She held the lollipop out in front of her, with her open palm behind the lolly to create a bigger focus target for the camera. This is a common trick for content creators who showcase small items (like make-up products) on camera, to avoid autofocus issues.
She was maybe 4. I was pretty dismayed when I saw that, to be honest.
I have a 4 month old, and at the moment the only screen time she's allowed is video calls with the grandparents, who are in a different country. Neither me or the wife are even allowed to operate our phones while the baby can see the screen, let alone watch tv! She turns into an instant zombie, even if I am just reading HN.
Also I don’t let my two year old near screens on her own, and generally do not allow screen time at all, but she absorbs things at a pace which is incredible. If I were to “skip ads” in front of her, I’d only have to do it around twice for her to be able to do it on her own…
>how can a child that can't even walk yet
means.
Also, my 2 year olds walked around the store all the time, as well as sat in the cart when I didn't have time to supervise. It is good exercise, and helps them practice following instructions.
Also, not every city has the same massive drug addiction homelessness problem as yours.
At 2 kids can walk and have fine enough motor skills to press a small button, if that was the direction you were thinking.
Kids are surprisingly intuitive and form connections super quickly. It probably took a few tries, and maybe the parent even showed them how to do it: button appeared in the corner > press it > see fun content. If something works they commit it to memory like you wouldn't imagine.
If it's the latter I think you might be over attributing your child's behavioral development to the lack of screen time that it actually is. I have a 3 year old daughter who is much more social and chatty, has a great attention span and self-play / imagination etc. than many of her peers who have zero screen time.
I wouldn't say we give her a lot of screen time, maybe a 2-3 hrs a week (mostly over the weekend) + sickness + the occasional family movie night (Frozen, Moana etc.). But it's enough where she has certain segments of Ms. Rachel episodes memorized.
Anecdotally, the parents who enforce the no screen time rules seem to be the ones who over-parent their kids and have kids who cling to their legs at the park for the first half hour, melt down without snacks, etc.
Also the screen time carries over into other hands free, fun activities like listening to the songs on the speaker and acting out what she had watched or dancing especially during those hectic weeknights when she wants to interact with us but we need to cook dinner and can't sit down to play toys with her.
It feels like children's development is more highly correlated with parents' involvement than with screen time per se. Obviously, a large amount of screen time would cause a lack of involvement, but zero screen time seems more like an act of virtue than one for effect.
When he is at a party and a tv is on in the distance he stares like a zombie at it. It's depressing at how TV changes him and I have to transfer his focus away.
Friday was eat-out night when we raised our daughters. A particular Thai restaurant that we enjoyed was crossed off our list because they always had a television on in the corner of the dining area. It was a complete family-conversation killer.
I left a comment on the bill saying that it was off-putting. (I even TV-Be-Gone'd their set on one visit.) But ultimately we just stopped going.
My personal impression is that while there's deffo stuff kids shouldn't watch, the thing that matters is what the kids do apart from TV. If it's nothing, or insufficient, it will be terrible. If as well as screens kids get plenty of high quality attention, the outcome will be good.
You could argue, and I'd struggle to disagree, that less screen time is always good. But there's tradeoffs in this optimisation. Parental attention and energy are also finite - unless you're super rich, have 3 nannies, a chef and not working. At some level, giving the poor overworked parent a break by sticking the child in front of a screen for a bit might mean the parent has more energy to do something worthwhile with the kiddos afterwards.
There's a nice statistical experiment in it no doubt - child outcome as function of screen time, high quality time and "fend for yourself" time, controlled by how much energy the parents have - will the coefficient on screen time be negative? Merely zero? Maybe even positive, just smaller than the other ones?
But good luck getting the data, never mind randomisation.
I have a very qualified pediatric occupational therapist friend and when I was sort of bragging about how many "cool things" my toddler can do I was immediately told that they are nice party tricks but don't say much about the development of the child, predict future performance or intelligence, and definitely aren't what I should be focusing on as a parent.
The child didn't just naturally learn to do those tricks. Our games focused a lot on this because I thought "it builds brain and skills", always be ahead of all other kids. In reality only I benefited from this because I could drop it in random conversation and then have pride flow out my ears. And the kid kept repeating the now easy tricks looking for the reward, staying inside the comfort zone.
I was told to simply guide our interactions with a method called "serve and return"[0]. It's a much more powerful tool that makes any and every interaction an opportunity for development, not just individual tasks practiced to perfection and repeated for rewards. You guide but also let yourself be guided so your child gets to feel comfortable opening all kinds of doors rather than you even unwittingly pushing them through the same one again and again.
[0] https://developingchild.harvard.edu/key-concept/serve-and-re...
But I also am very much in the camp of "it doesn't matter what he knows right now. Kids advance in different ways at different times and it mostly just levels out" All you can do is amazed at how fast they grow and try to help them out as much as you can.
Seeing all the kids my kids play with, the ones who seem to turn out the most well rounded aren’t the ones without screen time but the ones without helicopter parents.
You’d be surprised how many of these kids have never been outside of their parents line of sight, even at middle school age.
The USA badly needs a mass rewrite of negligence law, and the end of anonymous CPS complaints, before we can reasonably expect the helicopter insanity to end.
> and the end of anonymous CPS complaints
If someone reported you to CPS and you found out who, what would you do with that information?
We're entirely curating what she's watching and I'm just not that concerned. If anything, she's learning things that I would not thought to teach her at her age. About 6 months ago she had an assessment through the school district for early education and at 2 years of age was able to identify about half the letters of the the alphabet.
My wife and I watching this happen were genuinely surprised because neither of us had even considered trying to teach the alphabet to a 2-year old. We did not teach her this, educational content taught her this.
