The superiority of the digital age is irrefutable, adding to parents' fears that their child will succumb to the power of a screen, rather than the influence of a novel or real world experience. As a teenager born and bred in an era characterized by technology, I was interested in authors Danah Boyd and Kimberly Young (who were born in another era) elaboration on such a controversial issue.
Parents remain divided on how to cope with a sudden surge in Internet addiction; a delineation that separates one side from another regarding the amount of hours a child should spend on a device, and what kinds of technological liberties they should be granted at a certain age. While Danah Boyd believes in complete liberation of technology to a child regardless of age and Kimberly Young is grounded in the complete regulation of the youth's technological use, I believe that a middle ground between the two is most beneficial. Compared to complete liberation or regulation, digital freedom that is used in moderation provides minors with the ability to experience the diversity of the outside and digital world. As long as the youth are educated by parents or adults at a young age about the dangers of the Internet, valuing real life experiences over ones that are digital, then a constant regulation, coddling, or even "helicopter parenting" is not necessary. Children can become mentally mature and aware of what they read with the aid of their parents.
Just as how Kimberly Young points out, I am well aware of the dangers of technological addiction, as it threatens the social development and sensory motor skills of the youth, shifting their attachment from the outside world to a video game or social networking site. However, technology and digital access are tools of communication and social interaction, and if suppressed, children lack the liberty to connect with their fellow peers and even follow their sense of intuition. I do not believe in the completely isolating minors from technology as a way to cope with Internet addiction, as it potentially inhibits their social mobility. The vitality of technology is undeniable, but it cannot engulf a child's life, making digital moderation all the more imperative. Suppressing the youth does nothing but cause fury, and with the right kind of values and education as taught by parents, teachers, and adults, minors should have the maturity and freedom to deem how much screen time is right.
I read the same article in Room for Debate, and I agree with your stand point. I know people who do not have access to cellphones, and by not having access to these devices, it dampers their social skills and weakens their confidence. This is due to the fact that they can comment on the new viral video or talk about what happened on twitter last time. But I still feel that even though using technology gives positive attributes of connectivity, it has also made us less social outside of our phones.
ReplyDeleteThe use of calling a someone has become "outdated", and now texting is the new fad. Instead of going up to someone to talk at an event, we find ourselves on our phones avoiding social interactions.
I feel that this debate has two significant sides to it. But in the end, technology is always going to be apart of our lives, and we have to make the decision.
Change with the times, or get left behind?