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

]]>
Opinion: Want to Spur your Child鈥檚 Intellectual Development? Use Audiobooks Instead of Videos /article/want-to-spur-your-childs-intellectual-development-use-audiobooks-instead-of-videos/ Fri, 02 Aug 2024 14:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=730705 This article was originally published in

It鈥檚 not uncommon today to see children glued to their screens. In fact, 80% of parents with children 11 or younger say their kids watch YouTube videos, according to a . Half of these parents say their kids watch videos every day 鈥 some even several times a day.

But staring at a screen for too long can negatively impact children鈥檚 well-being 鈥 . According to research, kids demonstrate when their screen time surpasses one hour a day. They are also more likely to experience anxiety and depression and suffer from . Even short, fast-paced videos have consequences, impacting the .

I believe it is essential to explore how to use technology in a way that can positively impact children鈥檚 ability to think and communicate. Audiobooks present a compelling case.


Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter


Starting around , most children can comprehend simple stories and fairy tales. Audiobooks can be particularly useful during car rides, bedtime routine and quiet playtime. For school-aged children, they can by providing an alternative way to experience books. And most importantly, they can 鈥 much more than videos.

Here are five ways that audiobooks can enhance children鈥檚 ability to learn:

Enhances imagination and intelligence

Unlike videos, which provide visual and auditory stimuli, audiobooks rely solely on listening. This encourages children to visualize the story in their minds, . In contrast, passive videos provide preformed images that require no voluntary imagination.

Unlike , which happens spontaneously and unintentionally, such as in a dream during sleep, is the deliberate effort to create new images in the mind. People are not born with this ability. Rather, it must be during childhood through conversations and engagement with stories and fairy tales.

Research indicates that voluntary imagination leads to . In fact, training voluntary imagination is .

Develops listening skills and attention span

Listening to audiobooks requires children to focus and pay attention to the spoken word, promoting the . Unlike the passive consumption of videos, where the visual component dominates a child鈥檚 attention, comprehending an audiobook demands active listening. This can improve a child鈥檚 ability to concentrate and maintain attention for longer periods.

Expands vocabulary and language skills

Audiobooks are a valuable tool for expanding a child鈥檚 . Exposure to rich and varied language allows children to encounter new words and phrases in context, which aids in .

Compared with print books, audiobooks feature expressive narration, which can model proper pronunciation, intonation and rhythm.

Encourages independent learning

Audiobooks can foster a sense of independence in young children as they create their own unique vision of the scenes and events described in a book. This can cultivate a habit of independent learning as children follow complex narratives, infer meaning and make connections between different parts of the story. This self-directed learning approach can and lay a strong foundation for future academic success.

Preserves eyesight

Excessive screen time can strain children鈥檚 eyes, leading to discomfort and potential , including nearsightedness. Audiobooks, on the other hand, eliminate the need for screens, giving children鈥檚 eyes a much-needed break.

Audiobooks are a powerful tool for enhancing a child鈥檚 cognitive and linguistic development, and many are available for free at local libraries or on apps like . As parents and educators seek to nurture smarter and more well-rounded children, audiobooks can play a significant role.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

The Conversation

]]>
5 Top Takeaways From the Hunt Institute鈥檚 Technology in Early Childhood Discussion /zero2eight/5-top-takeaways-from-the-hunt-institutes-technology-in-early-childhood-discussion/ Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:00:26 +0000 https://the74million.org/?p=8346 This summer, the Hunt Institute hosted a panel discussion on the risks and opportunities that technology presents in the lives of young children. Experts shared their insights on how caregivers can best approach digital media consumption and tools for children in an increasingly digital world.

Here are our top five takeaways:

1. We all rely on screens. For better and worse, 鈥淧eople use screens because it鈥檚 an easy way to keep kids occupied and safe when they need to get other things done,鈥 Dr. Deborah Rosenfeld of the explained. Speaking from personal experience, she emphasized that this 鈥渋s not a unique problem of income that leads to people using screens as babysitters.鈥

While technology became ubiquitous during the Covid pandemic, using digital media to distract and entertain young children is not ideal, especially if it interferes with play and learning opportunities.

2. Consider the timing and type of digital media exposure. Kris Perry, executive director of , said, 鈥淔or all young children, high amounts of screen time, especially without adult guidance or as a passive pursuit, is unambiguously detrimental to their learning and development. It鈥檚 not until the second year of life that there is any evidence that children benefit from media for learning, and even that requires direct facilitation and reteaching from an adult.鈥

Fundamental skills and abilities develop during early childhood. Greater screen time in infancy, Perry said, can lead to lower attention and executive function at nine years old.鈥 Research shows physical and social-emotional impacts as well.