I don't really worry. I watched TV basically my entire childhood growing up in the '80s, in the height of stranger danger where I largely was not allowed to go outside. It was a lot worse than this. I watched game shows, Hogans Heroes, Night Court. She's watching Ms. Rachel, Meekah, and Sesame Street.
I think the kids will be all right as long as you're involved. We're not hand our kid a tablet and saying "Go nuts". We're watching TV in the living room as a family.
my kids watch lots of movies/tv shows on the family tv and play console games, usually they get bored after an hour or 2 and then do something creative or play with toys, they’re all excelling in school
the few times they have had access to tablets it is like crack to them, they will just not put it down
whenever i take them out shopping or to a restaurant we are the only family that doesn’t have all the kids with headphones and tablets . i’ve seen some disturbing shit, kids on a nature walk with tablets and headphones, kids watching tiktok on their phones while on the lazy river at the waterpark. somehow i am able to take 3 kids to the supermarket by myself without screens but then i see parents with 1 kid still needing to babysit them with a tablet
At 2 years old?
There are babies under a year who watch youtube brainrot shat out by obscure indian animation farms multiple hours a day, I'm not sure it has the same impact as watching Stargate when you're eight. My niece is 9 months, she never watched anything on a phone yet as soon as someone in her line of sight gets a phone out she's mesmerized, it's scary to witness
Yes, I absolutely did.
I was home with my dad, gated into the living room while he did things around the house. There is only so much to do.
You do you (and your kids), but as a parent of small kids myself we do TV max maybe 30 mins weekly on average, older cartoons (age 4 and 6). There is little gained and a lot lost in screens, but you need to be aware of things being lost in the first place lol. Screens form addictions, active screens even moreso - why do this to your own children? Why not just let them roam the streets all day then, they will gather much more experience that way. Don't tell me it can be harmful to them - screens are too yet seemingly very few care.
Its much harder spending quality with them of course - this is the main reason why most parents slack off. Actively engaging with them, leading them by example, coming up with novel ways to play with them, that's not how our generation was raised up. Its not easy for me, for some reason easier for my wife, but we are trying our best. If anything in life is wroth pursuing will all vigor, this is it and not some empty white collar careers or even worse money status (this comes from senior dev in a bank and a doctor couple).
In my view, there are only few paths towards happy balanced adult individual that knows what they want in life and go for it, and this is the most sure way even though there are never any guarantees.
There is no reason to assume this.
>Screens form addictions, active screens even moreso - why do this to your own children? Why not just let them roam the streets all day then, they will gather much more experience that way. Don't tell me it can be harmful to them - screens are too yet seemingly very few care.
The article and conversation is about babies. Maybe the context an be stretched to toddlers, even age 5 or 6. Letting a baby or toddler roam the streets alone (in the USA with huge vehicles and distracted drivers all around) is far more harmful than letting them watch curated content on screens.
This isn't a village in a developing country with a whole group of kids with varying ages that look after each other. It's a developed country, with barely any other kids outside, from various "cultures", and legal liability, and risk of severe bodily harm from unsupervised outside time.
>this comes from senior dev in a bank and a doctor couple)
Perhaps you have more flexibility / less stress in your life than 95% of other couples?
It may be more 'harmful' for babies to see parents paying attention to screens than it is for them to watch the screen themselves.
(They also become very good at telling if you're really "looking" at the phone or just pretending to look at something.)
That is likely the key element, along with being the reason why the guidance suggests no screen time before the age of 2.
Some parents know what their child needs, some parents don't know how to navigate the mess of children's content, some parents would use it to justify using the screen as a babysitter. It is nearly impossible to offer generic advice, so it tends to be on the safe-side.
It is also worth noting that you are using one metric here, assessments based upon academic achievement. There are other things to consider, such as social and physical development. Perhaps your family is also taking that into account, but again they have to consider how everyone would interpret generic guidance.
He goes to swimming classes and he learned to clap in the "If You're Happy and you know it" song even though the song is different in his classes, I was confused as to how he learned that you usually clap in the song but I presume he learned it from Ms Rachel.
It's useful English language exposure for him too as we live in a non-English speaking country and my partner doesn't speak English either so without TV I am his only exposure to English.
I wouldn't let him watch it for 8 hours, but I presume that's the typical newspaper sensationalising.
But there’s a reason the AAP recommends no screen time before 2.
There’s a lot of data that show that babies and toddlers don’t learn language skills from TV for some reason. And it inhibits learning because instead of doing what they’d normally do which is watch and listen to adults and older kids speaking they are glued to the screen.
>And it inhibits learning because instead of doing what they’d normally do which is watch and listen to adults and older kids speaking they are glued to the screen.
For example, is the AAP incorporating the fact that many babies today have greatly reduced access to another adult or older kids to watch and listen to? What if (some) "screen time" is better than the minimum from a tired mom and dad for them?
We only let her watch occasionally during the week, but saturday morning, she gets to sit in front of the TV for a few hours and watch cartoons that she gets to pick (from an approved list)
It's always SO heartwarming how excited she gets when she realizes its Saturday morning.
Disgusting :(
That said, I can't read the article, paywalled. Anyone have a working link?
> https://fortune.com/2026/02/21/laptops-tablets-schools-gen-z...
My impression was that a lot of the content was effectively "attention slop", bright colors and noises, often with very little sense to them, or just variations of the same rhymes a 90's baby would've been raised on.
A lot of it seemed to cross over from just being stimulating to being overstimulating.
As Weller said, that's entertainment. Saying something's slop is like saying it's trash, ie something you don't like.