In the USA - the consequences should be only related to USA pertinent actors. The newspapers in Italy say, "there is no judgement against them in Italy".
SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium. Only 2 banks out of the total 24 on the board of directors is US banks. Unless there's a hostile takeover of the SWIFT organisation by the US, I think this is a bit of a stretch. (Plot-twist: Italy is on the board of directors.)
"Brazilian banks" were never classified as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. It is a specific designation and law that comes with 20 year prison sentences.
"Screen viewing" seems very vague. What did they do with their screens? Did they read an encyclopedia, or did they watch entertainment content videos? It's an important distinction.
I've seen hundreds of kids watching screens, none of them were reading an encyclopedia, most of them are consuming some form of low quality youtube brain rot
I'm just saying the original question doesn't make sense. The content watched by the vast majority of them is trash, we don't have to ask ourselves "what if" they were reading an encylopedia, they're not.
Apple TV is an available option though. Saying "screen time" vs "low effort stimulating content" muddies the conversation around it being the screen itself and not the contents of the media.
But if you're interested in the science of it, it makes sense to distinguish screen time in the abstract, like using a screen for any purpose, from engagement with specific content.
Me, I'd hypothesize little if any difference between the rare encyclopedia-reading 4-year-old and the drivel-watching 4-year-old, as my personal unscientific belief is that it's about socialization with family and peers, not content.
But I'd be super interested in science teasing apart those effects.
If your position is just "most parents suck, who needs evidence?", that's valid too, but IMO less interesting than understanding what's really going on.
Because that’s all we seem to have measured. So, hypothesizing about whether there’s any other finer-grained causation in the data is the logical next step.
Me personally, I have immense trouble believing that passively watching entertainment has the same effect on working memory as, say, playing video games. And even within video games there’s probably a distinction between the more story-driven games that are a lot more passive to play, versus puzzle games that require active reasoning, versus games that test reaction time or memorization, etc.
(Full disclosure: I was a child of the 80’s and raised by a Nintendo and my computer. I think I turned out ok but I don’t have any alternative childhood to compare to)
> I was a child of the 80’s and raised by a Nintendo and my computer.
I was also in this boat: My siblings and I watched hours and hours of television when we grew up, but we didn't start watching as toddlers. My own anecdata seems similar to yours, which is unable to verify what happens when you watch hours of brain rot from age 1 and up.
> I was also in this boat: My siblings and I watched hours and hours of television when we grew up,
Ahoy, Shipmate!!!
Yeah, same boat, same story. I still think there's a larger difference today that makes it "not the same thing at all". Back then you watched what was on, and waited for it to finish. Now kids are seeing 30s shorts with the resultant attention span (that of a flea).
My toddler will get impatient, lose interest and leave the screen with the 1980s cartoons, and he will be glued to Teletubbies until we peel him off the screen.
I reckon that a big part is the attention span (average length of scene, amount of dramatic sound effects and blinking), and probably the newer cartoons are more focused on captivating the age group as well.
So yes, definitely more addictive.
But what I'm more concerned about is that their brains are more malleable at age 1. I read some statistic correlating +1 hour of television per day with +7% of risk of autism. Then again, if you're watching tv 3-5 hours a day, maybe it's not the tv but the lack of every social interaction that didn't happen in those 5 hours. It really is brain rot.
> And even within video games there’s probably a distinction between the more story-driven games that are a lot more passive to play, versus puzzle games that require active reasoning,
Otoh, story-driven games might be teaching social reasoning skills.
puzzle games cover a lot of ground. Some are as mindless as instagram scrolling.
Same here. I see so many studied mentioning "attention span will be zero". Ok, did you look at videogames? There are some videogames that require deep focus for 45 minutes at a time.
Now of course you can feed them free to play trash games on a tablet and who knows about the difference.
Sounds like it's just focused on shows and games from the description in the paper:
> At ages 1 and 1.5 years, which was conducted in a subsample, parents were asked to report the average amount of time that the child spent daily on television (TV) on weekdays and weekends within the past month. This was collected in 2010 to 2011 when TV was the primary source of screen viewing time for 97% of Singaporean families [38]. At ages 2, 3 and 6 years, parents were asked to report the amount of time, in 5-min increments, their child spent using screens on weekdays and weekend days. Three types
of devices were considered separately: (1) TV and TV-related games consoles; (2) computers (desktop or laptop); and (3) hand-held devices including tablets, smartphones, and hand-held games consoles. At age 8 years, parents were asked to report on their child’s time spent sitting or lying down while watching screens on the most recent weekday (school days) and on the most recent Saturday and Sunday. Four types of devices/media were considered separately: (1) watching videos on a TV (TV programs, DVDs, Blu-ray); (2) watching videos or playing games on computers; (3) watching videos or playing games on tablets or smartphones; and (4) playing video games on consoles.
We’re having this sort of conversation at the school that I work at, which serves remote communities and other disadvantaged students. One of our states is currently making noise about reducing “screen time” for schools without much distinction about what it involves.
And here’s us, an online only school that serves kids that otherwise wouldn’t be able to access education at all or some types of classes at best, left wondering where that might leave us if our state decides to zombie its way into similar policy decisions.
Edit: Downvotes for pointing out that government policies without nuance around what "screen time" means hurts kids who have no alternative education options, apparently?
It's not only the united states of America. These tyrannical views have been brewing everywhere for years, and there was not enough public counter-narrative to these ideologies.
I’m not convinced anymore that we can handle freedom. Many children grow up glued to a phone or tablet watching AI videos and are targets of dis-information from foreign and/or hostile actors.
If "dis-information" is the core of the issue, then perhaps we ought to start banning religions?
Despite doing that, China is a champion of spreading "dis-information" within their own walls.
Hostile actors are not foreign, most often they are domestic. The biggest offenders are governments. Only freedom opposes their power, which is why they want to restrict it.
The people who want unchecked pursuit of profit simply beat you to the punch by manipulating the social zeitgeist to accept that the unchecked pursuit of profit is the very definition of freedom.
It is a cynical view of humanity, but one that seems most correct.
If for example there is a deadly virus going around people will quickly restrict freedoms to prevent its spread. And even in the case they don't people that believe in freedom over precautions are evolutionary culled.
So what happens when the issue is actually infohazards? One of the common assumptions the freedom group makes is with all the information they have, anyone else would come to the same set of decisions they have. Of course I see two problems with this.
1. The freedom group is quite often hypocritical. That is, freedom is defined however they think, and anything outside of how they thing is "Not true freedom™". Elon Musk is a common source of this kind of freedom.
2. The individuals personal definition of freedom is anecdotal (We'll call this set A). Set A individual thinks by telling another individual with set B ideas on freedom that set A will win somehow? (A + B = A). That when you put ideas out there, by some magic process the best ideas win and take over and everything is happily ever after.
Of course where number 2 commonly fails is if an infohazard is more addictive than actual knowledge, and where the inoculation to said addiction takes a long time to reach herd immunity. And example would be that it's faster to destroy a nation due to ragebait faster than open democracy can adjust, hence democracy always fails in these conditions. Nice catch-22 situation.
Meh it’s accessing and posting stuff on the internet, not that big of a deal. I’d like to see a much bigger humdrum around the ubiquitous surveillance cameras that will eventually be fed to some sort of LLM to create an omniscient eye that follows everyone everywhere.