3. Technology should not displace playful learning. Screen time correlates with poorer social and language development. 鈥淲e came into being with optimization for being around other people and with this physical world,鈥 explained Dr. Victor Lee of Stanford University鈥檚 . 鈥淥ur hardware is best treated and fine-tuned within that space.鈥

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends children ages one to five get at least 60 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, and panelists agree that screen time should not interfere. 鈥淪creen time displacement for peer play relates to worse fine and gross motor skills for one- to three-year-olds,鈥 Perry said, endorsing the AAP guidelines.

4. High-quality educational digital resources are scarce. Parents and caregivers must use caution in the media that children consume. Lee compared the prevalence of new technology to the processed food revolution, which made cheap, easily distributed foods widely available. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 mean that it is as healthy, desirable or should be replacing what we have elsewhere,鈥 he argued.

Rosenfeld recommended and as reputable resources for finding developmentally appropriate content for children. Perry recommends that caregivers refer to (from Kathy Hirsh-Pasek and others) when discerning if a digital media resource has the potential to promote learning.

Even with high-quality digital-based content, Lee said, 鈥淚t is not there to, nor is it ever going to be capable of replacing what humans do, especially concerning how we support the development, growth and autonomy of our kids.鈥

5. Synchronous learning and healthy modeling should be prioritized. 鈥淪ynchronicity is a caregiver sitting beside a child watching a show, playing a game,鈥 Rosenfeld explained. That is not the typical situation. She suggests incorporating methods to mediate learning, like discussing key concepts, ideas and character interactions, which are critical when incorporating digital media and resources asynchronously.

Perry stressed that caregivers should 鈥渞emember what the long-term effects are on children, not only directly when they鈥檙e on devices, but watching adults be on devices are also interrupting their opportunities to develop.鈥

]]>
Resetting Expectations: 5 Takeaways from a Webinar on Screen Time in the Age of COVID-19 /zero2eight/resetting-expectations-5-takeaways-from-a-webinar-on-screen-time-in-the-age-of-covid-19/ Tue, 07 Apr 2020 14:54:54 +0000 http://the74million.org/?p=3659 A recent webinar on screen time, part of the presented by the New America Foundation, Slate and Arizona State University offered a discussion that paired Dan Kois (author of and host of Slate鈥檚 鈥淢om and Dad Are Fighting鈥 podcast) with Lisa Guernsey (co-author of and director of teaching, learning, and tech program at ).

Here are five takeaways:聽

  1. Focus on content, not time. Many parents are told to impose strict rules about screen time, but Guernsey argued that in these extraordinary times, 鈥淲e can relax those limits and be forgiving.鈥 She did note that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends zero solo screen time before 18 months, but they say joint media engagement鈥攚here parents and caregivers point out what they鈥檙e viewing and talk about it 鈥 has its place. The context matters too: viewing media with friends and family and talking about what you see on screen (or recounting those stories later, when the screen is off) is much better for learning than viewing alone.
  1. Use tech as a means of connection. It鈥檚 a double-edged sword. While it sometimes feels like technology is turning us into a nation of zombies, it鈥檚 also something to appreciate when we can鈥檛 connect in person. The speakers mentioned Facetime and Zoom playdates, dance parties and book clubs. Guernsey described a 鈥渂ear hunt鈥 that took place in a Connecticut neighborhood鈥攆amilies drove or walked around town looking for teddy bears that had been placed in the windows of the houses. They recommended thinking of some online activities, such as Facetime with grandparents, in terms of how they can strengthen long-distance relationships. 鈥淢ake it about values,鈥 Guernsey said, rather than focusing so much on academics or getting things done.
  2. Use screens as babysitters鈥攕ometimes. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to have little kids around 24/7,鈥 admitted Guernsey, and parents who are lucky enough to be able to work from home can get 鈥淶oomifried鈥濃攁 term she credited to Kathy Hirsh-Pasek. While co-viewing is always ideal, TV shows for kids can benefit social and emotional development. She mentioned Daniel Tiger鈥檚 Neighborhood and other content, while a webinar participant recommended Discovery鈥檚 . 鈥淚t鈥檚 not the screen time I worry about,鈥 Gurensey said, 鈥淚t鈥檚 the mindlessness time.鈥
  3. Let online stuff lead to offline activities. Streaming video is an inherently passive pastime, but it can be a springboard for reading, physical activity and creative projects. You don鈥檛 need fancy art supplies to make a book about a movie you鈥檝e watched. A game you played online can lead to a scavenger hunt. Surfing the web can spark ideas for making a mess鈥攐r a snack鈥攊n the kitchen.
  4. Recognize the differences between learning in a classroom and learning onscreen. Given the weeks and, possibly, months of closed schools, let鈥檚 all appreciate the teachers who are trying to do so much with so little, but face it: we鈥檒l never replicate what kids would be getting in school. Kois said he saw the pandemic as a chance to promote the idea that 鈥渓earning is a thing that鈥檚 worth doing鈥濃攖hat is, not just for grades or stickers. He added, perhaps a tad wishfully, 鈥淜ids鈥 boredom threshold will plummet. They may become receptive to suggestions they would have rejected before.鈥
]]>