| | |
|
EsmeraldaHernandezSecondEssay 3 - 24 Jan 2025 - Main.EsmeraldaHernandez
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| | | Dr. Radesky, who does not prefer to use the term “addiction” in her research or clinical work, acknowledges that the wording of this helps people understand that the design of the sites that children and other users interact with is habit-forming. Still, the word addiction lends itself to blaming the behavior on the individual and not on the environment that makes this behavior. Helping children understand these mechanisms allows them not only to become more digitally literate, but also to allows them to make decisions on their own screen usage. | |
<
< | Helping children grow up to be well-adjusted adults does not necessarily imply overarching control and the destruction of autonomy for kids. The problem is not in human nature, but it is in the features of apps and sites that are built to trap users in a sisyphean dilemma. Screens can be a tool for learning, and it can be argued that they should be a part of a young one’s education.
Still, making sure that children have access to other stimuli is equally as important. Like anything else, digital technology is good in moderation, and with the right balance, technology can be a friend.
As we are all apparently in agreement that "addiction" is a poor metaphor here, why not scrap it?
Nothing you have learned or taught here suggests that this is, as your conclusion suggests, a matter of "balance." The issue is qualitative. Bad technological design is causing harm. Smartassphones are the wrong hardware. Software children cannot read, modify, experiment with and learn from is the wrong software. Services based on maximizing engagement are the wrong services. Social settings that facilitate and reward bad interpersonal behavior are the wrong "social media." Long-form reading and edited writing are beneficial to learning. Technology reflecting these recognitions is widely available, at far lower cost than the harmful technologies widely in use. Why not write a draft that concentrates on what would be useful, healthy, and productive and that shows readers how to adopt it?
| >
> | Software that youth cannot read, modify, experiment with and learn from is not the software that children need. As opposed to services based on maximizing engagement and those that reward poor interpersonal behavior, children could benefit from learning from technology. Programs like Scratch Jr. or Hour of Code help children develop critical thinking and reasoning skills through logic and coding exercises. This technology is widely available and available at a lower cost than these aforementioned, harmful technologies. Alternatively, simply allowing youth to tinker with hardware satisfies the innate curiosity in children and will allow this generation to understand the technology that surrounds us all. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |