TLDR 172

Technopanic & the Screentime Debate

Published: 2018-11-03 • 📧 Newsletter

Welcome to Issue 172. Technopanic and the screentime debate.

Next week I'm helping to facilitate some discussions around screentime. Thursday, November 8th, I'm sitting in on an interview panel with Anya Kamenetz to discuss her book, The Art of Screentime. Immediately following, I'm co-hosting the #ILAchat with Kristen Turner. Feel free to get involved in our discussion.

This week: How to respond to trolling behaviors

🔖 Key Takeaways

Silicon Valley Hypocrisy: Tech creators ban screens for their children while profiting from products designed to maximize everyone else's engagement.
Nanny Surveillance: Contracts forbid nannies from using screens around children while demanding constant phone availability and updates revealing class-based double standards.
Digital Divide Reversal: Rich ban screens from schools while poor districts embrace technology creating new inequality where access becomes disadvantage for privileged.
Parent Projection: Adult screen addiction fears get projected onto children masking that parents terrified of their own compulsive use not kids' development.
Student Device Reality: ECAR study shows undergrads need multiple screens and constant connectivity for academic survival despite moral panic narratives.

📺 Watch

The Most Unknown

This video from the Motherboard YouTube Channel is from the film The Most Unknown. Now streaming on Netflix with supplemental series on Youtube.

📚 Read

Nellie Bowles NYT Screentime Trilogy

Nellie Bowles posted three pieces on screentime. The first discusses Silicon Valley parents with quotes about "devil lives in our phones" and screens as "crack cocaine." I have concerns about addiction and development but also about technopanic narratives.

Silicon Valley Nannies Are Phone Police for Kids

Nannies must not use screens around children but keep phones nearby for parent calls and constant updates. San Francisco message boards share photos "nanny-outing" caregivers using screens to shame them.

The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected

America's public schools tout devices while rich ban screens from class altogether. Keep in mind privilege and perspective of those creating this "consensus." Adults project their own addiction fears onto children.

Anya Kamenetz Twitter Thread on Screentime

While Bowles articles rippled through feeds, Anya Kamenetz provided the "unpanicky, thoughtful critique" needed.

ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology 2018

EDUCAUSE released their 15th annual report. My post shares key takeaways. Students need access to basic technologies and Internet for academic success. They need broad array of devices to ensure survival let alone success.

🔨 Do

Screenfree Saturdays

If concerned about children's screentime start by monitoring your own. Make Saturdays screenfree as possible. No "zombie scrolling." Using phone for directions is fine. Worst case you get lost and find something else.

🤔 Consider

"The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle." — Stanley Kubrick

Kubrick recognized screens' unique emotional power. Technopanic misses that screens aren't inherently harmful or beneficial but tools whose value depends on use. Silicon Valley hypocrisy reveals problem isn't screens but who controls them and for what purpose. Nanny contracts expose class inequality. Digital divide reversal shows privilege now means screen-free access. Parent projection suggests real issue is adult compulsion not child development. ECAR study documents student reality requiring connectivity. The debate needs nuance recognizing both power and problems rather than moral panic or technological determinism.

Previous: TLDR 171 • Next: TLDR 173 • Archive: 📧 Newsletter

🌱 Connected Concepts:

Screentime Technopanic — Nellie Bowles trilogy reveals moral panic around screens driven by privileged fear while Anya Kamenetz offers measured alternative in Media Effects Research.
Digital Divide Class Reversal — Rich banning screens from schools while poor districts embrace technology creates new inequality where digital access becomes disadvantage for privileged in Educational Equity.
Silicon Valley Hypocrisy — Tech creators profiting from engagement optimization ban screens for own children revealing they understand addictive design they inflict on others in Tech Ethics.
Nanny Surveillance — Contracts forbidding screens while demanding constant phone availability expose class-based double standards and surveillance hypocrisy in Domestic Labor.
Student Device Reality — ECAR study documents undergrads needing multiple screens and connectivity for academic survival contradicting screentime panic narratives in Higher Education Technology.

Part of the 📧 Newsletter archive documenting digital literacy and technology.