I don’t understand how it correlates. The article isn’t saying that children of parents who use social media are more likely to be addicted to social media, it’s saying that parental controls aren’t helping stop social media addiction in children. So how does that smoker analogy make sense?
Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 3 days ago
I can’t imagine how “parental supervision” could exist without understanding how to use what they are supervising.
privatepirate@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
You don’t need to know how to use social media to set up the Apple parental controls that put time restrictions on certain apps.
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The average age of a first time parent in the US is around 27 right now. The iPhone is nearly 19 years old this year, and Facebook opened its gates to anyone over 13 right at 20 years ago. That means these first time parents were below 10 when these came out, and they likely grew up in a world where social media consumption on handheld devices was very common. So, when they are supervising their children, they aren’t doing it from the perspective that these things are bad, they are doing as though they are normal, because for them they are. This is what I mean with children of smokers become smokers. If its normalized around the house, it doesn’t matter how much policing is done, it’s just a part of your life.
privatepirate@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Alright I understand your perspective now and agree.
Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 3 days ago
That’s not really parental supervision though. Knowing what kind of content that exists and that a child can interact with should be one of the most important considerations when allowing kids to access something. Not just the amount of time in a period they are allowed to do so.
privatepirate@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
I agree. I don’t think screen time limits are adequate.