●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byNotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 ) writes:
... Black or Hispanic, and from lower-income ...
The study found that disadvantaged groups have worse health outcomes: Why am I not surprised?
The study concludes that phone usage causes worse outcomes: It is possible that worse outcomes happened before the phone usage. Since these are disadvantaged groups, that is essentially guaranteed.
The damage caused by many hours of sedentary behaviour, have been known for decades: This outcome is expected. In addition, multiple studies seem to identify young females as having worse outcomes. In practice, i
bymarkdavis ( 642305 ) writes:
>"In practice, it is seen more as an unwanted evil, like car crashes, than as bad choices that needs the attention of family members or mental health professionals."
What it needs to be is children not having unsupervised access to devices that have unrestricted internet access. Social media is certainly detrimental, but there are millions of other "dangerous to children" sites/apps, not to mention texting or media'ing to/from strangers. Children cannot comprehend or deal with the crap they read/see/hea
byblue trane ( 110704 ) writes:
What if kids with smartphones get depressed because they see society as it really is, not the lie you're trying to push on them?
byNarcocide ( 102829 ) writes:
You're trying to frame this as a bad thing but the truth is that protecting children under a certain age from the brutal horrors of reality is as vital to their healthy emotional development as protecting them from physical danger is vital to their physical growth.
byblue trane ( 110704 ) writes:
How come that philosophy applied to allergens resulted in a rise in peanut allergies, and now official guidance has reversed itself?
bytsqr ( 808554 ) writes:
How come that philosophy applied to allergens resulted in a rise in peanut allergies, and now official guidance has reversed itself?
Exposure to allergens and exposure to "the brutal horrors of reality" do have something in common -- exposure at an early age reduces sensitivity. For allergens, that's a good thing. For overt brutality, perhaps not so great.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byblue trane ( 110704 ) writes:
What if you learn, at an early age, that sticks and stones may break your bones but words need never hurt you?
bytsqr ( 808554 ) writes:
What if you occasionally posted a comment that actually made sense?
byblue trane ( 110704 ) writes:
"For overt brutality, perhaps not so great."
Does it make sense that if you're exposed at an early age, you might learn not to be bullied by words on the internet?
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...